Re: user-defined function & string file name

[Hans-Bernhard B. <br...@ph...>]

Juergen Wieferink wrote:
> Ethan Merritt wrote:

>>By the time you do that, I don't see that you've saved much
>>over just enabling string variables. There's just not that much
>>code involved in handling string variables per se.  Any increase in
>>overall size comes from the addition of built-in string functions
>>like sprintf().

> Enabling strings in this special case would be to define "STRING"
> and to extend the union within "struct value" by "string_val".  This
> itself should not lead to additional code in the executable.

That would only be true if we were certain that all usages of the union 
are already fully decoded, i.e. the switch(value.type) all have cases 
for each of the allowed values, and there are no if(value.type == INTGR)
or similar.  That's not quite true right now, even though we're 
surprisingly close to that goal.