In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Stephen
Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Well, I guess the point is that Aaron's suggestion would break the idea of
> ROBOT*CLUDE being a report-level command. So then it wouldn't really be
> contradictory.
At the risk of breaking backward compatibility I would prefer to see a clear
distinction in the name between report-level commands and processing-level
commands, i.e. ROBOT*CLUDE vs ROBOTREP*CLUDE
> > ROBOTINCLUDE -FILE filename
> > ROBOTEXCLUDE -FILE filename
> > BROWEXCLUDE -FILE filename
> > BROWINCLUDE -FILE filename
> >
> > This differs from CONFIGFILE because only the arguments would be in the
> > file, not the commands. This could be generalized to many other commands
> > but it is only really useful where you want to use the same list of
> > arguments for different commands. I think only the item include/exclude
> > commands would get used this way.
>
> Yes, it makes sense. I'm not sure whether I like it as an idea though. It's
> concise, but it possibly seems like too much of a "power user" option, in
> that makes it harder to look in one place and figure out what's going on.
Converting a list of arguments to a configuration file is easy, e.g.
perl -n -p -e"s/^/ROBOTEXCLUDE /" list, so not sure if another
configuration file format is really required (also would -FILE allow for regexs
or not?)
--
Klaus Johannes Rusch
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.atmedia.net/KlausRusch/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the analog-help mailing list. To unsubscribe from this
mailing list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe" in the main BODY OF THE MESSAGE.
List archived at http://www.mail-archive.com/analog-help@lists.isite.net/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
