Mattias Gärtner wrote:
> Zitat von Al Boldi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > Michael Van Canneyt wrote:
> > > On Mon, 23 Jul 2007, Al Boldi wrote:
> > > > Graeme Geldenhuys wrote:
> > > > > So again, what is the pros and cons between the two design choices
> > > > > when using the Object Pascal language?
> > > >
> > > > .dfm is good for beginners, who get confused looking at code they
> > > > didn't write.
> > > >
> > > > .pas is good for pros, who need to take control of their project
> > > > code.
> > >
> > > Obviously you are unaware of the real reasons the .dfm mechanism was
> > > used, otherwise you would not use such unappropriate demeaning tone.
> >
> > No offense meant. The .lfm is probably there for compatibility reasons.
>
> Well, using a similar system like Delphi makes porting easier. But it is
> not there for 'Delphi compatibility'. The .lfm is used because:
> - a separate file is independent of syntax errors in the source code
> - the file format should be easy to read/stream
>
> The lfm reader/writer was at hand at the time. Nowadays we could use the
> xml reader/writer too, although that is less human readable.
> Using pascal source as file format would be possible and has some
> advantages but some disadvantages as well.
What are the disadvantages?
> > > There are/were good reasons for it's use. These reasons may have been
> > > outdated, but at the time, they were certainly valid. It was (and is,
> > > in my opinion) a defendable choice. I have not seen you give any valid
> > > and objective reasons why code is better than resources. Unless you
> > > plan to give such reasons, I suggest you abstain from such demeaning
> > > comments.
> >
> > This really has nothing to do with resources. Resources should still be
> > saved in its own .res file.
> >
> > This is about code init, and as such should not be mutilated into some
> > obscure hardcoded "code init" translator, but instead be obviously
> > exposed for code control.
>
> Well, it is exposed, because it is a simple text file. And you can edit it
> in the IDE (just make sure to close the designed form, while doing so). If
> we would switch the lfm file format to a more pascal like dialect you will
> not get more code control, because the parser will not understand your
> extensions.
Replacing the parser with a jit compilation may solve this problem.
Thanks!
--
Al
_________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
"unsubscribe" as the Subject
archives at http://www.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailarchives
