1. Maybe it's meant like this, but.... (Rob?)
....my main program includes a file like this:
include others\foo.e
then the file foo.e includes another file:
include bar.e
Both foo.e and bar.e lies in the directory others, but when bar.e is
included, ex.exe looks in the main programs directory and
c:\euphoria\include, and not in others\. Perhaps it is supposed to work like
this, but I am tempted to call it a bug. The reason I just don't want to
change the include in foo.e to:
include others\bar.e
is that it then would complain if some other person copied both files to the
main directory of some other program that includes them. If you see what I
mean. E.g:
include foo.e
would not work directly.
Einar
2. Re: Maybe it's meant like this, but.... (Rob?)
- Posted by Mycroft <kaseyb at GEOCITIES.COM>
Jul 25, 1998
-
Last edited Jul 26, 1998
Einar Mogen wrote:
>
> ....my main program includes a file like this:
>
> include others\foo.e
>
> then the file foo.e includes another file:
>
> include bar.e
>
> Both foo.e and bar.e lies in the directory others, but when bar.e is
> included, ex.exe looks in the main programs directory and
> c:\euphoria\include, and not in others\. Perhaps it is supposed to work like
> this, but I am tempted to call it a bug. The reason I just don't want to
> change the include in foo.e to:
>
> include others\bar.e
>
> is that it then would complain if some other person copied both files to the
> main directory of some other program that includes them. If you see what I
> mean. E.g:
>
> include foo.e
>
> would not work directly.
>
> Einar
It seems to me it would make more sense if Euphoria did check the
current dir
of any file with an include statement when executing the include as well
as the default
dirs.
It would simplify project management for those with bigger projects.
expecially
since it's the big project people that are being incouraged to register.
I am glad to hear about all the speedups. expecially in the calling
overhead.
I'm the type that defines every seperate possible idea that could be a
reusable piece of
code as seperate routine. The OOPS heavy types will like it too (though
I think OOP is
way overblown and way overdone, some of the ideas are good, others in
oop make for more
complication and overhead where it's not need, well documented code,
well designed, will
do the job as well if not better in many cases)
Kasey
3. Re: Maybe it's meant like this, but.... (Rob?)
Einar Mogen writes:
> ....my main program includes a file like this:
> include others\foo.e
> then the file foo.e includes another file:
> include bar.e
> Both foo.e and bar.e lies in the directory others, but when
> bar.e is included, ex.exe looks in the main programs directory
> and c:\euphoria\include, and not in others\. Perhaps it is
> supposed to work like this, but I am tempted to call it a bug.
It was intended to work the way that it does,
but I can see some value in doing it your way. I'll consider it.
Regards,
Rob Craig
Rapid Deployment Software
http://members.aol.com/FilesEu/
