It is a maintenance nightmare from the 1980s that needs to be corrected.
> Date: Wed, 5 Mar 2008 12:14:57 +0100 > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > To: u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org > Subject: Re: [U2] INCLUDE weirdo > > Womack, Adrian skrev: > > Does anyone else think it's bad practice to have code in INCLUDES? > > > I do ! Warning this is a classical religious war issue! > > > Surely it would be much better to have the INITIATE.FEEDBACK & > > GIVE.FEEDBACK routines written as subroutines, and then simply call them > > from the appropriate spots. > > > > If the code in either of those routines needs to be changed, you'll need > > to also recompile all the programs using the include. But as subroutines > > all you need to do is recompile the subroutine in question. > > > > And what's worse: Every time you add a variable in the include you must > search all routines that use the include to check that they do not use > that name .. > unless you have a rigid naming convention to prevent such name reuse. > > Although, INCLUDES are fantastic for things like common & equate > > definitions. > > > > > Well - the same argument applies here, but the naming convention > often comes quite naturally - at least in my experience. > > -- mats > ------- > u2-users mailing list > u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org > To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/ _________________________________________________________________ Connect and share in new ways with Windows Live. http://www.windowslive.com/share.html?ocid=TXT_TAGHM_Wave2_sharelife_012008 ------- u2-users mailing list u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
