 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nigel Stewart wrote in message <38CE3356.F0445117@nigels.com>...
> Why can't I get an instant list of all everywhere that
> a certain variable is modified, or a function called?
> The compiler figures out all this information but
> doesn't use it for useful things. C++ programmers
> are trapped all day in this klunky ASCII view of
> their problem.
Why don't you check out some of the capabilities of Microsoft Visual C++
1.0? It has all this information immediately available to the programmer.
Mark
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Tor Olav Kristensen <tor### [at] hotmail com> wrote:
: With a mouse one can do copy and paste of long expressions
: quite fast. But for systems without a pointing device I see
: that the problem could cause a lot of keyboard hammering.
To me it's often easier and faster to copypaste with the keyboard than
with the mouse. This is specially true when the zone to paint is larger
than the current screen.
--
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> for j = 1 to 10 step 1
>
> for i = 1 to 10 step 1
>
> if (i = 4) and (j = 2) and keypressed(E or e) then i = 2 and j =
> 4
>
> next i
>
> next j
A nice example of obscure programming. However, computer
science is not about protecting programmers from their
own stupidity.
--
Nigel Stewart (nig### [at] nigelscom)
Research Student, Software Developer
Y2K is the new millenium for the mathematically challenged.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Why don't you check out some of the capabilities of Microsoft Visual C++
> 1.0? It has all this information immediately available to the programmer.
Unfortunately, you get what Microsoft gives you - which isn't very
much. The advantage with meta data is that you choose, control and
configure and the tools that generate it.
--
Nigel Stewart (nig### [at] nigelscom)
Research Student, Software Developer
Y2K is the new millenium for the mathematically challenged.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <38D07115.B40CDB15@ij.net>, Matt Giwer <jul### [at] ijnet>
wrote:
> What is a platform specific editor?
SimpleText. Note Pad. The POV-Ray Mac editor. MPW. BBEdit. Need any more?
> And why care as this is source code discussion?
Because adding a += feature would require the modification of the source
code, would not be dependant on editor features, and would be completely
platform independant?
> OK, you don't have a control key you can't do ^esdx but that is a
> separater issue. I know of no editor insisting upon an alt key that
> produced plain ascii output. If you are trying to make MS Word your
> code editor ...
Huh? I don't really understand what your point is...
Those appear to be key combination commands...you do know that they vary
from editor to editor and not all are supported on many editors, don't
you?
I repeat, an editor feature is not a good substitute for a language
feature.
Oh, and Macs *do* have a control key. I have never seen a keyboard
without one(well, except for the old Tandy COCO II and Commodore 64, and
maybe the Apple IIe, which predated the Macintosh line). :-)
--
Chris Huff
e-mail: chr### [at] yahoocom
Web page: http://chrishuff.dhs.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <38D07402.45F7A093@ij.net>, Matt Giwer <jul### [at] ijnet>
wrote:
> Which HAS TO BE platform independent else parser variations
> where they are totally unnecessary. And platform dependent
> parsers ... there is no reason for that in POV I can see. And
> then where would cross compilers be if source were not identical?
What? You seem to be arguing the same point I am...I never said the
parser would be platform dependant. I said:
> ... auto-completion is an editor-dependant feature, and thus
> platform dependant, and so it is a bad substitute for a language
> feature.(which would be completely platform independant)
--
Chris Huff
e-mail: chr### [at] yahoocom
Web page: http://chrishuff.dhs.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <38D07D01.441B3BE3@ij.net>, Matt Giwer <jul### [at] ijnet>
wrote:
> for i = 1 to 5
> ...
Wrong for loop. I suppose I should have said I meant C-like loop. Try:
#for(COUNTER INITIALIZATION; CONTINUE CONDITION; COUNTER MODIFICATION)
...
#end
This is well defined, and more flexible. And doesn't have the problems
you mention:
1: Initialization, which sets the initial state of the variable.
2: The test for the continue condition. If it evaluates as true, the
body of the loop is executed.
3: The counter modification. This can do something as simple as
incrementing the variable. Then you jump back to step 2.
> The lack of typing is a weakness that C folks love. (I will get
> around to testing it some day but I think I have seen a problem
> with #decare i = 1 and #declare i = 1.0 that has solved a loop
> problem. I won't swear to it.) But if all variables are
> automatically signed four bytes then it is not an efficient
> engine.
I don't think the lack of typing has ever caused an error for me, but it
does make it troublesome to read and write some code. One reason for the
C-SDL idea, my version of which would be more strongly typed than
POV-Script.
> > The ++ and -- operators would not fit in the current syntax of POV,
> > so you can forget about them.
>
> I have no problem with those than inc and dec. But is it going
> to be int + 1 or float + 1? But since it is not a typed language
> again all the clarity of C and Forth is possible.
It would be value + 1.
What would their syntax be? Remember that POV requires a #declare or
#local, changing this would mean changing the entire declaration syntax.
What I said was that adding them would be impossible *without changing
the declaration syntax*.
I would actually like to see the ability to modify existing variables
without using a special command, or at least with a specialized #set
command which would give an error for undeclared identifiers. I don't
know how likely this is to happen, though...
> > So we should drop the #switch, #macro, and #while features and add #goto
> > and #label? And get rid of #local while we are at it...
>
> There is an old saying, "All things are simple to those who do
> not have to do it themselves." I am of the KISS school.
> #local is required when folks jump out of loops and such.
But there is no need for loops, you could just use #goto! Keep it
simple, remember? Why have #switch, #macro, and #while when all you need
is #goto?
And no, I am not serious about this. I really do think adding #goto
would be a bad idea. I am just saying your argument against adding #for
loops("One simple routine that can do everything is quite good enough.")
doesn't make much sense.
> Most of my issue has been on alternatives to #while. I gave an
> example on for ... next as opposed to while. If the answer to for
> ... next is to make it behave the same was while, why is there a
> need for for ... next?
Well, first, it shouldn't be BASIC-style for...next, but more C-style
#for()...#end.
> There is an issue of clarity. Clarity to who? To the author?
> Clarity and familiarity are identical.
Clarity to the author and anyone who wants to read it.
> Clarity to others? Axiom of programming. Uncommented code is
> unclear to others. Axiom the second. Commented code is likely
> unclear to others.
What?
Uncommented code can be confusing if it isn't well written with
well-chosen variable names and a fairly simple structure.
Well commented code is almost always much more clear(except in the
simplest cases). I wouldn't have made much progress in the POV source
without the comments.(although most of the comments seem to be
incomplete/missing)
--
Chris Huff
e-mail: chr### [at] yahoocom
Web page: http://chrishuff.dhs.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 16 Mar 2000 16:33:23 -0500, Chris Huff
<chr### [at] yahoocom> wrote:
>Oh, and Macs *do* have a control key. I have never seen a keyboard
>without one(well, except for the old Tandy COCO II and Commodore 64, and
>maybe the Apple IIe, which predated the Macintosh line). :-)
The Apple IIe had a control key. It even had two functional keys (F1
and F2).
Peter Popov
pet### [at] usanet
ICQ: 15002700
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chris Huff wrote in message ...
>Oh, and Macs *do* have a control key. I have never seen a keyboard
>without one(well, except for the old Tandy COCO II and Commodore 64, and
>maybe the Apple IIe, which predated the Macintosh line). :-)
I seem to recall the Commodore 64 having a "Control" (well, actually a
"CTRL") key.
Mark
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <38d1f259$1@news.povray.org>, "Mark Wagner"
<mar### [at] gtenet> wrote:
> Chris Huff wrote in message ...
> >Oh, and Macs *do* have a control key. I have never seen a keyboard
> >without one(well, except for the old Tandy COCO II and Commodore 64, and
> >maybe the Apple IIe, which predated the Macintosh line). :-)
>
>
> I seem to recall the Commodore 64 having a "Control" (well, actually a
> "CTRL") key.
Hmm, I think you are right...and I think the Apple IIe had a "Control"
key.
--
Chris Huff
e-mail: chr### [at] yahoocom
Web page: http://chrishuff.dhs.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
