#Compiler and conditional compiles

[Cliff Nichols]

I don't disagree with it...but I do disagree with "Just Do IT" and later when you find a situation that it does not work. (Either by design, or mis-use), that you find no documentation as to "Here Is WHYYYYYY it works, and how you go about figuring out why your code does not work"

Which is fine if I think of it as an oil change.

Just Do It = We all change our oil every 3000 miles or so (no question)
Does not work = Something happened, but was it cause I did not change till 3500 one time?
Why Change your oil?? = (Bad Example since we all know oil breaks down, cludges etc...but assume you didn't and could find hardly anything telling you why except to just do it???)
How to fix it??? = Even if I do want to know what I did wrong so I do not do it again...how deep do I want to go? (Do I just want to be informed? or do I want to become a mechanic??? or do I want to become the scientist that created the lubrication???)

[Edwin Knoppert]

Same seems to happen with .NET.
Controls, controls, controls.
Did i mention supurb controls?

And then possibly Silverlight, the flash competitor.
Afaik also .NET based and (thus) highly 'plugable' libraries.

I took a peek on that today, abandoning html seems very viable to me in the future.

[Michael Mattias]

...I am quickly learning why VB hid how a lot of things worked under the hood

That was a deliberate strategy on the part of Microsoft.

And if the goal was to make so easy to use they could sell a bazillion copies, I'd say it was a successful strategy.

MCM

[Cliff Nichols]

Thanks again guys....I would never have thought of looking under %DEF

MCM....I got my copy yesterday, and I LOVE it!!!!

(Although I am quickly learning why VB hid how a lot of things worked under the hood. But glad PB shows not only whats under the hood, but how to use it)
Not too bad once I start piecing together the pieces.

[Michael Mattias]

This is a good example of the hiding technique:

Since %pb_revision is ALWAYS defined, why are its details under %DEF ????

[Michael Mattias]

Look under "equates/Built-in numeric equates' in the index.

PB is pretty good at hiding info which is not a regular verb or statement, but since I've been using their help files since '91 they have to work a lot harder to hide stuff from me now. (But they can still fool me once or twice per release. I'll get 'em with the 5x/9x which I ordered yesterday).


MCM

[jcfuller]

Thank you Edwin,
I can not find %PB_REVISION anywhere in the Help files, but I was able to figure it out due to a search on %PB_REVISION in the forums.

Now that I know it exists, I can go about attempting to use it.

Thanks again.

(Hmmmm I wonder if its something to send to [email protected] ?? or if I just can't find it in the doc's, but it is there????)

%DEF operator in help file

James

[Cliff Nichols]

Thank you Edwin,
I can not find %PB_REVISION anywhere in the Help files, but I was able to figure it out due to a search on %PB_REVISION in the forums.

Now that I know it exists, I can go about attempting to use it.

Thanks again.

(Hmmmm I wonder if its something to send to [email protected] ?? or if I just can't find it in the doc's, but it is there????)

[Edwin Knoppert]

%pb_revision

[Cliff Nichols]

I know you can limit what compiler your code can be compiled under via the #COMPILER metastatement.
But is there a way to detect what compiler someone is trying to compile your code under? That way parts of an INC or Example code would be ignored if the other persons compiler does not meet your requirements?

Like Class Code in PB9, that at compile time would know the user is trying to compile under PB8, so a conditional statement would ignore any of the class code that may be included???