cgp? (was: GP ;-)
cbfalconer at yahoo.com
Sun May 30 09:24:18 CEST 2004
Frank Heckenbach wrote:
> Grant Jacobs wrote:
>>> As I said, I don't think "make" is a good thing to think of for a
>>> *normal* Pascal programmer. We're, of course, deep in the internals,
>>> but a normal programm doesn't want to (and shouldn't have to) think
>>> about when a compiler recreates which files. It should just produce
>>> a correct executable.
>> You could try keep it all within gpc as so not to generate another
>> name that could conflict. Make gpc itself a small program that
>> manages whatever programs do the actual work.
> That's what the program in question ("GP") actually is. (So, as I
> suggested, we could rename the existing gpc executable and call this
> one gpc. But I'm not sure yet, because it is an incompatible change
But that is what gcc is doing already, except it is orchestrating
between various languages to arrive at a common executable
format. Meanwhile it is involving such diverse programs as 'as',
IMO the thing that is missing in GPC is clear instructions as to
how to run individual compiles etc. for systems that include units
and/or modules and/or libraries. Saying "use -automake" does not
cut it. Of course, that seems to be exactly the problem you are
trying to solve, but hiding the machiniations behind yet another
supervisory program does not fill the bill to my mind. Therefore
I propose the name YASP. :-)
I would rather see a program that scans the various sources,
starting from the named one, and creates a make file for use by
gnu make. This is more a Unix philosophy than a C one. After
that a simple script or bat file should be able to replace YASP.
Pascal is a simple language, using it should also be simple.
A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
More information about the Gpc