[fpc-devel] property syntax extension

[Michael Van Canneyt]

On Sat, 20 Oct 2007, Mattias Gaertner wrote:

> On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 16:29:40 +0200
> "Tomas Hajny" <XHajT03 at mbox.vol.cz> wrote:
> 
> > On 19 Oct 07, at 13:14, Micha Nelissen wrote:
> > > Jonas Maebe wrote:
> > > > This is not true. You can perfectly compile a compiler using the 
> > > > previous' release rtl. 
> > > 
> > > Sure this is not the question.
> > > 
> > > > E.g. the people developing using the fp IDE often 
> > > > do this (because they have a project for the compiler, but that
> > > > one does not automatically compile the rtl). 
> > > 
> > > Adapt the project to use the new RTL ? Anyway, seems "dangerous" to
> > > me, not testing possible RTL regressions then.
> > > 
> > > > A while ago, Peter removed several 
> > > > dependencies of the compiler on the new rtl (related to endian
> > > > swapping routines) for this reason.
> > > 
> > > I see the reason is not really coming out, but I'll stop now.
> > 
> > Well, I'd certainly have one (more) reason not to 
> > put it into RTL - I don't think that support for 
> > .ppu file format is something so general and 
> > commonly used by (Free) Pascal programmers that 
> > it should become part of our RTL.
> 
> And another:
> A lazarus built with fpc 2.0.4 should be able to read the ppu of 2.3.x.
> Even though the ppu format is very stable, it is not carved in stone.

It's built so that a newer version can always read an older PPU file
and vice versa: an old ppu unit can read a newer file, but just doesn't
know how to interpret certain blocks.

> So, maybe it would be best to keep a working copy of the ppu reader
> unit in the lazarus svn and give it a distinct name?

I think such a unit could best go in the packages, since it is tightly 
bound to FPC, and definitely non-visual ? 

Michael.