On Wed, 17 May 2006 09:47:00 +0200 (Romance Daylight Time) Michael Van Canneyt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > On Wed, 17 May 2006, Vincent Snijders wrote: > > > Michael Van Canneyt schreef: > >> > >> > >> On Wed, 17 May 2006, Marco van de Voort wrote: > >> > >>>>> Most logical would be to store the conditionals that pkg is compiled > > > >>>>> with in > >>>>> package.fpc ? > >>>> > >>>> Well, the point is, you could get all source pathes from the > >currently >>> valid ppus. > >>> > >>> If they are compiled on this system? Most people use precompiled FPC > >in >> combination with lazarus. > >> > >> You don't need the sources. The .ppu contains everything you need. > >> > > > > They don't contain implementation in human readable form. For example if > > I have the TComponent.Name property, I want to be able to jump to > > TComponent.SetName method declaration and then to the implementation. > > You need sources for that. Does the ppu provide (relative) source > > locations? > > According to daniel: yes > > But you should separate 2 things: > - Provide feedback (tooltips, code completion) > - View actual sources. > > For the first, the .ppu is enough. In Delphi 'Find declaration' also > doesn't work half the time... Reading .ppu files is definitely planned for the codetools. But as Daniel pointed out: If the .ppu format changes all ppu become unreadable. While if an include path changes in the FPC sources, only a few files can't be browsed. IMHO parsing .ppu is only a nice-to-have feature. The parsing of sources has higher priority. Mattias _______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel