WinBatch® Technical Support Forum

All Things WinBatch => WinBatch => Topic started by: JTaylor on March 23, 2021, 07:58:09 PM

Title: Extenders - Number of Functions
Post by: JTaylor on March 23, 2021, 07:58:09 PM
What is the current rule on function limits in an extender?   I know years ago it was around 128(?) and one could, with a minor bit of effort, run over if trying to use too many extenders in a script.  I believe that was raised but was curious, for obvious reasons.  Would love to have one extender to maintain but that would be a significant number of functions.

Thanks.


Jim
Title: Re: Extenders - Number of Functions
Post by: td on March 23, 2021, 09:57:52 PM
You can find it here https://www.winbatch.com/winbatchversions.html#WB2014A (https://www.winbatch.com/winbatchversions.html#WB2014A) just before the "New Functions:".
Title: Re: Extenders - Number of Functions
Post by: td on March 23, 2021, 10:20:45 PM
It would be remiss to not also mention that you can find the information in the Consolidated WIL Help file:

https://docs.winbatch.com/mergedProjects/WindowsInterfaceLanguage/html/WILAK_A__004.htm (https://docs.winbatch.com/mergedProjects/WindowsInterfaceLanguage/html/WILAK_A__004.htm)
Title: Re: Extenders - Number of Functions
Post by: JTaylor on March 24, 2021, 07:08:08 AM
Never crossed my mind that this info would be in the Help File.

Thanks and apologies for asking about something I could have answered.

Jim
Title: Re: Extenders - Number of Functions
Post by: td on March 24, 2021, 09:05:43 AM
No apology is necessary.  Just like to show off when we actually have something documented.  FWIW, the 2021A release contains a new approach to extender function lookups that significantly reduces the performance impact of a large number of extender functions loaded into the interpreter's function table.

Title: Re: Extenders - Number of Functions
Post by: JTaylor on March 24, 2021, 09:59:38 AM
Excellent.   Probably will combine everything then so as to, hopefully, make maintenance and distribution easier.

Thanks again.

Jim