Michael Schnell wrote:
We already have the generics can the preprocessor symbols. That leaves
the "for in". The development team has its doubts about the "for in"
construct, but:
* Andreas did it in a reasonably clean way with a lot less hacks and
ugly constructions than Delphi did.
* The pressure on us is increasing to have a "for in".
AFAIK, Chrome does extended "for in" or similar stuff.
I'd vote for using a meta-compiler or other pre-processor instead. I
think the preprocessor is already doing too much, and not in a very nice
way.
If we were to rewrite the preprocessor so that it wouldn't actually be a
preprocessor, but a built-in meta-compile stage, that would be good.
Then we could do strict syntax- and semantic checks on the preproc
statements. Right now there are all kinds of errors that can happen in
specific circumstances.
--
Regards
Christian Iversen
(who actually worked on the fpc preproc)
_______________________________________________
fpc-devel maillist - fpc-devel@lists.freepascal.org
http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-devel
