[.Dare Devil.]

So what you wish to do is cut one big plugin into .inc files?

[klippy]

Originally Posted by .Dare Devil. So what you wish to do is cut one big plugin into .inc files?

Nope, it will be just a header file for querying some stuff with sockets, and I just didn't want to create another plugin that will be required for subplugins to work. All it is needed now is just to include that file and that's it. And it's not big, it only has like 250-300 lines. And I think I got it to work with creating one-plugin forwards. All that forward has to do is inform the plugin that query response has arrived.

[fysiks]

tl;dr

Originally Posted by KliPPy Hello there, I was wondering if it is possible to call a function in a plugin from included file. If you don't understand what I mean by that, here's an example.

That is counter-intuitive and not what include files are used for. Include files should be completely independent from the code within the plugin that is using the include file. If you do, then you create a circular dependency (an infinite loop so to speak).

[klippy]

Originally Posted by fysiks tl;dr That is counter-intuitive and not what include files are used for. Include files should be completely independent from the code within the plugin that is using the include file. If you do, then you create a circular dependency (an infinite loop so to speak).

Yeah, I know what include file's role, but I was just curious about this one... So I am using one-plugin forward now and it works flawlessly.

[Backstabnoob]

Did you try your code? I don't know if stock functions have any specific access, but since the included file is basically copied to the source code, it will work unless stock doesn't have access to the function. If it compiles, it will work.

Either way, not using stock will work just fine. I don't know what you're trying to achieve, but it doesn't seem like you need to use a stock to begin with.

[klippy]

No, I haven't tried calling a function from include file, and the fact that include file is entirely copied to plugin source is the reason I thought about this. But I already switched it with one plugin forward.
My goal is to create all within one include file, so putting one more plugin on a server is unnecessary. I know it may sound strange and is probably not a standard, but whatever, I like it the way it is now.

[Backstabnoob]

The main problem with that approach is re-defining symbols. You are unable to use forwards as they might be re-defined in the plugin file itself, but if you got around that then it doesn't really matter.

[klippy]

Well most of the things in my .inc file are static, or not accessible out of the include file scope. The only things visible to other plugins are functions which users should use, so symbol redefinition shouldn't be a problem.