World: r3wp
[SDK]
older newer | first last |
Graham 27-Nov-2005 [212x2] | what's the latest encmd.exe ? Is that from July 2004 ? |
If so, is there going to be a public update soon? I presume that one is a beta release | |
Gregg 28-Nov-2005 [214] | That's the latest one I use officially. There was/is a 2.6 Core beta I think, more recent, but not View. A new official SDK is a highly requested item. |
Graham 28-Nov-2005 [215] | I use officially hmm... what secrets does that imply ? :) |
Gregg 28-Nov-2005 [216] | Sorry, no secrets. Just that it's the one I use. I don't use the 2.6. Core beta encapper for anything official. |
Graham 1-Dec-2005 [217] | Just reading the prerebol specifications. You can conditionally include files for compilation, but can you declare parts of the source to be conditionally "compiled" into the exe ? |
Volker 1-Dec-2005 [218x3] | This one? |
(Oops - There was request on "all" for this group) | |
Graham, conditional works. there is a #if . | |
Graham 1-Dec-2005 [221] | volker, I can't see how #if allows me to remove chunks of code that I don't want incorporated into the exe |
Volker 1-Dec-2005 [222] | Because if allows you to insert code IIRC. Now if you insert a little code or a lot depending on the if? |
Graham 1-Dec-2005 [223x2] | As I understand it, #if allows me to conditionally evaluate some Rebol code, or to include source files into my code. |
Yes, insert .. but not remove | |
Volker 1-Dec-2005 [225] | Have to look up the doc.. |
Graham 1-Dec-2005 [226x3] | http://www.rebol.com/docs/sdk/prebol.html |
I guess I could include a "comment {" to comment out the whole section, but I'd prefer something else! | |
Hmm. Are comments stripped out in the encapped binary? | |
Ashley 1-Dec-2005 [229] | Yes. |
Graham 1-Dec-2005 [230] | So, in that case I could include a conditional comment to remove large chunks of source code ... |
Volker 1-Dec-2005 [231] | In the case of #do the result of the expression will be placed in the output file. For example: version: #do [1.2.3 + 0.0.1] will create the output: version: 1.2.4 |
Graham 1-Dec-2005 [232] | ? .. is that a non-sequitur |
Volker 1-Dec-2005 [233] | The #if and #either commands will put the results of their blocks into the output file. For example: version: #if [new-version] [2.3.4] [1.2.3] will result in: version: 2.3.4 |
Graham 1-Dec-2005 [234x3] | I see. |
I'll give that a go :) | |
don't those commands evaluate the expressions .. I just want to include the source | |
Volker 1-Dec-2005 [237x2] | Now if you put your code dafely in a lot of [] and evaluate that? |
dafely->safely | |
Graham 1-Dec-2005 [239x2] | Getting too complicated .. |
Perhaps I need to ask for this feature in prerebol | |
Ammon 1-Dec-2005 [241] | try something like: code: [executable code] #if [condition] compose [(code)] |
Gabriele 2-Dec-2005 [242x2] | Graham, I don't understand your question. |
#if [condition] [ ; this part is included only if condition is true your code here ] non conditional code here | |
Graham 3-Dec-2005 [244] | Gabriele, I think I just misunderstood the documentation. |
Pekr 4-Dec-2005 [245x2] | Couldn't SDK be redone in different way? I really don't want to miss rebcode for SDK. That is not good, given the frequency SDK gets updated ;-) It lags behind usefull stuff for so long! It would be good, if the new release plan would count on SDK updates to come more often, or somehow magically Encap could use different kernels - you would pass it as a parameter:-) |
dunno if technicall solvable, but basically such Encap would be kind of launcher, which would "boot" rebol - it would unpack it from executable into memory. But dunno if technically solvable :-) | |
Graham 4-Dec-2005 [247] | you mean the sdk could use any rebol binary to encap with ? |
Pekr 4-Dec-2005 [248] | yes |
Graham 4-Dec-2005 [249] | sounds like a good solution. |
Pekr 4-Dec-2005 [250] | but not sure if technically doable? |
Graham 4-Dec-2005 [251x2] | would it also work cross platform? |
Carl can do anything given sufficient reason/time | |
Pekr 4-Dec-2005 [253] | but imo such executable boots rebol anyway ... |
Graham 4-Dec-2005 [254] | So, I could create cross platform binaries |
Pekr 4-Dec-2005 [255x4] | that would save RT from feeding us new SDKs just because new kernels were released .... |
not sure - such loader/booter, would be platform dependant anyway, no? | |
not sure if I am not mistakenly inspired by some solution posted to ml few weeks ago? IIRC someone did self-extracting executable (archive), where there was rebol and scripts .... I just don't remember, if when you create such archive, you can instruct it to start some app ... | |
http://www.rebol.org/cgi-bin/cgiwrap/rebol/ml-display-thread.r?m=rmlKQTC | |
Ashley 4-Dec-2005 [259] | I don't think this would be a good idea as the SDK lets you choose what mezz code you wish to include, and things like console help and desktop are excluded by default. |
Graham 4-Dec-2005 [260] | Unless Carl has a way of stripping out rebol/base from the binaries ... |
Ashley 4-Dec-2005 [261] | Difficult, as trying to map: "I'll take base and not include any of the networking mezz source" to: "Encap using latest rebview but exclude all the graphics and networking code *I* know I'm not going to need" doesn't sound too easy to me. |
older newer | first last |