[fpc-devel] darwin - rtl include files

[Michael Van Canneyt]

On Wed, 17 May 2006, Mattias Gaertner wrote:

> On Wed, 17 May 2006 09:47:00 +0200 (Romance Daylight Time)
> Michael Van Canneyt <michael at freepascal.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 17 May 2006, Vincent Snijders wrote:
>>
>>> Michael Van Canneyt schreef:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, 17 May 2006, Marco van de Voort wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> Most logical would be to store the conditionals that pkg is compiled
>>>
>>>>>>> with in
>>>>>>> package.fpc ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, the point is, you could get all source pathes from the
>>> currently >>> valid ppus.
>>>>>
>>>>> If they are compiled on this system? Most people use precompiled FPC
>>> in >> combination with lazarus.
>>>>
>>>> You don't need the sources. The .ppu contains everything you need.
>>>>
>>>
>>> They don't contain implementation in human readable form. For example if
>>> I  have the TComponent.Name property, I want to be able to jump to
>>> TComponent.SetName method declaration and then to the implementation.
>>> You  need sources for that. Does the ppu provide (relative) source
>>> locations?
>>
>> According to daniel: yes
>>
>> But you should separate 2 things:
>> - Provide feedback (tooltips, code completion)
>> - View actual sources.
>>
>> For the first, the .ppu is enough. In Delphi 'Find declaration' also
>> doesn't work half the time...
>
> Reading .ppu files is definitely planned for the codetools. But as Daniel
> pointed out: If the .ppu format changes all ppu become unreadable.

The format is such that you can always read older/newer .ppu files:
there are just certain types of blocks which you can't handle.

> While if
> an include path changes in the FPC sources, only a few files can't be
> browsed. IMHO parsing .ppu is only a nice-to-have feature. The parsing
> of sources has higher priority.

I don't quite agree about this 'nice to have', but you're doing all the work,
so you are right :-)

Michael.