1. Lobbying .. :-)
- Posted by "Fam. Nieuwenhuijsen" <nieuwen at XS4ALL.NL>
Sep 03, 2000
-
Last edited Sep 04, 2000
Now, all the name space discussion has started again, I would like to lobby
for this approach to the named 'problem' ...
- No new syntax, however, most recent included (again) file
algorithm in the parser would be nice and sufficient. No need for anything
more drastically for those 0.001 % of situations where it's *cleaner* ..
- Add (built-in or not) routines that offer dynamical include
files. This dynamic approach should allow for the more powerfull usages of
include files. Such as mixing include files, alter the code, calling
routines with error trapping, etc.
It has the following advantages:
- no new syntax == simpler
- full run time control (very powerfull)
- takes the new compiler into account (dynamically included routines
are off course never compiled, but always interpreted)
Robert, have you considered this approach and if so, what do you see as the
cons/pros of this approach ?
Greetings,
Ralf.
2. Re: Lobbying .. :-)
- Posted by Robert Craig <rds at ATTCANADA.NET>
Sep 03, 2000
-
Last edited Sep 04, 2000
Ralf writes:
> - Add (built-in or not) routines that offer
> dynamical include files.
Thanks for the ideas.
I'll add them to my namespace folder.
The new translator to C does not support the current
(rarely used) possibilities for dynamic include files that
you have with the interpreter.
I doubt that I will add any enhancements in this area.
It would just encourage people to write programs that
can't be translated to C (without doing some extremely
convoluted things with the translator and run-time library).
The current version of the binder is also unable to
handle dynamic includes, although that might
be fixed in the next version I'm planning.
Regards,
Rob Craig
Rapid Deployment Software
http://www.RapidEuphoria.com
