[fpc-devel] language extensions

Christian Iversen chrivers at iversen-net.dk
Mon Jul 16 01:07:26 CEST 2007

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 

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.

Christian Iversen
(who actually worked on the fpc preproc)

More information about the fpc-devel mailing list