1. Re: Bind Problems ...
Roderick Jackson wrote:
>Okay, I see your point. As a bind option, this would not bother me nearly
>as much. Then, the situations that benefited from it could take advantage
>of it, and those that wouldn't could leave it alone.
>
>However, the dynamic include example addressed the idea of having unused
>code removed in non-compiled code, where I have a hard time seeing it as
>merely an option.
>
>Mmm, I also think I see how the binder *might* be able to identify and keep
>routines used arbitrarily in object-oriented code... provided (this seems
to
>keep popping up) that all routine_id calls were only passed literals.
Ahh -- NOW I see what you mean. Yes, a routine which is only called via a
routine_id() *would* cause quite a few problems -- it would be removed from
the program because it isn't called from anywhere in the "normal" way. Hmm,
yes, I agree this is a big problem. However, changing routine_id() calls to
only accept literals for the routine names would take away many of the
existing advantages routine_id() has.
I personally think the whole way routine_id() currently works is in need of
some major re-evaluation.
>I agree with you; as a command-line option, this would be useful. I
>probably did overreact a bit; I hadn't stopped to consider the feature
>might not be mandatory.
Don't worry, I *definitely* overreacted in the other direction. I didn't
understand at first where you were coming from with your routine_id()
example. Thanks for making it clear for me.
Be seeing you,
Gabriel Boehme
