Re: Bind features
Ralf Nieuwenhuijsen wrote:
>Be warned with constants, they are in memory twice. Once in your source, and
>once in the allocated memory for that constant. However, fortunately,
>Euphoria, being one-pass will remove the memory the constant is using the
>first time it reads the constant decleration. However, this is, when the
>program is *not* bound. Otherwise, the executable is loaded, as a whole,
>into the memory by the operating system.
Ah, I did not realize that. Thanks; this does kill most benefits...
>> As it stands, Rob hasn't seen fit to make Euphoria open-source (otherwise
>> we'd have the C code for the interpreter already, and we would be getting
>> it for Linux.) I definitely wouldn't mind if he made it so in the future,
>> but right now that doesn't seem likely.
>
>I wasn't talking about open-source. I can completely understand his choice.
>All I ask for, is when he develops his new parsing routines, in Euphoria
>code, for the binder (the 2-pass parser), why not make them as generic as
>possible and available as include files. (shrouded or not).
>
>And have the front-end of the binder open-source, which may just look like:
>
>------- bind.ex
>
>include bind.e -- shrouded file
>
>puts (fh, bind ( encrypt ( shroud ( the_code ) ) ) )
>
>-------------
>
>Nothing given away here, yet it can be integrated much easier with
>development tools and such.
I understand now. That does seem harmless, even if the encrypt() function
wasn't made available (otherwise you'd be able to encrypt anything you
wanted, making cracking it much easier.)
But it also seems to give others a liscense to include the bind library in
their code, and sell it or give it away (or some variant of it) on their
own. I assume there would be restrictions against that if this ever came
about.
Rod Jackson
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
