Carel Fellinger wrote:
On Thu, Mar 07, 2002 at 12:00:59AM +0100, Frank Heckenbach wrote:
If you prefer to put them in two distinct files, I'm not sure (I haven't done this), but I guess you might have to specify at least on of the file names on the command-line (or in the Makefile) then.
If I understand correctly, the import statement will read in the `.gpi' file and not look for the source of that module, right?
With `--automake' it will also look for the source. Without I don't think so (but not sure, since I never do this myself).
should work. A little test suggests this works. Ofcourse things will get prolematic when the basename of the file doesn't match the module name. But I thought `.gpm' was used to solve that problem?
No, `gpm' is used to find the interfaces when compiling the implementation to import them automatically. But that's not completely right because declarations not exported in any interface are not visible in the implementation this way. So we'll change this (add another `gpi' file which contains everything from the interface module, and import this one when compiling the implementation, then I think `gpm' is not needed anymore).
If you prefer, you can choose between the four accepted extensions as you see fit. Or do you have yet another one in mind? ;-)
The project I'm porting used `.pf' for interface modules. So I've to use the `-x Pascal' flag (took me some time to find it's an uppercase Pascal, in the docs I read first it was a lowercase p). Could as wel change the extension to something more telling, hence I asked.
Well, if it's really useful (e.g., compatible to some other compiler), we could add `.pf' to the list of the recognized extensions. After all, it doesn't make a big difference if we have 4 or 5 of them. What do you think?
Frank