----- "michael vancanneyt" <michael.vancann...@wisa.be> schreef: > > My solution, in short, is that packages should have OS independent > interface > > to RTL built into executable visible to packages as RTL built as c > package > > (with is a bridge to real RTL). > > I understood that. Assuming you can make this interface (which I > don't > believe), your solution is still not realistic: > > And how will you make a package that uses a os-specific function OS > independent ? > (for instance, a package with a control that uses a WinAPI call.) > > So a package with the LCL is by definition impossible. > > Like I said, your proposal requires that we emulate all OSes on all > other OSes.
I think he means a hybrid of the old 'overlay' loadable code. and I also think he means something like: - if you want to have a "package" for a 386 cpu, then you only have to compile it once - you can "link" in your code regardless of os, as long as it is a 386 cpu with the same code ofcourse I cannot agree more on the 'use what the os gives you'. ???.dll/lib???.so what I don't understand is the remark on "windows dll is a pe executable and linux .so's are how packages are supposed to be". Anybody can clarify that statement? kind regards, Dimitri Smits _______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal