My preference is to have subroutine prototypes first, commented to explain
their purpose and mode of use. The subroutine declarations can be hived off
to a separate file, which is 'included'. The main body of the code can then
be presented. (All of this is assuming there is no need to create a
functional module.)
I, too, would be interested in other views on this subject.
- Roger -
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephan Tinnemeyer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2001 2:22 PM
Subject: structure of scripts (newbie Q)
> I hope I did not overread this in the FAQ:
>
> In some tutorials I found the recommendation to put the code for
> subroutines at the end of a script (i. e. after calling them) but it was
> never explained why I should do so. I only see disadvantages:
>
> 1. In my simple mind this would only make the interpreter jump through
> the script which should not enhance the performance.
>
> 2. Human beings have to jump through the script as well when they
> attempt to understand how the script is working.
>
> Can somebody give me a clue of the advantages of this structure?
>
> TIA
>
> Stephan
> --
> Dipl.-Chem. Stephan Tinnemeyer
> Lindenallee 20
> 24105 Kiel
> Germany
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
>
>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
