1. Re[2]: Berkeley DB with Euphoria
- Posted by aku saya <akusaya at gmx.net> Oct 02, 2002
- 409 views
A> Ok, what if we just make two copies of database.e and then: A> include databaseA.e as dbA A> include databaseB.e as dbB A> Now would they be separate? Even more, you can do this: if tesinc.e is in a dir called c:/path include tesinc.e as a include ../path/tesinc.e as b include c:/path/tesinc.e as c -- eu will see them as different files. a:x = 1 b:x = 2 c:x = 3 ? a:x ? b:x ? c:x will print 1 2 3
2. Re: Re[2]: Berkeley DB with Euphoria
- Posted by petelomax at blueyonder.co.uk Oct 03, 2002
- 405 views
On Wed, 2 Oct 2002 15:27:54 +0700, aku saya <akusaya at gmx.net> wrote: >Even more, you can do this: > >if tesinc.e is in a dir called c:/path > >include tesinc.e as a >include ../path/tesinc.e as b >include c:/path/tesinc.e as c >-- eu will see them as different files. > >a:x 1 >b:x = 2 >c:x = 3 >? a:x >? b:x >? c:x > >will print >1 >2 >3 That is technically a bug & you should not rely on it. Rob may choose or accidentally happen to fix that if it causes a problem elsewhere. Either distributing or having an install script make copies of database.e as databseA.e etc is a better (short-term) solution. It is also a very bad thing regards installing the program to a different drive/directory. A global routine within database.e to swap in/out various internals, as it were "behind the back of" the main database.e code would be a sensible interim measure, since it is then clearly up to the programmer to manage any problems with excessive memory allocation etc OK, I admit I have no idea what I just said involves but it sounded good when I started... Pete