Carel Fellinger wrote:
Well, as far as our plans go, automake will disappear in the future and be replaced by an external utility. This utility is currently under development, but for now it doesn't have much support for separate interface/implementation files, either. (And it will not really "need" it because it will use more intelligent mechanisms to decide when to recompile, i.e., even if interface and implementation are in the same file, but only the implementation was changed since the last recompilation, it won't recompile dependent files.)
Arrch, yet another make:) Did you have a look at SCons?
Just a brief one now, hadn't heard of it before.
Well, one would have to add Pascal specific capabilities to it (e.g., understanding `uses' and `import'). Given that I have already done this in my program (gp), this seems the easier way to go. ;-)
Besides, it seems to be a little Python oriented:
: Configuration files are Python scripts--no new syntax to learn.
I can say the same thing about gp: Config files will be similar to Pascal (not full Pascal, but a limited subset of it) -- no new syntax to learn. :-)
It will be no full `make' replacement, it will just replace automake for Pascal files (and make the command-line invocation of gpc a little easier). For more complex build procedures, it will still be reasonable to call gp from within a makefile (or possibly SCons) that does the rest.
It tries to do the same by calculating md5sums (IIRC), seems to work.
Yes, I also use md5sums.
I see, seems like the right thing to do. None the less it would be a good thing if the Extended Pascal or the gpc community would agree on the use of an extension for interface modules.
Since I'm not part of this community (i.e., I don't use separate interface files), I abstain from this decision.
Frank