What has happened?

[Brian K. White]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Fairlight" <fairlite at fairlite.com>
To: "'Filepro-List'" <filepro-list at seaslug.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2005 11:27 AM
Subject: Re: What has happened?


> This public service announcement was brought to you by Enrique Arredondo:
>> > [Gary said:]
>> > What has happened? I am not getting any mail from the list?
>
> See everyone else's responses.  If you need something, post away and
> someone will likely hop on it.  Otherwise, I'm guessing none of us like to
> hear ourselves talk, and have other things going.

OK here's one. Although I'll have already "What happenned when you tried 
it?(tm)" before anyone is likely to reply.

I have a call tale that is called from several files. I have a new version 
of this table that for various reasons is best kept as a seperate new table, 
I can't displace the old table as they work differently with some external 
utils and existing users need to keep using the old table, and I can't 
easily make a single backwards compatible table, even by F8-load ing one 
onto the end of the other and sticking a goto at the top. They use a lot of 
the same long variables, but some lengths and edits changed in the new one.

What would work best for me I think is if I can just insert a line at the 
top of the old table that looks at a variable and decides to chain to the 
new table.

But then what happens? Will the new table end and return back to the parent 
that called the old table?

I can imagine 3 possibilities, really 2 and a wildcard.
1) reaching the end of new table acts like reaching the end of the old 
table. Processing resumes in the parent table after the call command.
2) reaching the end of new table acts like reaching the end of the parent 
table because maybe we chained completely out of the parent table.
3) no one allowed for chaining from inside a call and anything might happen, 
something other than either of above.

Also, it just occured to me I might have the same problem with the 
conflicting variable definitions even if it worked like 1), because the 
declares are read before any code is run, including the goto or chain I'd 
have at the top.

I don't really want to go find and modify all the places where the old table 
is called and add a 2nd line with a test that sometimes calls the new table 
instead.

As it happens, the number of places these tables are called from is actually 
a nice manageable small number and also the spot in each table is in a well 
known easy to jump to gosub, so in this case I can just go modify 1 easily 
jumped-to spot in 4 or 5 input tables so that is what I'll do. So I won't 
have tried it after all.

Brian K. White  --  brian at aljex.com  --  http://www.aljex.com/bkw/
+++++[>+++[>+++++>+++++++<<-]<-]>>+.>.+++++.+++++++.-.[>+<---]>++.
filePro  BBx    Linux  SCO  FreeBSD    #callahans  Satriani  Filk!