Re: Multi-purpose include/standalone files - neat trick
I understand exactly what you are doing, and I think it is a wonderful,
concise idea. My only issue is stylistic. I like all my includes at
the top of a program without any procedures before them confusing
things. And when I'm writing a library or multi-use module, I don't
want the programmer of the main program to have to do anything special
to make it work; especially since I'm usually that programmer and I
forget that I need that option defined, etc. If I'm including a module,
I want to plug and play with no hassles. The command_line option, while
longer and messier in the include program, does allow the include to be
plug and play. The best option would be a means of the interpreter
telling a file whether or not it is included as part of a larger
program. A single, clean, efficient built-in function would remove the
need for any of our hoop-jumping be it routine_id, command_line, or
nested includes.
Mike Sabal
petelomax at blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
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
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
