More wishes...

[mark smit]

Hello,


1. extend inline assembler to support new PIII opcodes.
2. allow calling API functions with inline asm (see example)
3. Please "fix" the editor, I have lost too much code...


example(PIII opcodes):

  cmov[xx] instructions
  etc...

example(calling API):

  asm mov eax,hWnd
  asm push eax
  asm mov eax,ps
  asm push eax
  asm call BeginPaint

------------------
Cheers

[Florent Heyworth]

hi mark

2. allow calling api functions with inline asm:
this works fine already - try it and see - using asm in pb
you can call any functions, including the api.

[update]oh, just re-read your post - i see what you mean -
you can't call the function by name in asm - at the moment you
have to call the address of the function. i'm so used to doing
this that i oversaw that's what you wanted. it'd be a useful
shortcut.

look at
or http://www.powerbasic.com/support/pb...ad.php?t=17604
for an example

cheers

florent



[this message has been edited by florent heyworth (edited october 04, 2000).]

[Tom Hanlin]

Updating the IDE is a priority for us. If you have specific complaints or suggestions, please make them.

------------------
Tom Hanlin
PowerBASIC Staff

[Andreas Maskow]

Originally posted by Tom Hanlin:
Updating the IDE is a priority for us. If you have specific complaints or suggestions, please make them.

- A project window/explorer would be nice
- Some 'Intellisense' as well (including type members, function parameters...)
- I personally don't need a visual designer, but there should be a better external resource editor
(please skip the necessity to edit the resource files before they can be used...)
- Could the IDE use a temporary copy for compile/run, so one can save the file manually when desired?

Regards

Andreas



------------------

[Andreas Maskow]

More wishes...

Banale, but important : Allow userdefined background color.
I'd also like an option to have the entire screen for coding.
An improved (!) version of PowerGen as part of the IDE.

By 'improved' I mean:
- Not only scanning resource files, but more dialog based ( a 'wizard' )
- Easy reuse of code/application templates ( = static libs, right? )
- Keeping track of the changes already made.
- ( Dream on ... )

Currently, PowerGen eats your code when you sleep...

Conclusion :
More project orientation, a bit less typing. Functionality.
But no irritating 'visual' toys.

PB's IDE has always been poor ( then such a compiler ... ).
I think it's not THAT bad - you can write very good code in it .
Personally, I liked the one in DOS. Would always use it instead
of Vi ( ... :^) )

Andreas


------------------

[mark smit]

Hello again,


I would like to add one more thing to my wish list...


Allow the use of brackets around the parameters in a subroutine
call. for example

mysubroutine(var1, var2)

This is already supported but you have to put the keyword "CALL"
infront of your subroutine. I think these brackets clean up the
code and make it easier to read.

What do you guys think?

------------------
Cheers

[Lance Edmonds]

Mark, the CALL statement casts the code firmly into "statement" format. Likewise, omitting the parentheses does this too, by using the sub/function name as the "statement".

However, omitting the CALL keyword and including the parentheses implies "function" format, and this syntax is confusing... it's appearance would suggest the line of code was missing a trailing expression. It may also make the compiler job a harder in determining the purpose of the line if referencing an [possibly undeclared] array or is actually a call to a Sub/Function. Conversely, it may look like the line is missing a leading assignment operator.

ie,

mysubroutine(var1, var2)

implies a trailing operator and expression:

mysubroutine(var1, var2) [i]= some_expression[/i]

or is missing an assignment operator:

[i]Variable = [/i]mysubroutine(var1, var2)

IMHO, allowing this type of syntax would lead to greater confusion. That said, I'll still pass these sugestions to R&D... it is their place to decide based on the ideas merits/disadvantages.

To help me out here, can you tell me a good reason (or reasons) why this type of syntax would be beneficial? Thanks!

------------------
Lance
PowerBASIC Support
mailto:[email protected][email protected]</A>

[Paul Dwyer]

For the new IDE I'd like to see a display or read-ahead for function types.

VB does this via a tool tip type windows but it could be be displayed in the status bar or whatever.
The IDE would have read the INC files for Declare statements and when you type

x = MyFunction(

the IDE lets you know what data types the funtion is expecting, so if you forget the order of prarmeters for the INSTR() fucntion or the BitBlt() API then they will display when you press the "(" key.

Also a way to track projects so that you are encouraged to split a large program into multiple .inc and .bas files. I mean in a way that you can access them easily like a docked/removable window. having lots of .bas files open everywhere is annoying.



------------------

Paul Dwyer
Network Engineer
Aussie in Tokyo
(Paul282 at VB-World)

[mark smit]

Lance, I understand your point of view but putting brackets around
the parameters of a subroutine does appear cleaner. Here is an
example...

MySubroutine varptr(buffer), StatusFlags, OtherVariable

MySubroutine (varptr(buffer), StatusFlags, OtherVariable)

I dunno, maybe its just me and my old habbits. Would it really
hurt to put this into the compiler? With all the other changes
requested like OOP it sounds like the compiler parsing logic
would have to undergo some recoding anyway.

While we are on the topic of compiler internals, How hard would
it be to allow calling API function from inline assembler code
link this?

asm mov eax,PS ;push PAINTSTRUCT onto the stack
asm push eax
asm mov eax,HDC ;push the device context onto the stack
asm push eax
asm call BeginPaint

------------------
Cheers

[Lance Edmonds]

Anything is possible... I'll pass the request along. An answer to "How hard..." would only be possible by an R&D team member (if they are permitted to discuss such questions that is )

------------------
Lance
PowerBASIC Support
mailto:[email protected][email protected]</A>

[Dave Crowell]

(forget I posted this, I was brain dead)


------------------
Dave
http://www.davidcrowell.com

[This message has been edited by Dave Crowell (edited October 06, 2000).]