[fpc-devel] language extensions

[Christian Iversen]

Michael Schnell wrote:
> 
>> We already have the generics can the preprocessor symbols. That leaves 
>> the "for in". The development team has its doubts about the "for in" 
>> construct, but:
>>
>> * Andreas did it in a reasonably clean way with a lot less hacks and   
>> ugly constructions than Delphi did.
>> * The pressure on us is increasing to have a "for in".
>>   
> AFAIK, Chrome does extended "for in" or similar stuff.

I'd vote for using a meta-compiler or other pre-processor instead. I 
think the preprocessor is already doing too much, and not in a very nice 
way.

If we were to rewrite the preprocessor so that it wouldn't actually be a 
preprocessor, but a built-in meta-compile stage, that would be good. 
Then we could do strict syntax- and semantic checks on the preproc 
statements. Right now there are all kinds of errors that can happen in 
specific circumstances.

-- 
Regards
Christian Iversen
(who actually worked on the fpc preproc)