RE: Let me try once more
Hi Chris,
Thanks for repsonding. Yes I think the window docking is pretty nifty, too, but
of course that isn't the point.
The .ini file (hereinafter called a config file, as the extension .ini may be
confusing due to its use by Micro$oft programs) IS executable Euphoria code, and
it SHOULD BE (forever) executable Euphoria code. Why should I [need to] write an
interpreter (of any sort, or level of sophistication), when the Euphoria
interpreter serves perfectly well for the purpose - in the context of my program,
at least?
The Euphoria reference manual states: "*Shrouding* combines all of the .e files
that your program needs, along with your main file to create a single .ex, .exw,
or .exu file. Comments are stripped out and variable and routine names are
converted into short meaningless names. You can also apply a "scrambling"
algorithm to further improve security and make your program tamper-proof.
*Binding* combines your shrouded/scrambled program with ex.exe, exw.exe, or exu
to create a single, stand-alone executable (.exe) file. For example, if your
program is called "myprog.ex" you can create "myprog.exe" which will run
identically." - where ** delimit words that are bold in the doc.
So if I shroud, then ALL of my source files, including the config file(s), will
be shrouded - NOT desirable. The .ini file is being rewritten by the program
(whenever you click the Save and Exit button). In general, I insist that my
config files be a. forever separate files; b. human-readable and -modifiable; c.
program-readable and -modifiable; and d. interpretable by their target
program(s). It is the combining of requirements a, b, and c with requirement d
that is made unreasonably dificult by shrouding and binding as they currently
work (according to the documentation; I am still using the PD version of
Euphoria, so I haven't had any direct experience with them). In other words, if I
shroud and bind, I lose features a, b, and c (the modification part, anyway)
completely, unless I undertake to write an interpreter for the config files. And
again, I ask, why should I have to do that?
My intent is not to be in any way critical of the existing implementation,
because one cannot anticipate all the reasonable ways in which users will want to
use software. But I wonder if Rob would consider adding to shroud and bind the
ability to exclude selected source files, and to exclude selected identifiers
from the shrouding process, thus enabling them to be accessed by code in
unshrouded files? This would facilitate the usage of config files in the form of
Euphoria source, which I think is a very valuable feature.
If anyone thinks it is NOT a valuable feature, please show me an equivalent
alternative that makes better sense. In other words, what is a better way to
configure a program (by initializing variables and calling routines) from an
external file, that can be modified in text form by users or by programs?
George
--
On Sun, 28 Jan 2001 06:51:27
Chris Bensler wrote:
>Hi George,
>
> I did get your prog from the other list, and I tried it. Pretty nifty.
>
>I don't understand what the problem is exactly though..
>The .ini is NOT part of the source and shouldn't be shrouded OR bound.
>No reason it would be..
>It doesn't contain EU commands.. or is this what your aiming at? To have
>it contain EU code?
>The way you have it set up, it should work A.OK as a bound exe.
>
>Chris
>
>ghenryca at LYCOS.COM wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I sent this (under different subject heading) during the transition from
>> MUOHIO to Topica. I think it got through. Maybe not.
>>
>> Anyone who understands and cares please respond. No response will be
>> taken at face value, no hard feelings.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> George
>>
>> --------- Forwarded Message ---------
>>
>> DATE: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 21:16:15
>> From: "George Henry" <ghenryca at lycos.com>
>> To: "Euphoria" <euphoria at LISTSERV.MUOHIO.EDU>
>>
>> Hello, everyone.
>>
>> I said I would try to work up a demo of my idea concerning portions of a
>> program being unshrouded/unbound and modifiable by users, or by the
>> program itself. After some rather indelicate surgery, here it is. I have
>> tested it and I believe it illustrates the concept adequately.
>>
>> There are two files, demo.exw and demo.ini. The program creates two
>> windows, which can be docked together in a couple of different ways, or
>> they can be moved independently. By clicking the "Save and Exit" button,
>> you can save the current docking option and the current window positions
>> in demo.ini, in the form of code that will be run the next time the
>> program is started up.
>>
>> Comments are purposely minimal, and focused on the idea I am trying to
>> illustrate. You will need Win32Lib to run the program; I am using
>> version 0.55. I will try to answer all pertinent questions.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> George
>>
>>
>> Get your small business started at Lycos Small Business at
>> http://www.lycos.com/business/mail.html
>> --------- End Forwarded Message ---------
>>
>>
>>
>> Get your small business started at Lycos Small Business at
>> http://www.lycos.com/business/mail.html
>
>____________________________________________________________
>T O P I C A -- Learn More. Surf Less.
>Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Topics You Choose.
>http://www.topica.com/partner/tag01
>
>
Get your small business started at Lycos Small Business at
http://www.lycos.com/business/mail.html
____________________________________________________________
T O P I C A -- Learn More. Surf Less.
Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Topics You Choose.
http://www.topica.com/partner/tag01
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
