1. Re: bind/shroud bug
Rob Craig wrote:
>I hope to get away from the concept
>of creating "one" file. The source file
>boundaries would be retained somehow, solving this
>routine_id situation and making other features available,
>such as the option to bind clear, unshrouded source, and
>get proper ex.err dumps etc.
YES! Encrypt the source code, and shorten the built-in keywords/routines to
their one-char tokens, but leave all the variables and programmer-created
routines UNCHANGED -- I never want to have to debug something like "if Du <
Cx(FZ, Em)" ever again!
David Cuny wrote:
[hack, slash, snip, slice]
>I suggest (in my infinite naivite) that a good solution should be fairly
>easy to obtain - just add two new tokens to bind/shroud:
>
> <<start of include>>
> <<end of include>>
>
>These would serve to simulate what include does - tell the interpreter that
>a new file is being loaded, or exited.
[snip]
>Adding these tokens would ensure that bound/shrouded files are built
>internally the same as plain interpreted programs. I think that this is a
>good solution because it:
>
> - makes code bound/shrouded code run correctly
> - should be easy to implement
> - doesn't add any new features
> - doesn't break any old features
> - is backward compatible
> - is simple
>
>Comments?
YES! This sounds like what Rob was talking about above, and it has my vote!
Happy, happy, joy, joy!
Gabriel Boehme
