On 25 jan 2007, at 16:05, Alexandre Leclerc wrote:
I understand that this is not true for the way ROPS has been
implemented, but that is a (major) downside of implementing things at
such a low level. No approach is without its downsides...
Yes, I understand that, but I *need* a scripting engine which is based
on Pascal. And ROPS is the only one I found that answered my
requirements. Also, it's integrated and it's "free", and very fast.
If there was another way, I would use it. But since, I must rely on a
stable FPC internal to make it work.
I only option I see in that case is sticking to a particular version
of FPC and of ROPS which are known to work together.
Is the stack order & management something complex to correct
I don't know.
Jonas
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
