On 13/10/12 02:47, stdreamer wrote:
On 12/10/2012 10:56 μμ, Mattias Gaertner wrote:
On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 21:30:47 +0300
stdreamer <[email protected]> wrote:
On 12/10/2012 7:08 μμ, Mattias Gaertner wrote:
On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 22:10:41 +0300
stdreamer <[email protected]> wrote:
On 11/10/2012 5:27 μμ, Mattias Gaertner wrote:
[...]
The package type is not *two* booleans. For instance there is no
type "not
designtime and not runtime".
If an overlay is shown then that state is part of the package if
not
then it is not. This leaves one icon state with no meaning ee. no
overlay is shown.
The purpose of an overlay is to spot the specials easier.
By far the most packages are "design time and run time".
Therefore they should
not have any overlay or at most a very plain/unimposing one.
There are three special package types:
design time - usable by projects, but not compiled into projects
run time - usable by design time packages, but not directly
installable
run time only - not installable, not even indirectly
[...]
OK lets take a step back, and see this a bit simplistic.
If you don't understand one of my points, just ask.
Do not post my whole answer and then ignore it.
That's a double edged sword for the time being I'll ignore it and move
on to more productive thoughts.
1) The type of a package.
A package can be
1) run time package
2) Design time package.
3) Both
Incomplete. see above.
What is incomplete?
There are four types, you gave three.
Which other states you have in mind Installable for instance? In
that case let me ask you once more. What is the difference
between a run time package and a run time only package?
See above.
How can a design
time package, use a run time only package and be installed in the IDE?
It can not.
What is the reason of existence of this option?
There are some packages that should never be installed, not even
indirectly.
Yes, you where clear the first time you said that I still do not
believe that such a condition is necessary, from lack of experience
perhaps.
As for the Boolean part,
What would you answer if I asked you "is that a design time package ?"
Do you mean
a) can this package be used at design time?
b) can this package only be used at design time?
c) should this package use type "design time"?
d) has the developer decided to use the type "design time"?
You are being evasive that tells me 2 things. One you do not really
care about this conversation, which raises the question why you
bothered answering in the first place, and two you see me like some
kind of pest which dropped in from no where and spoiled your serenity,
which raises the question why should I keep on wasting my time on this.
Well, my opinion is in the open if you do fill like explaining I'll
probably read it with interest.
In any case have fun.
Maybe you should re-read and re-assess Mattias' replies. He is afterall
one of the main core devs and consequently a treasure trove of info. But
the question "is that a design time package ?" is quite ambiguous and
can't be answered straight away.
As for the "runtime only" package type, there are packages which should
not trickle into the IDE be it directly or indirectly as they are
incompatible (eg: they conflict with LCL). I believe Mattias clarified
this too.
Stephano
--
_______________________________________________
Lazarus mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.lazarus.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/lazarus
