>>The matter has been discussed several times by the FPC core group, at >> great >>length. No satisfying solution on which everyone agreed was reached. > > I would really appreciate some comments on my question about patches > that would implement "optional", "unofficial" or "pluggable" features. > I would like very much to be able to build extensions for particular > idioms. I understand that not everybody will like this possibility. > The question is if core developers would dislike it so much as to > prefer to keep it off the official code. > > It's also possible to implement extensions using some kind of > preprocessor. But then a lot of code would be duplicated because the > preprocessor must do a considerably more complex job than macro > substitution... much like what the compiler itself does later. > > I'm not asking just out of curiosity. I have some ideas and code and > would like to know if/how could fit with FPC.
Plugin support for the parser is impossible, everything is too much dependent on other parts. Only assembler/linker etc. could maybe made an plugin. Patches for bugs and compatibility issues are always welcome. Patches for new constructs will only be applied when everybody agrees on the syntax and behaviour. _______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
