"compile" vs. "tokenize" (was Re: Password Problem)

[Fairlight]

Is it just me, or did Bob Stockler say:
> PS - Another thing about "tok" tables.  Executing the UNIX/Linux
>      command "strings" on them discloses all of the quoted strings
>      used in the table, plus the names of all declared variables.
>      None of these are visible in "prc" tables saved encoded.

That's going to be standard with any executable object code that contains
string literals, unless it's written in such a way that the input is
obfuscated or encrypted, and then reversed at runtime.  There are packages
that do this for other languages.  (You should see what Bleach does for/to
perl...it's eerie.)

I keep trying to think of how the runtime situation could be reworked to
make standalone binaries that follow that paradigm and would bundle the
required engine along with the processing and reports or whatnot, not to
mention runmenu.  The problem is, it's an -entirely- different scheme from
what I'm used to even with compiling perl programs with -many- modules.
fP flat-out depends on being the sum of its parts, and -being- all those
parts, and people develop to that model--so it doesn't easily lend itself
to a shift.  I'm coming up short on a graceful solution to suggest.  So
far.  :)

mark->
-- 
Bring the web-enabling power of OneGate to -your- filePro applications today!

Try the live filePro-based, OneGate-enabled demo at the following URL:
               http://www2.onnik.com/~fairlite/flfssindex.html