David Heffernan

Do pound signs need to be escaped in json? Please tell me you are using Unicode.

Sounds like the worst of all worlds. The noise of try / except blocks everywhere, and old school checking for errors at all steps!

Don't you just have a small number of top level exception handlers?

Polling on a timer. Nice. As I said. The worst possible solution to this problem.

I've used memory mapping for sure. But it sucks for this application which wants messages. Important to use the right tool for each job.

Process the XML directly. Should actually be a really easy job for a SAX based processor. Even better, you don't need any COM automation of Word. If you need to do this in your product then I guess Delphi is best. If it's a helper script for personal use I'd do it in Python or similar.

How many items in this list: 0 1 2 3 I think there are four items in this list, but the logic in your code would conclude that there are three items in this list. Therein lies your problem. Of course your real code may be completely different to the code you showed us in which case who knows what's wrong with it.

Ugh, this has to be the worst possible solution

FWIW there is registration free COM. Not saying that's what you need, just that you don't need registration to use COM.

Reluctance to simply follow the documented steps is very odd here.

Indeed

Its simple to check this by changing the code to handle all exceptions, not just ones that derive from Delphi's Exception class. I wonder, how would a language exception raised by another module in your process appear as when it reach your exception handler?

I don't really see that this is so. Don't you want fast compilation and fast executable code? I'm sure you do. Do you think that you can have one but not the other?

I don't see why there should be compromise. I want great tools and efficient code output.

It's entirely possible to have a compiler that is fast during development / debug builds, but takes more time to optimise for release builds. So much Stockholm Syndrome in Delphi-land!

Binary compatibility for packages isn't something that bothers me. I mean, you get a major new upgrade and that happens anyway. But better code gen wouldn't mean changes to binary compatibility for packages. Also is 11.3 even binary compatible with 11.2 packages? Why do I want a single pass compiler? I'm not the end user. I want to deliver a program that runs quickly. Am I going to tell my customers, I don't want to deliver a program that runs twice as fast because then I wouldn't have a single pass compiler. Why do my customers care about single pass compilers? Is that something that your users talk to you about?

Frustration at my dev tool lagging behind. The editor is the least of my worries. It's the poor and never changing performance of the code emitted by the compiler that frustrates me the most.

What about for your 64 bit compilation?

I guess my sarcasm didn't shine through

If only other editors had this feature

The fact that you have a different workflow from me doesn't mean my workflow doesn't exist

The problem with this is imagine the following scenario: 1. You release version 1.0 of your software with Delphi 11.2. 2. You then make a fixes only branch for version 1.x that only gets quality / bug fixes pushed to it. 3. You continue main stream development for version 2.0 and decide to upgrade to Delphi 11.3. 4. You now want to build and release version 1.1 from your fixes only 1.x branch, but ideally you want to build with Delphi 11.2. If Delphi 11.3 only contained bug fixes then you might be happy to build 1.1 with it, but 11.3 is a feature release. So for a workflow like the above you actually need to keep build VMs around for all maintained fixes only branches.

I need to do work before I can do that. It's really frustrating that I cannot have 11.2 and 11.3 installed on the same machine.

I'll bet that there is a clean solution to your problem, but not the one you are trying. Instead of asking about pre-processing DEF files, why not ask about the root problem, rather than the solution you imagine using, which you now know is not possible.

Doesn't EXPORTS CCfgClassNew work?