> If he could or would change the internal script-handling to generally > working with such an extension (*script runfile would have extension > space), that would be great and solve such problems. (By the way, > this seems to be similar to *EXEC MoreCommandsAsScript.) > > @Bruce: What do you think about that ?
Sorry, no, not interested in doing something like this. What problem are your trying to solve here? Why do you think you need this ability and why can't you use locals (possibly initialized from a static?) It also sounds like objects: its the data you want to vary, not the script. That is what objects do. Allow you to associate methods with varying data.
