Mail #10448

Back to main page of archive

Previous mail   Next mail   Unformatted/full headers
Overview  10 days   Subject   Date   Thread   Author  

From: Grant Jacobs
Subject: cgp? (was: GP ;-)
Date: 30 May 2004, 10:36:39

At 5:25 PM +0200 29/5/04, Frank Heckenbach wrote:
>Compile (with) GNU Pascal.
>
>>  and as I
>>  wrote hard to search for. I would say that a person who do not
>>  want to type three additional characters in program name is
>>  likely to drop Pascal for a language where `begin' is
>>  repleced by a single character.
:-)
>  > For me `gpmake' sounds almost perfect. I have a checked various
>>  languages and most do not try to use very short names. In fact
>>  I have a bunch of `xmake' programs which either generate makefiles
>>  or work as make replacement for a given language.

This is little too close to gmake for my comfort - in fact I actually 
read it as gmake at first and had to go back and read it again. 
Possibly too easy to mistype too?

>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. Have users pass options 
to this to invoke the appropriate action either as a '-' option, e.g.

gpc -make <file(s)>

or take it a bit further in the spirit of make install, make clean:

gpc compile <options>
gpc link <options>
gpc make <options>
gpc clean <options>
gpc <options>

etc. (with a default of compile to make it compatible with previous 
use, as in the last example)

Pesonally I like the latter.
No new name to remember, no new name to conflict with existing one, 
its obvious its part of gpc and you've got a wrapper you can plant 
anything in the future under.

If people are worried about typing, provide short-hand alternatives:

gpc c <options>
gpc l <options>
gpc cl <options>
gpc m <options>

If you must make it separate, I'd personally refer gpc-make or 
gpcmake to associate it with gpc and make it more distinct from gmake.

As for cgp. Ugh. Sorry ;-)

(btw, the -noprebind does the trick Adrian, thanks.)

Cheers,

Grant

Previous mail   Next mail   Unformatted/full headers
Overview  10 days   Subject   Date   Thread   Author  

Replies

In reply to

Back to main page of archive

Note: This page contains information that does not originate from the owner of this web site, but from the authors of the mails archived. The owner of this web site is not responsible for the content of such information. Any use of that infomation requires the consent of the respective author.

Where WWW addresses (URLs) in the mails archived are marked as hyperlinks, this is only for the comfort of the reader. The content of the web pages linked to like this does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the owner of this web site or of the authors of the mails archived. The owner of this web site is not responsible for the content of such web pages. Those pages are explicitly not to be considered as part of the content of this page, but merely as references.

This page was created by Crystal 0.999 (Linux 2.4.27/i686).