[Lazarus] New compiler options page "Additions and Overrides"

[Sven Barth]

On 08.06.2013 15:12, Mattias Gaertner wrote:
> On Sat, 08 Jun 2013 13:26:05 +0200
> Sven Barth <pascaldragon at googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 08.06.2013 13:04, Mattias Gaertner wrote:
>>> On Sat, 08 Jun 2013 12:55:00 +0200
>>> Sven Barth <pascaldragon at googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 08.06.2013 11:45, Mattias Gaertner wrote:
>>>>>> For example, I never understood why there is no support for
>>>>>> managing "defines" in the IDE, so I must resort to using that.
>>>>>
>>>>> How would you manage "defines"?
>>>>
>>>> Maybe similar to how Delphi does it and how the path entries work:
>>>> semicolon seperated entries.
>>>
>>> Why is a semicolon separated list like
>>>
>>> EnableThis;EnableThat;DebugThis
>>>
>>> better then
>>>
>>> -dEnableThis -dEnableThat -dDebugThis
>>
>> Why is
>>
>> ./paththis;./paththat;./pickthis
>>
>> better then
>>
>> -Fu./paththis -Fu./paththat -Fu./pickthis
>>
>> ?
>
> Search paths are special. They are changed by the IDE depending on host
> OS and when files are added/moved.
> That's why search paths are not in the custom options and
> theoretically they can use any separator. It is just common to separate
> them with semicolon.
> Custom options are passed untouched (except for IDE
> macros) to the compiler.
> At the moment the IDE has nothing special for Defines, so they can
> be passed unchanged to the compiler, i.e. in the custom options.

You could use some three state control which provides the possibility to 
either define a define (-d...) or undefine one (-u...) or don't do 
anything at all (define is just not passed to the compiler in any way).

>>>> Maybe with the possibility to edit them through a list box based dialog as well.
>>>
>>> A list with checkboxes could be useful.
>>
>> Maybe, but one should be able to add additional ones as well.
>
> Means?

A list with checkboxes for defines is of no use if you can't add new 
defines (or delete them if you don't need them anymore).

Regards,
Sven