On Sun, 24 Jul 2011 19:25:22 +0200 Felipe Monteiro de Carvalho <felipemonteiro.carva...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 24, 2011 at 1:52 AM, Hans-Peter Diettrich > <drdiettri...@aol.com> wrote: > > I see absolutely no reason why the LCL should reside in a package of a > > different name, and a package named LCL refers to something else. > > I must say that I it seams to me that the inverse order would make more sense: > > The LCL package containing forms, comctrls, etc, and depending on a > package called LCLBase which has the widgetset interface units for > carbon, gtk, etc. > > But I don't know why the current dependency direction was choosen, so > I don't know if it is really required or not. The base units are independent of the widgetset units and the widgetset units use the base units. So the package of widgetset units must use the package of the base units. Theoretically: If the base package would be named 'LCL', then all existing projects would no longer work, because they misses the widgetset units. >From the users point of view the LCL split is the same as if a big package was split into two. The upper package keeps the original name for compatibility. Compilation works, but fpdoc links get into trouble. This is because the inheriting of packages is not (yet) implemented for fpdoc. It's not a big task to implement this for the IDE code hints, but I don't know yet about the rest of fpdoc. I can take a look after my vacation. In other words: Eventually both fpdoc links "#LCL.Controls" and "#LCLBase.Controls" should work. But of course #LCLBase.Controls is more correct. >[...] Mattias -- _______________________________________________ Lazarus mailing list Lazarus@lists.lazarus.freepascal.org http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
