Re: Dynamic includes
> From: gertie at visionsix.com
> Subject: RE: Dynamic includes
>
>
> On 25 Jun 2003, at 15:39, Al Getz wrote:
>
>
>>jbrown105 at speedymail.org wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 06:21:47PM +0000, Al Getz wrote:
>>><snip matheval stuff>
>>>
[big snip]
>
> I'd still go with executing strings. You could then gets() the "include" file
> you
> want, parse each function to a subslice, and then execute them as if they
> were a routine_id. (Hmmmmm,, makes a good point for pointers to vars.)
> Visability of variables and other procedure/functions would be whatever is
> visable at the point the line is executed in the program, making it
> interesting
> what's "namespaced" or visable at different execution points. Alternatively,
> the subseq containing the function could have the vars prepended to it as
> you wish at any time. You could possibly call a function to set up the string
> "include", using vars scoped at the point of the function you called, and
> execute the string with that scope somewhere else in the program. This
> would be rather like the pascal with..do block.
>
> But people have already said they do not want self-modifying code or string
> execution. <sigh> It's useful in mirc, people, and it would be useful in Eu
> too,
> making Eu more useable to me.
>
> Kat
>
Agreed. Actually, dynamic includes could solve any situation where Eu
processes interact between one another and with some form of outer world
(user responses or anything like this). I would definitely support this.
Note that OE will probably implement a limited form of this by spawning
a new process to execute the dynamic string in an independent scope.
Arbitrary string execution could be tricky.
Dynamic includes are NOT self-modifying code. They are code with
instruction flow self-control.
CChris
>
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
