AltME: SDK

Messages

DocKimbel
Gregg: I use the same workflow for my REBOL work since 10 years...it's uneasy to change that, unless I can convince myself that the gains are worth the effort of changing the habits. :-)
Ladislav
Well, Gregg mentioned that he would not want to give up on INCLUDE because it saves time in a significant way
Gregg
I'm the same way. It took me a while to transition to INCLUDE, but I'm glad I did.
DocKimbel
Ladislav, last question: do you think it is possible (and desirable) to easily build INCLUDE features in R3 in a transparent way for the user? I mean that for example DO would intrinsicly use INCLUDE when having to access a file.
Gregg
How much benefit you see will depend on what you're building, too. My two main needs are apps that need to be encapped (often with different features whether for local use or as a rich 'net app), and scripts that comprise elements in larger systems, where there are common infrastructure elements and libraries, but scripts are run dynamically.
I think so, but I could be wrong. :-)
Put another way, is there a reason it couldn't?
In that scenario, I would think about how it would work in the wild, with resources made available on the 'net. An elegant integration of modules, INCLUDE, and public libraries would be a dream come true.
DocKimbel
I guess we could also overload DO in R2 to make INCLUDE usage almost transparent.
Gregg
Of course.
Ladislav
"Ladislav, last question: do you think it is possible (and desirable) to easily build INCLUDE features in R3 in a transparent way for the user? I mean that for example DO would intrinsicly use INCLUDE when having to access a file." - yes, that is possible.
GrahamC
Ladislav "that is not a problem, why there is any problem in using rebol -s %incl instead of rebol -s?"
This would have to be escaped for DOS
DocKimbel
I wonder why nobody did it yet then (overloading DO in R2 to add INCLUDE capabilities).
Gregg
Also, Doc, as far as hot keys from your editor, I do that too. And while it did take a change, I am now used to having a build script as an open file for a project, so I can exec that from the editor easily. Not perfect, but better than nothing.
Ladislav
hmm, I did not need to do it, INCLUDE %timblk.r is still much shorter than DO %/e/Ladislav/REBOL/timblk.r
DocKimbel
Gregg: did you find it annoying when working on small script that do not need INCLUDE features, or it is not a problem at all?
Gregg
There are a number of things I don't do in R2 simply to make it easier for others to use code I may post. Making it clear that INCLUDE is used is easier than "overload DO, and if you've changed DO yourself...)". I just say "Use INCLUDE. If you have a problem, tell Ladislav". :-)
It is a mental shift, and I still have some very small scripts that don't use it. Those are almost gone, because I almost always want library functions at some point, and I don't care about loading extra stuff locally.
Ladislav
"Gregg: did you find it annoying when working on small script that do not need INCLUDE features, or it is not a problem at all?" - let me answer your question as well: not a problem at all
Gregg
Even my small scripts just start with "do %paths.r" (or a variation for specific projects), which does all the setup.
Ladislav
If I do not need INCLUDE features I am still able to use INCLUDE to run the script (INCLUDE is able to run scripts not needing it)

Last message posted 49 weeks ago.