[fpc-devel] RTTI unit

[Michael Van Canneyt]

On Mon, 30 Aug 2010, Sven Barth wrote:

> Am 30.08.2010 11:23, schrieb Michael Van Canneyt:
>>> It might be practical to extend Lazarus (and maybe the other IDEs as
>>> well) to auto search for an extrafpc.cfg in the same dir as the
>>> program file so that it is used automatically.
>> 
>> That presupposes that the use of extrafpc.cfg is a common thing. It is
>> not, this is something that Graeme uses.
>> 
>
> But it's a format that is understood by the compiler and does not rely on an 
> "external" IDE. May be it should be made common instead of IDE specific 
> project files.
>
> Don't get me wrong here: I am not against the usage of LPI files in the FPC 
> sources (because I'm using Lazarus), but Graeme raised a valid point: not 
> everyone uses Lazarus and thus we might think about using a file format that 
> can be used by more IDEs than just Lazarus. The config file might be such a 
> format, but it depends on the support by the involved IDEs (FP IDE, Lazarus, 
> MSEide).

It is IMHO not suitable, because it does not contain information on the
actual project files. It's just suitable to guide compilation.

>>> Does identifier search/completion work in Lazarus if you use a
>>> extrafpc.cfg to define search paths?
>>> 
>>> Another possibility would be to extend fpcmake to generate different
>>> IDE project files besides the Makefile as well.
>> 
>> fpcmake will be phased out, it's a bad idea to extend it.
>
> Right you are.
>
> What about fppkg then? Would it be a feasible idea or a valid task to let it 
> create project files for different IDEs?

Definitely not, that would be the opposite of what we try to achieve: 
get fppkg support into the IDEs.

So in fact the solution is simple; provide a fpmake.pp file, and let the IDE's
figure it out from there.

We'll take that as a rule for contributions from now on :)
I'll discuss this in the FPC core list.

Michael.