On Thu, 3 Apr 1997 08:46:55 +0200 (MET DST) Nils Bokermann nilsb@reality.owl.de wrote: [...]
In case you haven't done this, can you introduce a .CFG file (like with Borland) where one can put all the command line switches that they want to use? The compiler will read the .CFG file before doing anything else, and will adjust its behaviour accordingly. I personally prefer this approach to using environment variables or the such. You can make many sample .CFG files (e.g., borland.cfg, extended.cfg, iso.cfg, etc) which people can then rename to GPC.CFG or whatever.
Oh, No! Please don't. Why don't we handle this like it is used in the common place way at unixish Systems: Take a Makefile and put a line PFLAGS (is this right?) in it. There you have all your flags, you think you need. Let's say there is a
[Makefiles...]
Makefiles are probably wonderful. However, I don't know much about them - and I am sure that many people from a BP or Delphi background are in the same boat. I am puzzled however as to what is so bad about using a .CFG file. Can you please say what your objection is?
[...]
Any comments?
Ok, I can imagine that Makefiles are a bit complicatet...
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_.
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).
What about that way?
Tsch"u"s, Nils