LISTSERV at the University of Georgia
Menubar Imagemap
Home Browse Manage Request Manuals Register
Previous messageNext messagePrevious in topicNext in topicPrevious by same authorNext by same authorPrevious page (June 2003, week 1)Back to main SAS-L pageJoin or leave SAS-L (or change settings)ReplyPost a new messageSearchProportional fontNon-proportional font
Date:         Wed, 4 Jun 2003 20:25:34 +0200
Reply-To:     Lex Jansen
              <lexDOTjansenATlex-jansenDOTdemonDOTnl@CRONKITE.CC.UGA.EDU>
Sender:       "SAS(r) Discussion" <SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
From:         Lex Jansen
              <lexDOTjansenATlex-jansenDOTdemonDOTnl@CRONKITE.CC.UGA.EDU>
Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
Subject:      Re: 93 macros and counting

Peter,

From experience (sasv8.2, WinNT): concatenation of libraries allow use of more than one compiled macro catalog. These macro catalogs all have to be named SASMACR.

LIBNAME _mcgen "your first folder with a SASMACR catalog" ACCESS=READONLY; LIBNAME _mcstat "your second folder with a SASMACR catalog" ACCESS=READONLY; LIBNAME _mstore (_mcgen, _mcstat) ACCESS=READONLY; LIBNAME _mcgen CLEAR; LIBNAME _mcstat CLEAR; OPTIONS MSTORED SASMSTORE=_mstore ;

Lex Jansen

"Peter Crawford" <Peter@CrawfordSoftware.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:ZJoumDA$6a3+Ewa9@crawfordsoftware.demon.co.uk... > Stretch a little > 1 locking in a macro library is ineffective if you want to be able > to run macros in stream ! > That includes _all_ autocalling of macros as well as straight code. > 2 noMautoSource option might be better, (disallow autocall of macros) > but it needs to be accompanied by sasMstore= the option to indicate > the libname hosting your sasmacr catalog of pre-compiled macros > I haven't tested, but concatenation of libraries, might allow use > of more than one compiled macro catalog. > 3 option mfile won't give you macro source, but it does give the > code generated (while option mprint is switched on) > > > Any decision on the choice for these issues should surely be separated > between at least, development and production. (The standard IT rule) > Surely validation, FDA-style does not relate to code development, but > only to the production of results. > I think the SAS System offers support to both. > It is the _use_ of the system that the FDA appear to wish to regulate, > and validate, not its capabilities. > > In this way, although very important for satisfactory code development, > options source2 and mlogic might cease to be necessary in production, > if these modules and macros are implemented to report to the log > certain fingerprint information which would validate themselves. > I may be overstating any potential saving here. If a utility macro is > called 1000 times, must it report its fingerprint 1000 times ? > > > This is not a completed framework of ideas. I just hope I've given some > more food for thought...... > > Regards > Peter Crawford > > > > Roland <roland@rashleigh-berry.fsnet.co.uk> writes > >"mlogic" gives you rather too much. If there were a system option just to > >give you the macro source then that would be great. Also if there were some > >way to lock in a macro library so the programmer couldn't change it if they > >wanted too then that might come in useful. The logs have to be saved so > >having a million lines of mlogic in them would waste disk space and make the > >logs hard to read. > > > >"Peter Crawford" <Peter@CRAWFORDSOFTWARE.DEMON.CO.UK> wrote in message > >news:ob7CSDAzLI3+Ewdt@crawfordsoftware.demon.co.uk... > >> But Roland, > >> > >> the mlogic tells you where (path and file name) the macro came from ! > >> Do they wish to distrust everything, including code already "validated"? > >> > >> Roland <roland@rashleigh-berry.fsnet.co.uk> writes > >> >They are going in the direction of having to > >> >validate everything themselves (including SI-supplied macros) and so it > >is > >> >easier for them and preferable to have all their autocall members in one > >> >place and verified during a production run. They also want to write to > >the > >> >logs the exact source of any macro called as part of this. It gets > >> >complicated... > >> > > >> How about a second stage job in the production run. It would start a > >> validate stage to parse the sas log from first stage, verifying > >> that : > >> all includes (origin provided by option source2) and > >> all autocall-ed macros (origin given by option mlogic) > >> are from trusted sources. > >> That sounds quite do-able, and much more flexible than just one > >> sasautos! > >> -- > > > > > > -- > Peter Crawford > > available for SAS consultancy contracts >


Back to: Top of message | Previous page | Main SAS-L page