Re: Missing in misc.e
CChris wrote:
>
> Pete Lomax wrote:
> > Distribute an allinc.e as per JL's suggestion then.
> >
>
> Why not have a new standard include file, say standard.e, containing only
> include
> statements to all the other standard files? That's what I eventually did.
That is exactly what I meant. I don't care what you call it.
> For production code, this extra layer can be dismissed, as only the truly >
> needed include files need be mentioned, but it's handy during development.
Unnecessary. AFIAK, extra levels of include nesting have zero impact on
production code, except perhaps the .exe might be say 80 bytes bigger since a
file table somewhere now has a "standard.e" entry for ex.err.
> > eg see M_ALLOC etc in machine.e.
>
> These are global
FYI, they are not.
> > > > type non_empty_sequence(object s)
> > > This type has no side effect and will be skipped in translated code I
> > > think.
> > What exactly do you mean by that? I gather that is technically true, but
> > I fail to see any reason why you would suddenly say that...
>
> anyway the x=s[1], or whatever it gets renamed to, will error out at a
> reasonable place. And futehr it won't even be used when translated. All in
> all, useless code.
If I get a typecheck error on the function min() statement, then I know the
problem is with the parameters I passed. If I get a subscript out of bounds error
5 lines into the routine body, I will assume there is a bug in the standard
include file.
I suggested this use of a type to follow the convention used by all the existing
standard include files.
> Are all/most standard files commented to that level? There's a limit...
Touche.
Regards,
Pete
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
