Need some discussion forum

[synopse]

Where to discuss all this?

For instance, why reinvent a type system, whereas there is already one with the FPC RTTI.
There is no direct boolean support in your code if I am correct, you search for uppercase 'BOOL' in the type name if the integer size is 1 byte in the code I have seen. Not very clean.

This is a very nice idea for sure.

[graemeg]

GitHub Discussions is the right place - I'm glad to say, its enabled now. Bug reports and feature requests can
go in Issues as usual.

Why not FPC RTTI?

Good question! The short answer is that RTTI serves a different purpose -- it's designed for the running process to query
its own types at runtime. A debugger is a separate process observing from the outside via ptrace, and needs things RTTI
doesn't provide: local variables with stack offsets, scope information, source line mappings, private fields, and property
getter metadata. OPDF is purpose-built to carry all of that in an ELF section with addresses resolved at link time.

Boolean handling - fair point!

You're absolutely right, the Pos('BOOL', UpperCase(TypeInfo.Name)) approach is a heuristic and not clean at all. The
recPrimitive record in OPDF currently only carries size and signedness -- there's no semantic subkind to distinguish Boolean
from Integer from Char.

The proper fix is adding a subkind byte to recPrimitive in the OPDF spec (e.g. 0=integer, 1=boolean, 2=char) and emitting
it from the compiler. That's on the roadmap. The name-matching was a pragmatic shortcut to get boolean display working
early -- it works because FPC's type names are well-known, but I agree it is not clean and will be replaced. Thanks for reminding me to clean that up!