RE: include paths
On 17 Mar 2002, at 18:32, bensler at mail.com wrote:
<snip>
> If anyone else agrees with this stuff, speak up or forever hold your
> peace. I can make endless suggestions, but Rob is not going to do
> anything solely on my recommendations.
Since you put it that way....
1) In my opinion, nearly anything done for compiling, to make life easier on
the programmer, is a plus for Eu.
2) Nearly anything done as a first-pass in the interpreter is equally a Good
Thing.
3) Language options that add to versatility are also a Good Thing. This
includes goto, classes, pointers, and some way to beat the 4-byte-per-
character thing. ("The english language is versatile, but rap music mangles it
so badly, i think it should be forbidden!"? "German is a fine language, but
Hitler used it for a Bad Thing, so it should be illegal too!"?) Of course, this
may mean a away to nameless assigns-while-declaring, like:
type sequence = x = repeat(type sequence={},500)
4) smart optimising is a Good Thing, even pulling in different code for the
same high-level keyword, as appropriate.
But as for include paths, have you tried the ole dos "subst"? Oops, can't do
neat things like that in windoze or *nix. I had inordinately long paths to some
files back in my pascal days, and would subst drive letters for them.
"E:\DCTDATA\DCTWORK\TESTCTRL.H13\084-KN.N13" would become
"X:\084-KN.N13"
Kat
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
