From: ruvim.pinka@gmail.com   
      
   On 2024-09-03 23:07, Ruvim wrote:   
   > On 2024-09-03 10:50, Anton Ertl wrote:   
   >> Ruvim  writes:   
   >>> Do you know practical cases of using "include-file" in programs?   
   >>   
   >> One way I am thinking about is to implement INCLUDED etc.  Systems   
   >> deal differently with relative filenames for INCLUDED, with less   
   >> differences for OPEN-FILE.  So if I want to implement a certain   
   >> handling of relative filenames for INCLUDED in order to get rid of   
   >> system differences, one way to do it is to do it for OPEN-FILE and   
   >> then perform INCLUDE-FILE.   
   >   
   > Yes, overriding the system's file search mechanism used by "included" is   
   > a very interesting idea!   
      
   Another possible reason to not use `INCLUDED`:   
      
   | INCLUDED may allocate memory in data space before   
   | it starts interpreting the file.   
      
   So if this effect is unacceptable (for example, if you include part of a   
   definition), then the solution is `INCLUDE-FILE`.   
      
      
   Also, `REQUIRED` does not load a file that was loaded by `INCLUDED`.   
   `INCLUDE-FILE` is free of that too.   
      
      
   --   
   Ruvim   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)