Re: Win32LIb/Llama Status
- Posted by Roderick Jackson <rjackson at CSIWEB.COM> Jun 25, 1999
- 504 views
>On Fri, 25 Jun 1999, Roderick Jackson wrote: > >] >IMHO, it's a perfect argument for including and appending to an internal >] >routine_id() table for the interpreter. >] >] Hmmm... might work. But we'd still need the routine_id token as well, >] otherwise you couldn't get one on the fly: >] >] sequence RoutineName >] >] puts (1, "Enter procedure name to execute: ") >] gets (RoutineName) >] >] exec_procedure (routine_id (RoutineName), {}) >] >] RoutineName = GetInternalRoutine () -- determines another routine to use >] >] exec_procedure (routine_id ("BuiltIn" & RoutineName), {}) > >I hadn't thought of using routine_id() like that. Maybe because asking a >user for a subroutine name seems insecure. One good/bad guess and the >system goes belly-up. I would never put it in public code myself; but I've used it for debugging purposes before. >The other idea is a good one, but for things like that, you should be >developing your own sequence/table of ids like so: <snip> >IMHO, using anything but straight strings in routine_id() calls is bad >programming practice. YMMV OC. :) Well, I had originally planned on constructing routine names in Quartz... until I discovered that routine_id is purposefully restricted from accepting routine names ahead of it in source code, even at runtime. It would have actually made things quite a bit cleaner, though. Granted, it's probably a rare case, but it's also an example where maintaining a table would have just made things more cumbersome. I guess it's kind of like the obscure case where using 'goto' is actually *helpful*. Um, by the way... what is YMMV OC?? Rod Jackson