Re: routine_id evaluation
On 4 Dec 2000, at 8:55, Matthew Lewis wrote:
>
> Well, since you mention it, I'd say that routine_id() was *not* using a
> forward reference. Only call_proc()/call_func() actually do that. :P
> Sorry.
>
> Although I didn't [want to] go into it, I agree that it might be nice to
> have the 2 pass interpreter that's been talked about in the past (which
> should do what Derek wants), but, as with many things on various wish lists
> floating around, I wouldn't count on this being implemented. In the meantime,
> a scheme like what I proposed can be a work around.
>
> I probably wouldn't use routine_id() much less than now if we did have a two
> pass interpreter. Although I encounter a few times where I need a simple
> forward referenced function call, I typically use routine_id() for dynamic
> function calling (ie, no way to know which routine needs to be called next),
> as I did in matheval.
Ok, what about a bat file that calls a preprocessor before the interpreter
file, and it adds a "_" to proc/func names, and at the top of the program, it
adds a routine_id() by the original name for *every* func/proc? Then you
can call any function or procedure willy-nilly, no need to keep track of what
is declared first in the program. Will that solve it?
Kat
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
