CBFalconer wrote:
Frank Heckenbach wrote:
CBFalconer wrote:
Frank Heckenbach wrote:
I.e., we might choose to implement them for compatibility's sake. Then again, how far is GPC compatible to CW in other respects? Is it reasonable to claim (or strive for) compatibility at all?
No no no no no. If CW wants compatibility it should implement an ISO standard. One tool, one job. Please don't waste valuable time and effort on this.
I don't plan to. I asked this question in order to find out about CW's language. If it's compatible to (a subset of the union of) Standard Pascal and Borland Pascal, we might not have to add much at all to be compatible (maybe a few warnings and errors, but they're not so important I guess).
If, however, it's substantially different, I won't strive for compatibility (of course, if someone else volunteers, they can still do it).
Even then I maintain don't do it. If someone needs to port such code THAT is the place for a macro pre-processor, which can convert such things as $IFC to %IF, etc.
I don't agree. As I said before, some (including myself) need a macro-preprocessor sometimes, not only for compatibility reasons. So there's no question (as far as I'm concerned) that GPC's preprocessor will remain, the question is only how to change it (in the details). And, of course, it will be (remain) non-intrusive, i.e. any program that does not use its features will not notice them.
Frank