On Sun, Mar 24, 2002 at 01:15:39AM +0100, Frank Heckenbach wrote:
Carel Fellinger wrote:
On the other hand I would very much like to have *some* extension agreed upon to be used for interface-only source, say ".pi". That way it becomes possible to apply --automake to true separate compilation.
...
Oh, so you're not mainly talking about file names, but about the automake mechanism.
Not only --automake, but any automake, e.g. I'm considering to use SCons:)
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? It tries to do the same by calculating md5sums (IIRC), seems to work.
So I suggest do postpone any such discussion until this change (which might not happen too soon, actually, since automake is currently working almost fine, so the priority is not too high, but I don't want to invest any more effort in automake since it's bound to disappear).
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.