On Tue, 30 Apr 2013, Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
On 2013-04-30 08:07, Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
Well, I would be to blame for this.
:-)
But when I do domething like that, then only the backend options would be
allowed
to differ. I see no need to put all options in backend-specific option sets:
the input files etc. should not differ per back-end.
Correct, and that is what I had in mind too. The <unit> and
<description> parts are common to all output formats.
As the XML snippet from my previous email shows…
1) The <options> node will probably need to change by adding a format
attribute. That way we can have “options” per output format.
2) The <package> node will need to change, or at least some attributes
will have to move to a different location in the XML. Currently
there is only one “output” attribute value. The problem with that
is that value changes for different output formats.
For example: IPF and CHM specifies a file with different extension,
HTML specifies a directory path etc.
I will check how to best adapt the format.
Problem is then that the format must be set first.
The nodes are scanned sequentially...
A simpler solution could also be the support for an include of a separate file.
Then you could put common things (list of files) in one file, and create
top-level files per format you want to produce.
I would prefer a single xml project file if you don't mind. It will be
much easier to manage and edit.
No reason not to have both...
Michael.
_______________________________________________
fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal
