[lazarus] delphi compatibility

[Michal Bukovjan]

Marc Weustink wrote

>
>+ >+ > Agree.
>+ >+ > Again, once we extend the interface for real, Lazarus
>+ >+ > abstract routines (and we will have to do that, we will
>+ >+ > not do emulating Winapi forever),
>+ >
>+ >IMO, we do. You can't get rid of them, or you would have to
>+ >create your own IDE and break all compatebility. IE, unable
>+ >to use external components like the editer we are currently using.
>+ >
>+ I am not talking about removing those functions. I was more thinking
>+ about creating some abstract interface along the way which we would
>+ prefer to use over time.
>
>Aha.... there we are on the same line. A while ago we had such a discussion
>on the devel list. We din't come to a conclusion.
>
I see. This is actually what I was originally asking about - if there is 
something against creating this kind of parallel interfaces.

>
>
>+ >+ > that is called at the end (every attribute stuffed into
>+ >+ > an Integer, which comes from Windows/Qt - what if we
>+ >+ > need some functionality for which there is no flag defined
>+ >+ > in Winapi?)
>+ >
>+ >{$DEFINE} We don't need them.
>+ >
>+ We don't need what? Better design or features of other platforms?
>
>Extra flags. IMO they are handled in the interface.
>
Ok, we'll see what to do once we run into those.

>
>
>+ >+ > >>Again, this was not a problem as we were emulating
>+ >+ > >>Windows API, but once we start to take advantage
>+ >+ > >>(or properly use) features of GTK widgets,
>+ >+ > >>which go beyond what emulating Windows API provides, we
>+ >+ > >>are at a loss.
>+ >
>+ >Here we are talking GTK again.
>+ >
>+ Yes, because these widgets simply do some things differently, though
>+ functionally equivalent with Win32. Here would be place for abstract
>+ functions. The WinAPI calls simply cause horrible hacks to
>+ twist GTK or some other platform work by means of Windows API calls.
>
>I'm not against abstract functions (or an abstract widgetset), but there are
>some issues about that
>
>1) The current interface has to be reworked completely. IMO there are some
>way to do it smoothly, but thats future.
>
I agree. Maybe in version 1.1 :-)

>
>
>2) You still need winAPI. Not all software is pure written in LCL.
>
But will be, eventually :-)

Have fun,

Michal