Any tips on structuring large expect scripts ?
in [TCL]
|
From: Quokka on 8 Feb 2005 01:45 Bryan Oakley wrote: > Cameron Laird wrote: > >> ? Bryan, I'm confused; while I certainly involve plenty of Makefiles >> in my Tcl-based work, I don't see it as pertinent to the advice at >> hand. As I read your response, you're suggesting transformation of >> >> big_monolithic_source.tcl >> >> into >> main.tcl >> case1.tcl >> input_output.tcl >> other_stuff.tcl >> ... >> >> where main.tcl might look like >> >> source case1.tcl >> source input_output.tcl >> source other_stuff.tcl >> ... >> >> main >> > > No. The way I use makefiles is something like this: > > foo: main.tcl casel.tcl input_output.tcl other_stuff.tcl > cat main.tcl casel.tcl input_output.tcl other_stuff.tcl > # this assumes main.tcl defines the proc "main" > echo "main" >> foo > > I pretty much never use the source command except when debugging. > Um... Yuck! I can not see the advantage in this at all! Why would you do this instead of sourcing the files? Paul
From: Bryan Oakley on 8 Feb 2005 10:37 Quokka wrote: > Um... Yuck! > > I can not see the advantage in this at all! > Why would you do this instead of sourcing the files? > > Paul Because I like not having to worry that one of the files I need got accidentally deleted or replaced by some wimpy hacking attempt. Just a matter of philosophy I guess; I've never used the source command in production code (where "never" means "for the last ten years or so"). Why is it "yuck!"? What does it matter what the code looks like at runtime? My motto is, do what works best for you. For me, this works best.
From: Cameron Laird on 8 Feb 2005 19:08 In article <W05Od.6688$D34.5866(a)newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>, Bryan Oakley <oakley(a)bardo.clearlight.com> wrote: >Quokka wrote: > >> Um... Yuck! >> >> I can not see the advantage in this at all! >> Why would you do this instead of sourcing the files? >> >> Paul > >Because I like not having to worry that one of the files I need got >accidentally deleted or replaced by some wimpy hacking attempt. Just a >matter of philosophy I guess; I've never used the source command in >production code (where "never" means "for the last ten years or so"). > >Why is it "yuck!"? What does it matter what the code looks like at >runtime? My motto is, do what works best for you. For me, this works best. Tcl is different from other languages. Well, *all* languages are different from others--but Tcl is different in a different way. It's about a technology and style rather than syntax or functionality. When you're gluing pieces together rapidly and comfortably, you're likely using Tcl. This means, though, that different *good* Tcl programmers (and Bryan certainly counts among those) have projects that look nothing at all alike. Bryan never [source]s, I never [place] (and only began to [grid] around 2000), Don Porter, the expert in [pkg*], tries not to use them, and still other top-notch developers don't use Tk, or only use Tk, or don't know Expect, or write only big programs, or only small programs, or ... Tcl works for all of us.
From: Michael A. Cleverly on 8 Feb 2005 19:30 On Wed, 9 Feb 2005, Cameron Laird wrote: > When you're gluing pieces together rapidly and comfortably, you're > likely using Tcl. QOTW?
From: D.Millin on 8 Feb 2005 20:47
Everyone, thank you for replying. The script that I have been working on as a learning exercise is a variation on passmass. The script prompts a user for a list of their passwords, and the old and new root password. The script then gets a list of valid passwords for a user reads a file, to obtain hostname, IP, and protocol, before attempting to log onto a number of different variants of unix as a specified user, and switching to root. The script was written in a linear fashion, and is about 11k. Because of the layout or should I say, the lack there of, adding additional functionality to handle expired password is a bit cumbersome. |