Malcolm,
I'm late to this discussion, too, but I'm intrigued by your ideas. However,
is it required that you have a hook for this to work, or is it just a "nice
thing to have" so you could click the Build button in the project without
adding an extra step of pre-processing? And couldn't a project hook handle
that? Or are you concerned about the COMPILE command and EVAL command also
needing to convert new syntax to VFP code (and what about "on-the-fly
compile" in VFP9 -- which really is just a syntax checker)?
It sure would be nice to have all of that, but a set of language extensions
COULD move ahead even without the hook if you were willing to pre-process
them before compile.
You may have already covered all these ideas previously, but what about
using #DEFINE to reroute certain commands like EXECSCRIPT to a
pre-processor?
#DEFINE EXECSCRIPT PreExec
#DEFINE E2XECSCRIPT 'EXECSCRIPT'
lcCommand = "WAIT WINDOW 'Hi'"
EXECSCRIPT(lcCommand)
FUNCTION PreExec(cCommand as String)
WAIT WINDOW "Now inside PreExec()"
* change the command before execution
cCommand = cCommand + "+' there!'"
lcNewCmd = E2XECSCRIPT + '(cCommand)'
EVALUATE(lcNewCmd)
ENDFUNC
Run that just for kicks!
So, the question remains -- how far can you go with extending the language
without the hooks?
David Stevenson
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Malcolm Greene
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 3:03 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: VFP++ - back on track again
Andrew,
I never wrote the spec - got side tracked and didn't receive any
response from Calvin or Ken regarding their interest in creating a hook
between source code and the VFP preprocessor/compiler step.
Disappointing because the effort to implement such hook would seem to be
so simple - no impact on VFP user interface or core functionality. And
disappointing because EVERYTHING else in VFP can be hooked or customized
except hooking the source code stream to the compiler. Disappointing
because this feature would allow the community to evolve the language
without help from MS.
I am interested in revisiting this topic if anyone feels confident that
we could persuade Calvin to implement this tiny little feature.
Thoughts???
Malcolm
<snipped>
From: "Andrew MacNeill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 09:01:56 -0400
Subject: Re: VFP++ - back on track again
Malcolm,
(I'm late jumping in here as well) - I'd love to hear more about this as
well. Is it still part of the idea to try and get MS to provide some
kind of hook for this?
</snipped>
[excessive quoting removed by server]
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: [email protected]
Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
