On 20 May 06, at 11:43, L505 wrote: > > . > > . > > > 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?
;-) Well, that depends. I certainly don't think that *char is more practical for string manipulation in general. However, when talking about unit DOS, the underlying OS API calls usually expect null terminated strings anyway. Anybody could then decide whether he prefers the easy to use Pascal string, because he only starts executables with few parameters which could never cross the limit, or whether he needs PChar for whatever reason. Tomas _______________________________________________ fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
