Date:         Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:55:06 -0600
Reply-To:     Jack Hamilton <JackHamilton@FIRSTHEALTH.COM>
Sender:       "SAS(r) Discussion" <SAS-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>
From:         Jack Hamilton <JackHamilton@FIRSTHEALTH.COM>
Subject:      Re: %include versus SAS Autocall Facility
Comments: To: sasuser@GUILDENSTERN.DYNDNS.ORG
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

You don't have to change all the includes, just the definition of the
filename used as the aggregate storage location in the %include
statement.

That definition might itself be in a %include that goes at the top of
every program, but you'd need something similar to define the autocall
library anyway.  You could define it in the autoexec or config file
instead, but that makes tracing the source of the macros more
difficult.




--
JackHamilton@FirstHealth.com
Manager, Technical Development
Metrics Department, First Health
West Sacramento, California USA

>>> "Real SAS User" <sasuser@GUILDENSTERN.DYNDNS.ORG> 06/20/2003 4:07
PM >>>
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...