[lazarus] LCL circles

[Marc Weustink]

+ From: Mattias Gaertner [mailto:nc-gaertnma at netcologne.de]

[SNIP]

+ > It is not realy a forbindden circle, more an unwanted circle.
+ >
+ > Forms reffered to iterfaces in its implementation section.
+
+ You are right. Sorry.
+ But fact is, that fpc is not able to compile the LCL and the
+ gtk-interfaces in one go.
+ Just copy all units into one directory and fpc will show you what it
+ things about all this loops:
+
+ [...]
+ Compiling interfaces.pp
+ Compiling interfacebase.pp
+ interfaces.pp(34,21) Error: Identifier not found TINTERFACEBASE
+ interfaces.pp(34,35) Error: Error in type definition

Hmm.... thats new to me (I've to admit that I haven't tried it ever after it
was splitted)

+ > + The advantage of this trick is:
+ > + - In the program source (.lpr) you don't need to add 'interfaces'.
+ > +
+ > + The disadvantages of this trick are:
+ > + - The interfaces.pp must be compiled several times to make sure,
+ > +   that the compiler syncs all units. This is the reason, why you
+ > +   can't add lcl and lcl/interfaces/gtk to the unitpath.
+ >
+ > For normal apps, this shouldn't be a problem.
+
+ Right.
+ The problem is of course, that _if_ someone does it he got strange
+ errors. Therefore we had to add several FAQs to make sure that no one
+ run into this trap. And also we added Template paths to the IDE so that
+ newbies don't try.

It is the same for Delphi if you add your VCL sources to your search path
instead of your browse path.

+ OTOH adding 'interfaces' to a file, that is normally auto created by the
+ IDE is also not a problem.
+
+
+ > The reason for the construction as it is now is pure historical. While
+ > the project grew,  more and more knowledge of the LCL was needed in
+ > the interface {*}. Since we were developing only for a GTK set, this
+ > could be compiled in one go (interface and LCL).
+ > Problem introduced here is that one needs a compiled LCL for every
+ > widgedset. So if one wants to make an app for different widgetsets,
+ > one has to have all the different binary LCL's. With the current
+ > solution one has one LCL (and onle different interface units)
+
+ I think, your statement could be misinterpreted by newbies as if we
+ _must_ use the current construction to separate the LCL from the
+ interfaces. This is not the case. We can compile the LCL without
+ interfaces.pp and use only interfacebase.pp.

Hmm... isn't that what I was trying to tell... :-)


+ > {*} And still IMO when the interface has more common functions and/or
+ > events the interface doesn't have to know anything about the LCL. And
+ > there would be no circle.
+
+ Why that? The LCL has its abstract interface. So, why should the
+ interface not ly above the LCL and use it?

To avoid circles ?

Hmm... now you say so... since we are using an abstract interface why do we
have a circle ? Maybe I should stop getting machines crashed, so that I can
go back to coding :)

Marc (just recovered a box from a hardcrash)