> On the contrary. We switched to this exactly because the opposite cannot > be maintained. 8 years of cross-platform experience.
See below > You can simply make a preprocessor which does that if you find it fun to do. > But this doesn't change the unit structure, and gives no advantage in > maintainability at all. At most the end user finds it easier to read the > sources. Your final line is the reason I mention it in the first place. The include file system may be lovely for yourselves, but it is a mess imho. I have to look at 3 files before I find the piece of the source I want to look at, and even then I have to switch between the Interface and Implementation includes!!!! *This* is not acceptable or compatible with the way I work. This is what puts me off using FPC 90% of the time. This and the inconsistencies of the Unit structure. I think the end user would benefit from the 'preprocessed' units at release time, and the developers would keep whatever grand scheme they desire at development time. Please understand, I do not mean you should change your way of working, just that the end user should not have to see your messy include file ridden source. Does that make sense? > I think you'll have a hard time convincing the core members. > You haven't convinced me. The system as it is works well, it took us > some time to get it like that, so we're not likely to change it, just > because someone doesn't like split-up files. See above. > When I was at borland for an interview, the first thing I asked was > support in the IDE for include files. They scratched their head, and > said they would think about it. I'm pretty sure that the Unit files that are distributed by Borland are constructed by a script from a larger source repository. I doubt they work directly on the source files as we end users see them. > This is the main reason why Delphi sources are generally without include > files: because the IDE doesn't support them. Personally, I find it more > logical e.g. to have one include file per class, this is simply not > possible in Delphi. The IDE doesn't support them because they make the browsing of code complex and irritating. The way CBuilder handles Headers and C files is annoying enough imho. Thankflly Borland do not subject us to the torture FPC does. Remeber, just because it's easy to maintain for you, doesn't mean it's a good thing for the end user. That's a fact I'm afraid. > This is largely a matter of taste. In -Sd it is mandatory to use > Borland's way, so if you restrict yourself to that mode, you should > be fine. > > See: We accomodate most tastes :-) Nice to see FPC has come along since I last attempted to use raw Windows API in it ;-) Matt _______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
