OpenEuphoria

Re: Multi-purpose include/standalone files - neat trick

• Posted by petelomax at blueyonder.co.uk Oct 23, 2002
• 378 views

On Wed, 23 Oct 2002 09:17:49 -0400, Sabal.Mike at notations.com wrote:

>Both options are good and concise,
hmmm. I've just queried jbrown privately re what he meant.
Main.exw and Include.exw; no other source files, right?

> but rely on variables set outside the file.
Eh? Not me.

*My* point was simply that routine_id("xxx") figures this out for you
by returning -1 or a valid routine number (see below). If you wanted
to communicate with the including app, I guess you could call the
isIncludeFile() procedure/function (via call_proc/func()) with various
parameters for each include file, possibly even passing/returning
routine-id()'s of procs/ funcs defined in include/main source the
other wishes to call...

> Personally, I like my include files to be self-contained whenever
>possible.  The use of command_line() accomplishes that goal.

<SNIP some complex stuff>
OK, I'm listening. Explain to me how using command_line() is better.
It works, I agree, but better?!?    I don't want to be aggressive
about this, but I really liked the idea I had & am worried you haven't
got it yet. (or you see a flaw I don't).

Pete
PS original message snippet follows:

> * * HOWEVER * *:
> =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
>=20
> 	global procedure isIncludeFile() -- dummy
> 	end procedure
>=20
> 	include fred.ew
>=20
> works a treat as fred.ew can simply ask:
>=20
> 	if routine_id("isIncludeFile")=3D-1 then
> 		-- code to be run if standalone
> 	else
> 		-- probably little or no code to be run if an include
> 	end if
> ...