Re: suggestion

[robin szemeti <robin-at-rszemeti.demon.co.uk>]

On Wednesday 09 October 2002 02:03, Hassan S. Rabe wrote:
> Hi Ray,
>
> have a suggestion at this point...instead of
> having all the configuration values for all the interfaces steppermod,
> freqmod, stgmod...etc, in one file.ini, why there won't be a configuration
> dialogue Box that has several pages, each one of theses pages deal with a
> certain mode and has all the variables that need to be changed even connect
> the variables that has some kind of a relationship. 

umm ..  and if you are trying to modify the .ini on a machine without X ? and 
if you know what you want to do but cant get the GUI to do it without it 
upsetting something else? I dislike GUI's for simple tasks such as this.

Personally I prefer munging the .ini by hand ... Most of the problems arise 
out of having a 'generic' .ini with half the stuff not used etc etc .. whats 
really needed is in the emc.ini file  sections such as 

[INCLUDE steppermod.ini]

where steppermod.ini contains only the required parameters for that module, 
freqmod.ini for that module etc, this would also allow basic working setups 
to be distributed with emc for each type of module and if done correctly, you 
should be able to just [INCLUDE ... ] the one you want to try with some 
degree of success.

this would mean that the ini was split over several files (which has its 
problems) but most of the problems Ive seen on the list relate to confusion 
over what does what and whats not used.  If split into several files the 
appropriate information could be included in a comment adjacent to the 
paramter with what it actually does in that module ( see the Apache 
httpd.conf for a very good example of this style )

 a simple bit of Perl could be written to 
analyse the files and issue warnings  

WARN baz is more than 10 times foo/bar at line 12 of stepermod.ini

etc. I did begin updating the documentation , but work has got in the way 
(again) ... 

-- 
Robin Szemeti