Any tips on structuring large expect scripts ?
in [TCL]
|
From: D.Millin on 8 Feb 2005 20:49 Stefan, thanks for the sharing the snippet of code. It's been quite illuminating.
From: Quokka on 8 Feb 2005 21:37 Cameron Laird wrote: > 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. I hope I did not offend... different strokes for different folks I guess my initial reaction of "yuck" was due to : a) Adding a "make" step, one of the advantages of a dynamic language is removing the "make" step. b) Creating a source file that is an output... again a matter of style, but something that seems... inelegant to me. I guess my question was.. is there an advantage? Why do you find creating a new file "better" than sourcing files? I did not quite understand how combining the files mitigated the risk of accidental deletion. Regards Paul
From: Bruce Hartweg on 8 Feb 2005 22:02
Quokka wrote: > Cameron Laird wrote: > >> 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. > > > I hope I did not offend... different strokes for different folks > > I guess my initial reaction of "yuck" was due to : > > a) Adding a "make" step, one of the advantages of a dynamic > language is removing the "make" step. > > b) Creating a source file that is an output... again a matter of > style, but something that seems... inelegant to me. > > I guess my question was.. is there an advantage? > Why do you find creating a new file "better" than sourcing > files? I did not quite understand how combining the files > mitigated the risk of accidental deletion. > you have only a single script file to deploy, much easier to tell someone "copy this file" than "here are a whole bunch of files". Bruce |