> Is there a #INCLUDE-like feature in metatalk?
No, but this is already on the feature-request list.
> Is there any reason not to read the to-be-included mt into a
> container and then do the container?
There's the Starter Kit limitation to deal with in this case (5
statements).
> I thought I saw something about do being slow, in that it isn't
> compiled, but I guess that is only within stacks
It's slow because it *is* compiled: It's the compilation process that
takes the time. But repeat loops and such executed inside a "do" run
at the same speed as repeat loops in regular scripts.
> -- I assume .mt scripts are not compiled.
> Is there such a compiler?
They are "compiled" just like scripts in the graphical environment
(i.e., they're parsed and converted to an efficient executable format
comparable to that used by Java and Perl, though not actually compiled
all the way to machine code the way C/C++ are).
There are two ways to simulate an #include facility in MT scripts, and
both involve adding stacks you've created in the graphical environment
to the message-passing hierarchy:
insert script of stack "whatever.mc" into back
or
start using stack "whatever.mc"
Each are limited to adding 3 objects into the message hierarchy (the
Starter Kit limit, again). In testing this, I discovered a problem
calling function handlers from insert scripts, which means "start
using" is your best bet.
Regards,
Scott
> Thanks!
>
> -- Allen Morgan
> Novartis Biotechnology and Genomics Center
> RTP, NC
> morgana@abru.cg.com
>
**********************************************************
Scott Raney raney@metacard.com http://www.metacard.com
Only 1% of computer users know a programming language...
MetaCard: We can change all that.