From: "Yuri Prokushev" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date sent: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 13:27:29 -0400 (EDT)
Priority: Normal
Subject: Re: [Sibyl] changes
Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > DLLs _are_ native solution under OS/2 (as opposed to, say,
> > gettext .po files).
> Native solution is MSG files. DLLs used becouse developer ignorance
> about os2's messages faculty.
>
> > I still think limiting ourselves to IBM tools (available
> >on OS/2 only and nowhere else) isn't a good idea. In addition, you'd
> >have to add support for this into the compiler, which would mean a
> >need for your own FPC branch (because such unportable construction
> >will probably never be included in the main branch) with all its
> >disadvantages.
> Oh, now I see why you reject such solution. But I'm only about
> SPCC/SVDE, not about RTL. If anyone want to have portable classes
I'm not really talking about RTL, in fact - I'd expect you might
want to have some support for creating both executables and their
message files (even more in case you're considering linking the
message files to executables directly). This would need changes in
the _compiler_.
> library - welcome to lazarus world. Create os2 interface not so hard.
> SPCC is os/2 only (and may be win32 as side effect) library. So I
> don't see any problems for MSG files _only_ for SPCC/SVDE, not for
> RTL.
OK - if you don't really need any support from the compiler (which I
suppose might not be really true)...
> BTW, msg compiler can be easely written. I found some msg decompiler
> tools (with src), so we can write an msg compiler. Also, no any
> additions to compiler is required.
OK, let's see. Own msg compiler would help probably (because it
would still make cross-compilation it possible; yes, I know you don't
like this argument ;-) ).
Tomas
-----------
To unsubscribe yourself from this list, send the following message
to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
unsubscribe sibyl
end
