On 9 Jul 2002, at 11:19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I assume you mean that you would like GWASS to be altered so that the
> Qmac macros would work without any change.
yes.
> There are various reasons
> why this wouldn't be easy or indeed possible.
>
> For example the conditional instructions in GWASS are global - not
> confined to macros as I believe the Qmac ones are. You also need an
> "endif" in GWASS.
>
> Also setnum and setstrg of Qmac set numbers and strings inside a
> macro. GWASS's "set" is again global. It can be used anywhere in a
> program to set a variable of whatever sort and to reset it later.
I see, that really seems to be quite a problem.
> A third problem would be strings. In GWASS a string may be delimited
> either by apostrophes (') or by quotes ("). Only the former are
> allowed in Qmac.
Well, that wouldn't be such a problem then, since GWASS could
do "more" than QMAC, and the "subset" used by Qmac would be
OK with it.
> Anyway, what is so bad with a set of GWASS-type macros to replace the
> Qmac ones provided the USER of these macros can code them in almost
> exactly the same way as for Qmac?
Simple: you have to change much of the code.
For the time being, I'd prefer not to chage the code, until we get a
much better understanding of it, can compile it correctly, and are
certain about the total effects of all of the macros.
I tend to think that if I have to choose between changing a lot in
source codes, and changing a tool, changing the tool is generally
the better option.
(this is not intended as any kind of comment on GWASS's
possibilities and functions!)
Wolfgang
