RE: Let me try once more
On 28 Jan 2001, at 8:42, George Henry wrote:
> 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?
Yeas, what you are saying (imho) smells like the ability to gets() a string
the user wrote in Eu syntax, and have Eu execute it, on existing global
vars and declared local vars. Again,,,, Robert?
Kat
____________________________________________________________
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
|
|
