"Kenny McCormack" <gazelle@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:fnqakf$903$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In article <w8OdnW_bj7XFQwLanZ2dnUVZ_qiinZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> rex <rex@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> ...
>>Kenny
>>Picking up your comment on using the Tawk.dll, I have always been
curious
>>on
>>how to use this Tawk feature.
>>I have Tawk and use it constantly at work for really big mine model
>>files --- i.e pre & post-processing millions of lines in mining block
>>files
>>made by expensive software.
>>I look at the Tawk documentation and can't get any traction on how to
uses
>>it as a DLL. I've always thought that it would be really
>>cool use in that way. Any hints would be appreciated.
>>Regards,
>>Rex
>
> "How" is relatively straightforward - you just have to slog through the
> documentation (which is in the "ERRATA" file) and figure it out. You
> (obviously) have to be familiar with the underlying C idioms and all.
> Note that there is (at least) one error in their "C" example; I had to
> work with it a bit to get that example to work. You also have to be
> familiar with the basic architecture of how TAWK works - in particular,
> that you have to compile your AWK script to the ".ae" format (with -xa),
> then use the ".ae" file with the DLL.
>
> "Why" is the much more interesting question. For me, the times that
> I've done this (and there's only been a few actual apps where I've done
> it), it has always taken the form of having developed a prototype of
> what I want to do in AWK, using AWK to do what it does best, which is
> massage strings and files - then wanting to wrap some kind of GUI around
> the prototype. For that sort of thing, I use WinBatch, which is a very
> nice language, but weak in string and file handling. So, I can then
> write the main program in WB, and call my AWK program as a subroutine.
>
> As I say, the primary motivation has been in the form of having
> developed the idea in AWK, and then not wanting to re-write it in some
> other language.
>
> HTH. I'm certainly willing to discuss further, if you have specific
> questions.
>
Kenny
Thanks for graciously offering your time and insight on this. It will be
awhile before I get
out from under my work load to play with new ideas. I'll keep your kind
offer of assistance in
mind. Awk and in particular Tawk does most of what I need to do in flat
file
manips. At times I will
use OORexx to drive Excel and AutoCad from behind the scenes and then
compose awk programs to process files.
I like this method because each subprocess can tested before the whole
thing
is wrapped up together.
I try to place enough comments along the way so that I can much later
duplicate the steps that were taken.
As I was writing that last sentence, I began to think that maybe having
the
awk scripts in readable form is not such a bad idea.
A compiled program is a black box.
Regards.
Thanks again
Rex
|
