Standard Compatibility [was: Re: New Alpha]_(re)

Mon, 7 Apr 1997 14:43:46 +0200

Nils Bokermann wrote:

> I don't like the idea of a local (user) configuration file as GPC.CFG or
> .gpcrc. There is a way of doing it in a makefile. If someone _needs_ a compiler
> which is a borland like compiler for standard, might there be a compile-time
> switch? Let's consider something like
> ./configure --try-to-be-a-borland-compiler or
> ./configure --use-standard-pascal.

I think, hardcoded options would be about the worst solution. Besides the
reasons given by Jan-Jaap and Peter, consider compilers on multi-user systems.
If e.g. in a school or university, different teachers used different language
standards, their classes would need different compilers... :-(

Personally, I think options that describe the source (e.g. language dialect,
extended syntax, field widths) should be put into the source.

Other people don't seem to like this idea, but anyway, there will be enough
ways by using config files, aliases, scripts and/or environment variables,
that should all be possible (more or less easy) on any system.

> > - Naming the program gpc, spc, epc and bpc seems like a sensible way for
> >   Un*x, but on systems that don't support either hard or symbolic links
> >   (aka DOS), it would mean 4 separate binaries - probably not a good solution
> >   there (although those DOS users who want to do only Borland style could
> >   rename gpc.exe to bpc.exe). So this could be one, but not the only, way to
> >   choose the defaults.
>
> Isn't there a way by making *.BAT-Files in dos? That is something like a
> shell-script, isn't it?

Yes, that's right. Also, modern DOSes have something like aliases.
Though they're not the same as symlinks, they can be used for this purpose.

> Ok, I can imagine that Makefiles are a bit complicatet...

And (hopefully) unnecessary for Pascal... :-)

> As there a _too_ many programs which put there .foobar-File to my
> home-directory I don't like the *.CFG or .foobarrc idea. If gpc whould be as
> kind as it should, there should be a system-wide rc-file (That's ok to me) and
> there _might_ be a users rc-file. But the user has to make it _manually_.

I agree. I also don't like yet another config file in the home directory.

> But GPC should _not_ rely on the system-wide rc-file, so that I (for my system)
> can remove it an GPC does run.
>
> The system-wide file should IMHO also be installed manually (By the Sysadmin of
> course).

Also agreed, since on big sites, a global config file wouldn't make much sense
anyway, since different users would want different preferences.
-- 
Frank Heckenbach, Erlangen, Germany
heckenb@mi.uni-erlangen.de
Turbo Pascal:   http://www.mi.uni-erlangen.de/~heckenb/programs.htm
Internet links: http://www.mi.uni-erlangen.de/~heckenb/links.htm

Frank Heckenbach (heckenb@mi.uni-erlangen.de)