[fpc-devel] Portability Standards

DrDiettrich drdiettrich at compuserve.de
Tue Jan 4 03:03:15 CET 2005

Florian Klaempfl wrote:

> Not everything is a matter of OS. It could be also a matter of toolkit,
> database, word size of the cpu or whatever. Further smaller files are
> usually easier to handle:
> - cvs works much better with small files

> - easier navigation in editors
Definitely NO, with regards to include files! (May miss your point?)
1) Navigation inside one file is more powerful (search, replace..)
2) How to determine all related files, e.g. for other targets?
3) How many windows are required for one unit?
4) Long search pathes require accordingly featured tools (target
5) How to produce diffs for multiple versions (targets) of one unit?

> - last but not least: work with small units as much as possible
I think that I prefer compact projects, with few units and no include
At least I don't like units consisting effectively only of includes.
That's near C, with it's sea of header files and unrelated
implementation modules, and the effectively compiled text becomes
visible only after running the preprocessor :-(
BTW, I already wrote an preprocessor to produce single files from the
FPC units. Now I have to extend it, for multiple targets...

> - easier overview what has been modified when checking logs: which log
> entry is better:
>    rtl/system.pp: fixed writeln
>    rtl/morphos/ossysc.inc: fixed writeln
I'm not sure about the logging conventions. Precise logs require to save
almost every single change, with an appropriate comment. After half an
hour with multiple related corrections it's hard to find a really
descriptive common subject.


More information about the fpc-devel mailing list