From: Derek G. <fri...@gm...> - 2009-12-15 19:18:46
|
On Dec 15, 2009, at 12:09 PM, Roy Stogner wrote: > Did you have time to test the current version yet? I have not. Thanks for reminding me. > I'm looking over it now, and it looks like it should be really easy to > add the include files functionality. > > Here's my thoughts for the extended API: > > If text in brackets has whitespace in it, it is interpreted as a > directive rather than as a section name. I.e. > [include.chemistry.in] is a section name, whereas > [include chemistry.in] is an include directive that reads the contents > of the chemistry.in file (and of any files that chemistry.in includes, > depth first). That's a little twiddly for me. What about using some other type of brackets? Like <> so it would be: <chemistry.in> > On the other hand, it would be just as easy to eschew writing Yet > Another Meta-Language, and instead just run all input files through a > cpp pipe before parsing the result. We already do something like this... we just open multiple getpot objects to multiple input files and parse each one. It works _ok_ but there is some crappy code in there.... Derek |