[eCompile] Unused include file

[Xadhoom]

You mean you don't want to know if one of your include in unused in one of yours .src files Yukiko?
Even if an unused include doesn't make you ecl bigger, if you modify that include it causes your script to recompile also if not needed.
Ecompile already checkes if function inside an include are used or not, display a warning would not raise your compile time.

[Yukiko]

First, I don't care if a script recompiles or not. Compiling scripts isn't a big time concern of mine. Frankly I am impressed at the efficiency of ecompile. So that makes little difference to me.

Second, I am tired of seeing all those "unused variable" warnings in the ecompile output. I don't want another, in my humble opinion, unnecessary item cluttering up the output from ecompile.

Third, I am not convinced that having an unused include file causes any inefficiencies in POL executing the compiled files. I can see where an unused variable would take up space unnecessarily in the shards data files but unused includes seem to only take up space in the source files and appear to have no adverse effects on the world data file size or script execution.

[Xadhoom]

Maybe if you compile 20 scripts isn't a big time, if you have to recompile more then one thousand it is
As already Silver said, it would be more useful to add a line in the .dep files than having a warning, althought if you can see warnings in the ecompile you can go editing the script (removing the unused include) ad you'll never see it again, easy, no?

Having unused include files DOES NOT causes inefficiencies during execution of POL, but it can take lot of time when compiling scripts

[Marilla]

[Xadhoom]

Not all shards have only one scripter that works on all scripts. If i'm insure of an include into one script i can remove it and check if it compiles, but doing it for every include in every script is way longer than looking for what ecompile already does.
I repeat it: what ecompile already does
It wouldn't take hours to write in the .dep if the include is used because the functions are already checked, if no function is checked the include is useless.
We're asking for a feature, you already said that if implemented it would be useless to you, like other features are for us. I think we already explained why we want or not this to be implemented, now it's up to the developers

[Marilla]

[Yukiko]

Quoting Marilla:
"I don't know of any shards that have only one scripter."

You do now Marilla unless you count the scripts I have borrowed/used from other shards. For most of the life of Hope Lives I have been the sole scripter.

As for the number of scripts and ecompile time...

Output from the last ecompile of my shard:
Compilation Summary:
Compiled 1127 scripts in 141781 ms.

Now unless I am mistaken that's a 141 second compile time or just over two minutes and twenty seconds. I'd say that's not a major delay for 1,127 programs compiling.

There is one thing I think would be neat but only for the sake of curiosity. I wish ecompile gave a total count of all lines compiled in the summary. It would be for nothing else than curiosity. But that's another topic.

[Developer Silver]

[Marilla]

[Developer Silver]

Try to put an useless include in a .src file: the generated .dep file will list that file anyway.
This means: ecompile already looks for every included file, so it could be easy and fast to track which .inc are really used (while it parses .src file) and which ones are not.

We're asking a feature to improve our compiling optimization, not to slow down yours, obviously.

If a dev will tell that this could slow down ecompile performance, never mind.

[Marilla]

[Marilla]

[Marilla]

[Yukiko]

This looks like a function better suited to some other scripting language. Maybe Perl or some text parsing language like Perl. If I understand Perl's capabilities a script could be written to parse all src files and check for includes not referenced by those files or their includes.

[Xadhoom]