> Becouse my scope is to realize as soon as possible the third of above
> options, I had designed all my script to be easily included. After
Reabol's
> header are present command like:
>
> do %path/to/script01.r
> do %path/to/script02.r
> ....
> do %path/to/script0n.r
>
> All included scripts are only declaration & definition of functions.
> Functions will be used by code into the main script, which contain
> specific functions and special function called as the script, which
> embeddes all the main-code, and the last code line of the script launch
> main-function with arguments if needed.
I have done something similar too. Though I use the word "use-script"
instead of "do". This way I can redefine use-script
according to the context the script is running in.
>
> Doing so it is easy to do cut'n'paste with a text-editor, but will be even
> simple to make a script which collect all external script used by current
> script and the make all substitution, using recursion it is possible
> resolve deep inclution like script05.r includes script03., which
> includes...
That's an interesting idea. I could already use "use-script" as my marker
for script replacement.
Another interesting idea is that in the same replacement fashion, use-script
could create a function definition that makes a Rugby call.
Romano had this idea:
import librarydir db-select
; will do the file librarydir/dbms.r
In this example import provides a naming service - it searches the library
for the function. Plus it runs the file.
I'm also unsure how the mooted rebol modules functionality will impact on
this.
So some interesting ideas:
Where does your function definition live? [ in a block, in a script, in
rugby ]
How do you find it? [Using a naming service, a consistent directory
structure, etc.]
Brett.
--
To unsubscribe from this list, please send an email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe" in the
subject, without the quotes.
