RE: Question about includes
> From: George Henry
> >I'm writting
> >a win32lib program and want
> >to make part of the menus and then
> >the rest based on text files.
> ...
> >One of the menus is a song list which
> >the users can edit. It takes alot of code
> >and I also have other menus that can be edited.
<snip>
> ...need to
> essentially embed a Euphoria interpreter into my program -
> which I submit, is insanity.
Maybe...but this is exactly what I (and some others) have requested in the
form of a DLL...
> I very earnestly believe there is an imperative need to allow
> limited user programming via unshrouded, unbound Euphoria
> source files, to be included with an otherwise shrouded and
> bound program. I realize this would be non-trivial to
> implement, however it should be manageable provided that
> shroud and bind are told which entities (variables and
> routines) the user code will be allowed to access. The
> specified identifiers, of course, could not be shrouded.
> ("Variable and routine names are converted into short
> meaningless names" - with specified exceptions, I propose.)
I believe that this is currently possible (shrouded, but unbound), although
I've not done much with shrouded code.
> Euphoria's syntax is sufficiently simple that it is not
> unreasonable to expect users, with a little guidance and
> documentation, to be able to assign values to variables and
> make simple routine calls; perhaps even to write simple
> routines and "install" them via facilities provided for the
> purpose. (I mean, facilities that the originators of large
> and complex programs would provide to the users.)
I absolutely agree. A 'Euphoria for Applications', a la VBA, if you will.
I'm currently working on a project that does exactly this.
> Don't want your users cobbling up code using Notepad or their
> other text editor of choice? (Hmm, this COULD be a way of
> initiating zillions of new users into the Joys of Euphoria.
> When they see how EASY and SIMPLE it is to write limited
> snippets of code, they might become interested in learning
> more....) Fine and dandy, and I prolly agree with you,
> although I think it would be unbearably cool and *involving*
> to at least let them read and (believe they) understand bits
> of the code that controls the program they're using - without
> revealing any vital secrets about the guts, of course.
>
> So let the users do their "programming" via dialogs or
> whatever cool "visual programming system" you want to set up,
> then have your program write the desired code, to be
> interpreted the next time the program is invoked - or perhaps
> even more immediately, using the chaining facility ("program
> overlays") that Mike Sabal previously suggested.
Right now I'm using David Cuny's (with some other contributors over the
years) Euphoria emulator (this is pre-Py) with some hacks to make it a
scripting engine. I've taken out all the low level (peek/poke, etc) and I/O
(print, get, etc) routines, and added some things that enable the user
written code to interface with the main program.
I haven't worked with Ox at all, but has anyone tried converting the output
to a scripting engine? And has anyone written an Eu clone (minus the Py
enhancements)? I store all the code, along with other stuff that goes along
with the code, in an EDS database, where I can load on demand. I've even
added a debug feature to my 'editor', so the user can get instant feedback.
I'll be ready for a real release in a few weeks, but I could send it
privately or post what I have on my web page if anyone's interested...
Matt Lewis
____________________________________________________________
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
|
|
