> . > . > > have tight custom units with no end user units like sysutils. One way to > > accomplish this, > > like I've already mentioned, is to use shortstring/longstring/array of > > string/ based Dos > > unit, using shortstrings where necessary, arrays of strings where > > necessary, and arrays of > > chars or longstrings where necessary. An array of char is just a dumb > > longstring, that's > > all. Upgraded Dos unit could contain some functions pulled in from > > sysutils, but not > > actual sysutils in the uses clause - just some optimized systutils pulled > > in and put into > > the upgraded dos unit. Still keeping the old Dos unit for compatibility for > > users, name > > the new upgraded dos unit anything - newdos.pp, whatever. > . > . > > It would be much more than just unit Dos - you'd > need changes in at least System (string > manipulation routines), strings (StrPCopy) and > many parts of the compiler itself. > > Regarding unit Dos - providing PChar versions of > some routines might be of general use, probably > more useful than longstrings.
Admitting that C-language style programming (*char) is more practical and real world than Pascal programming? _______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
