| Date: | Sat, 21 Jun 2003 00:07:42 +0100 |
|---|
| Reply-To: | Real SAS User <sasuser@GUILDENSTERN.DYNDNS.ORG> |
|---|
| Sender: | "SAS(r) Discussion" <SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU> |
|---|
| From: | Real SAS User <sasuser@GUILDENSTERN.DYNDNS.ORG> |
|---|
| Subject: | Re: %include versus SAS Autocall Facility |
|---|
| In-Reply-To: | <001701c33740$02c73470$296438a6@wcomnet.com> |
|---|
| Content-Type: | text/plain; charset=us-ascii |
|---|
on Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 08:24:15AM -0700, Jeff Voeller (c-jeff.voeller@MCI.COM) wrote:
> On Friday, June 20, 2003 6:27 AM, Jennifer R. Holdcraft wrote:
>
> > My co-workers main reason for wanting the %include is that he
> > says it is nice for documentation purposes, because
> > at the top of the program you have all of the %includes
>
> Quibble: You *can* have everything at the top, but you certainly don't
> *have* to. As long as the %include occurs before the macro is called,
> everything runs fine. If that's 3000 lines into the program, it's still not
> a problem.
>
> Personally, I find using the autocall facility "cleaner" and
> every-so-slightly easier. Being able to call a macro without first having
> to %include it just means less typing and maintenance.
Not to mention changing embedded %INCLUDEs in 5,993 separate source
files.
My vote goes with autocall.
--
Charming man. I wish I had a daughter so I could forbid her to marry one...
|
