 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
hi,
attached is the 'nocomment' utility.
note that it will not cope with nested comments.
enjoy, jr.
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'nocomment.tar.gz' (1 KB)
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
(I'm definitely showing my ignorance here...)
This looks to be VERY useful-- if I could figure out how to use it ;-)
'Makefile' etc. is new to me.
Here's what I've done so far:
1) I used the 7-Zip app to extract the file; the result is a folder named
"nocomment.tar/", with a single file named "nocomment.tar"
2) I then used 7-Zip again to extract that file; the result is a folder named
"nocomment", which contains a single file named "nocomment" (although, 7-Zip
issued a warning: "Cannot open the file as [tar] archive. The file is open as
[gzip] archive". But I ignored that.) I don't see a "Makefile" file there, if
that's supposed to be included as well.
Correct so far? That's as far as I've gotten(!) What do I do with the
"nocomment" file to make the magic work?
(I'm running 64-bit Windows 7 Ultimate, and POV-Ray 3.7.1 beta 9)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
hi,
On 12/10/2017 07:42, Kenneth wrote:
> (I'm definitely showing my ignorance here...)
> This looks to be VERY useful-- if I could figure out how to use it ;-)
> 'Makefile' etc. is new to me.
> Here's what I've done so far:
> 1) I used the 7-Zip app to extract the file; the result is a folder named
no. "*.tar.gz" is nothing to do with .zip.
> "nocomment.tar/", with a single file named "nocomment.tar"
> 2) I then used 7-Zip again to extract that file; the result is a folder named
> "nocomment", which contains a single file named "nocomment" (although, 7-Zip
> issued a warning: "Cannot open the file as [tar] archive. The file is open as
> [gzip] archive". But I ignored that.) I don't see a "Makefile" file there, if
> that's supposed to be included as well.
> Correct so far? That's as far as I've gotten(!) What do I do with the
> "nocomment" file to make the magic work?
> (I'm running 64-bit Windows 7 Ultimate, and POV-Ray 3.7.1 beta 9)
sorry, my bad. forgot to state it's for GNU/Linux systems, although, if
you do run something like 'cygwin' or 'mingw', that should work too.
I can resend the two files as separates if that helps.
regards, jr.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
hi Kenneth,
adding to my previous reply.
On 12/10/2017 07:42, Kenneth wrote:
> (I'm running 64-bit Windows 7 Ultimate, and POV-Ray 3.7.1 beta 9)
I do not have any Windows development tools. however, there are some
"regulars" here who do, perhaps one of them will step in?
> I can resend the two files as separates if that helps.
if you can lay your hands on a Microsoft compiler (Visual Studio is free
for personal use), I can send you the (generated) 'C' source file so you
can build your own.
hth.
regards, jr.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
jr <cre### [at] gmail com> wrote:
>
> sorry, my bad. forgot to state it's for GNU/Linux systems, although, if
> you do run something like 'cygwin' or 'mingw', that should work too.
>
:-(
Well, there are two routes I can go (or both, if I ever have the time!):
Learning to use cygwin, and/or learning to use Visual Studio-- both of which are
Greek to me at the moment, sad to say. (I've never 'compiled' anything-- very
embarrassing.) But I *have* been trying to familiarize myself with what both of
those tools do, per your suggestion :-) I've recognized for a long time that I
need to 'bite the bullet' and learn how to write and compile at least *small*
programs (on Windows)--to get my feet wet, so to speak, and to banish that
daunting feeling of "Oh, that looks to be SO hard." Of course, that's the way I
felt when I first came across POV-Ray-- which now seems easy and natural!
Practice, practice, practice...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 14/10/2017 13:42, Kenneth wrote:
> jr <cre### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>
>>
>> sorry, my bad. forgot to state it's for GNU/Linux systems, although, if
>> you do run something like 'cygwin' or 'mingw', that should work too.
>>
>
> :-(
>
> Well, there are two routes I can go (or both, if I ever have the time!):
I had a third route. It was to wait for you to work it out and get a
crib from you. ;-)
Since I read your post I thought I had better give it a go myself.
I downloaded Cygwin setup-x86_64.exe and installed it.
When I ran the installed program I then had to work out how to change
the directory to where the Makefile an .c file were. (Use "/" instead of
"\". E.g. $ cd F:/tga2df3_2/tga2df3_2 ($ is the prompt)
Then just type make and wait for the errors. They were caused by Cygwin
not automatically downloading everything. So reinstall over the original
installation and try again. Repeat and rinse until you get no errors and
the exe is created. It worked but took me a couple of hours.
So that is my crib. :-)
The files were from jr but not nocomment. it is a file for creating df3s.
Google, Google, Google,
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 14/10/2017 18:19, Stephen wrote:
> The files were from jr but not nocomment. it is a file for creating df3s.
Just for practice I compiled nocomment. It runs in a DOS box BTW
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'nocomment.zip' (55 KB)
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 14/10/2017 18:32, Stephen wrote:
> On 14/10/2017 18:19, Stephen wrote:
>> The files were from jr but not nocomment. it is a file for creating df3s.
>
>
> Just for practice I compiled nocomment. It runs in a DOS box BTW
>
>
>
Drat! It needs this dll in your m/c's path or the directory you are using.
Still learning.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'cygwin1.dll.dat' (3077 KB)
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
>
> I had a third route. It was to wait for you to work it out and get a
> crib from you. ;-)
Ha!
hey, thanks for working this out! I may just give it a try-- after consulting my
Greek translation book ;-) And Googling some more, of course...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
hi,
On 14/10/2017 13:42, Kenneth wrote:
> jr <cre### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> sorry, my bad. forgot to state it's for GNU/Linux systems, although, if
>> you do run something like 'cygwin' or 'mingw', that should work too.
> Well, there are two routes I can go (or both, if I ever have the time!):
> Learning to use cygwin, and/or learning to use Visual Studio-- both of which are
> Greek to me at the moment, sad to say. (I've never 'compiled' anything-- very
I see that Stephen has already provided "the way in" for cygwin.
if you were to use VS, from what I remember (quite a few years back
:-)), the process boils down to (a) create a new project, command-line
program type, (b) open (import?) the 'C' source file, and (c) click the
icon to make ("build") the project.
> embarrassing.) But I *have* been trying to familiarize myself with what both of
> those tools do, per your suggestion :-) I've recognized for a long time that I
> need to 'bite the bullet' and learn how to write and compile at least *small*
> programs (on Windows)--to get my feet wet, so to speak, and to banish that
> daunting feeling of "Oh, that looks to be SO hard." Of course, that's the way I
> felt when I first came across POV-Ray-- which now seems easy and natural!
> Practice, practice, practice...
and soon you'll wonder why you waited so long.. :-)
regards, jr.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
hi,
On 14/10/2017 18:32, Stephen wrote:
> Just for practice I compiled nocomment. It runs in a DOS box BTW
thanks.
fwiw, I had a look at the zip and am a bit perplexed by the size of
executable. until I read your "drat!" follow-up (:-)) I'd thought that
nocomment.exe had not been compiled for dynamic linking; 164K vs 15K on
my machine, nearly 11 times larger.
I think cygwin has strip(1) installed, you can run
$ strip -s nocomment.exe
without impairing functionality, and hopefully the respective sizes will
compare better. (compiling w/out optimisation options too would leave
it larger)
regards, jr.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 14/10/2017 21:41, Kenneth wrote:
> Stephen <mca### [at] aolcom> wrote:
>
>>
>> I had a third route. It was to wait for you to work it out and get a
>> crib from you. ;-)
>
> Ha!
Took me a month to get round to it. So thanks for a kick up the
bahookie. ;-)
>
> hey, thanks for working this out! I may just give it a try-- after consulting my
> Greek translation book ;-) And Googling some more, of course...
>
>
It was about time I learned the very basics. :-)
How I would run it, at first. (I've not tried to make it fail.)
Create a directory. Copy cygwin1.dll, nocomment.exe and my_file.pov there.
Open cmd.exe at the directory (In the LH panel of your browser, Shift +
right click and "Open Command window here. At least in Win7) That opens
a DOS command window.
Type nocomment my_file.pov then enter.
The program created nc_my_file.pov
I've not really tested it other than running one Pov file through it and
that probably did not have any /* ... */ comments.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 14/10/2017 22:06, jr wrote:
> hi,
>
> On 14/10/2017 18:32, Stephen wrote:
>> Just for practice I compiled nocomment. It runs in a DOS box BTW
>
> thanks.
>
> fwiw, I had a look at the zip and am a bit perplexed by the size of
> executable. until I read your "drat!" follow-up (:-)) I'd thought that
> nocomment.exe had not been compiled for dynamic linking; 164K vs 15K on
> my machine, nearly 11 times larger.
>
> I think cygwin has strip(1) installed, you can run
>
> $ strip -s nocomment.exe
>
> without impairing functionality, and hopefully the respective sizes will
> compare better. (compiling w/out optimisation options too would leave
> it larger)
>
I'll give that a try later. <- When he is sober. </Stephen's better self>
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 14.10.2017 um 14:42 schrieb Kenneth:
> jr <cre### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>
>>
>> sorry, my bad. forgot to state it's for GNU/Linux systems, although, if
>> you do run something like 'cygwin' or 'mingw', that should work too.
>>
>
> :-(
>
> Well, there are two routes I can go (or both, if I ever have the time!):
> Learning to use cygwin, and/or learning to use Visual Studio-- both of which are
> Greek to me at the moment, sad to say. (I've never 'compiled' anything-- very
> embarrassing.) But I *have* been trying to familiarize myself with what both of
> those tools do, per your suggestion :-) I've recognized for a long time that I
> need to 'bite the bullet' and learn how to write and compile at least *small*
> programs (on Windows)--to get my feet wet, so to speak, and to banish that
> daunting feeling of "Oh, that looks to be SO hard." Of course, that's the way I
> felt when I first came across POV-Ray-- which now seems easy and natural!
>
> Practice, practice, practice...
Windows 10 users might also be able to resort to the "Windows subsystem
for Linux"; from what I've heard, as of the Fall Creators Update it's an
official part of the system. (Prior to that it was an optional
beta-stage component that required separate installation.)
The subsystem is effectively an Ubuntu system, and is confirmed ok for
compiling and running POV-Ray, so it should be good enough for
"nocomment" as well.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
hi,
On 15/10/2017 17:13, clipka wrote:
> The subsystem is effectively an Ubuntu system, and is confirmed ok for
> compiling and running POV-Ray, so it should be good enough for
> "nocomment" as well.
does it have flex(1) installed?
regards, jr.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 15.10.2017 um 18:54 schrieb jr:
> hi,
>
> On 15/10/2017 17:13, clipka wrote:
>> The subsystem is effectively an Ubuntu system, and is confirmed ok for
>> compiling and running POV-Ray, so it should be good enough for
>> "nocomment" as well.
>
> does it have flex(1) installed?
I don't get anything for "man flex", so apparently it's not installed,
but "apt list flex" lists "flex/xenial 2.6.0-11 amd64", so apparently
it's available.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
hi,
On 15/10/2017 18:20, clipka wrote:
> Am 15.10.2017 um 18:54 schrieb jr:
>> does it have flex(1) installed?
> I don't get anything for "man flex", so apparently it's not installed,
> but "apt list flex" lists "flex/xenial 2.6.0-11 amd64", so apparently
> it's available.
thanks.
> Windows 10 users might also be able to resort to the "Windows subsystem
> for Linux"; from what I've heard, as of the Fall Creators Update it's an
> official part of the system. (Prior to that it was an optional
> beta-stage component that required separate installation.)
given that you're a quote Windows Jockey with said subsystem in place +
working, it'd be nice if you could verify that 'nocomment' will indeed
build, since Stephen has already demonstrated that the cygwin route does
work.
regards, jr.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> I don't get anything for "man flex", so apparently it's not installed,
You should work out more. ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 14/10/2017 22:06, jr wrote:
>
> I think cygwin has strip(1) installed, you can run
>
> $ strip -s nocomment.exe
>
> without impairing functionality, and hopefully the respective sizes will
> compare better. (compiling w/out optimisation options too would leave
> it larger)
>
Attached is the shrunken file. 16k
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
Attachments:
Download 'nocomment.zip' (7 KB)
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
hi,
On 15/10/2017 19:14, Stephen wrote:
> On 14/10/2017 22:06, jr wrote:
>> $ strip -s nocomment.exe
> Attached is the shrunken file. 16k
phew. :-) thanks.
and 'tga2df3_2'? ~9.5K here.
regards ,jr.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
jr <cre### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> > Windows 10 users might also be able to resort to the "Windows subsystem
> > for Linux"; from what I've heard, as of the Fall Creators Update it's an
> > official part of the system. (Prior to that it was an optional
> > beta-stage component that required separate installation.)
>
> given that you're a quote Windows Jockey with said subsystem in place +
> working, it'd be nice if you could verify that 'nocomment' will indeed
> build, since Stephen has already demonstrated that the cygwin route does
> work.
>
> regards, jr.
May do, provided I find the time.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 16/10/2017 11:05, clipka wrote:
> jr <cre### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>>> Windows 10 users might also be able to resort to the "Windows subsystem
>>> for Linux"; from what I've heard, as of the Fall Creators Update it's an
>>> official part of the system. (Prior to that it was an optional
>>> beta-stage component that required separate installation.)
>> given that you're a quote Windows Jockey with said subsystem in place +
>> working, it'd be nice if you could verify that 'nocomment' will indeed
>> build, since Stephen has already demonstrated that the cygwin route does
>> work.
> May do, provided I find the time.
heh. here's what I read:
> ... provided I find the time.
I used to run a Xubuntu box for a while (back in the Pentium age) and
know /exactly/ what you mean. apt-getting flex, getting 'nocomment'
from the server, typing make would have taken me, uh, I don't know, two
and a half minutes? I mean, who in today's world has that much time on
their hands?
> May do, ...
'may' to me means "hadn't given it any thought yet", understandable
since the utilities likely aren't of any interest to you.
however, I cannot fathom why you're so keen to tell about the wonderful
"Windows subsystem for Linux" -- twice -- with all the "might"s and
"should"s, when not even yourself is using it for the purpose you
suggest. is that a "Windows thing"?
regards, (perplexed) jr.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Am 16.10.2017 um 16:56 schrieb jr:
> On 16/10/2017 11:05, clipka wrote:
>> jr <cre### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>>>> Windows 10 users might also be able to resort to the "Windows subsystem
>>>> for Linux"; from what I've heard, as of the Fall Creators Update it's an
>>>> official part of the system. (Prior to that it was an optional
>>>> beta-stage component that required separate installation.)
>>> given that you're a quote Windows Jockey with said subsystem in place +
>>> working, it'd be nice if you could verify that 'nocomment' will indeed
>>> build, since Stephen has already demonstrated that the cygwin route does
>>> work.
>> May do, provided I find the time.
>
> heh. here's what I read:
>
>> ... provided I find the time.
>
> I used to run a Xubuntu box for a while (back in the Pentium age) and
> know /exactly/ what you mean. apt-getting flex, getting 'nocomment'
> from the server, typing make would have taken me, uh, I don't know, two
> and a half minutes? I mean, who in today's world has that much time on
> their hands?
You're probably right in that once I get around to it, it'll be a matter
of minutes. (Presuming everything goes right.) Probably less time than
it takes me to write this post.
I'm not too good at task switching though. I need to find some moment to
sit back, take a deep breath, do all the little but numerous steps to
prepare for the deed (including getting a clear mental image of what
this task actually involves), and then actually try the compilation.
>> May do, ...
>
> 'may' to me means "hadn't given it any thought yet", understandable
> since the utilities likely aren't of any interest to you.
> however, I cannot fathom why you're so keen to tell about the wonderful
> "Windows subsystem for Linux" -- twice -- with all the "might"s and
> "should"s, when not even yourself is using it for the purpose you
> suggest. is that a "Windows thing"?
Just my personal habit of letting others know stuff I found out about
the world, I guess.
Here's an alternative to cygwin (which used to put me off whenever I
looked at it) & co. to run stuff on Windows, it's quite new and hasn't
been mentioned yet (in this thread about nocomment), I have /some/
experience with it (using it occasionally to build and test POV-Ray for
Linux) and find it darn easy to use --- so why shouldn't I let folks
know that this route /exists/?
It's like, say, overhearing a conversation among sightseeing tourists
pondering how to cross the Rhine river, and discussing which bridge to
take, while I happen to know that there's also a ferry nearby -- why
shouldn't I mention it to them as an alternative? Not that I've ever
taken it myself, but they may still enjoy it; nor do I know /exactly/
where the landing is situated, but they may still be able to find it
themselves once they're aware of its existence. And if they're not
interested in taking a ferry, they're perfectly free to politely decline
the suggestion.
(If on the other hand they start complaining how I even dare suggest
such a thing without trying it out for them first and/or giving them
fully detailed directions, I'd consider that a bit inappropriate.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> I'm not too good at task switching though. I need to find some moment to
> sit back, take a deep breath, do all the little but numerous steps to
> prepare for the deed (including getting a clear mental image of what
> this task actually involves), and then actually try the compilation.
https://georgestocker.com/2014/04/15/how-to-destroy-programmer-productivity/
I love this graph.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
hi,
On 16/10/2017 16:47, clipka wrote:
> Am 16.10.2017 um 16:56 schrieb jr:
>> On 16/10/2017 11:05, clipka wrote:
>>> jr <cre### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>>>>> Windows 10 users might also be able to resort to the "Windows subsystem
>>>>> for Linux"; from what I've heard, as of the Fall Creators Update it's an
>>>>> official part of the system. (Prior to that it was an optional
>>>>> beta-stage component that required separate installation.)
>>>> given that you're a quote Windows Jockey with said subsystem in place +
>>>> working, it'd be nice if you could verify that 'nocomment' will indeed
>>>> build, since Stephen has already demonstrated that the cygwin route does
>>>> work.
>>> May do, provided I find the time.
>> heh. here's what I read:
>>> ... provided I find the time.
>> I used to run a Xubuntu box for a while (back in the Pentium age) and
>> know /exactly/ what you mean. apt-getting flex, getting 'nocomment'
>> from the server, typing make would have taken me, uh, I don't know, two
>> and a half minutes? I mean, who in today's world has that much time on
>> their hands?
> You're probably right in that once I get around to it, it'll be a matter
> of minutes. (Presuming everything goes right.) Probably less time than
> it takes me to write this post.
> I'm not too good at task switching though. I need to find some moment to
> sit back, take a deep breath, do all the little but numerous steps to
> prepare for the deed (including getting a clear mental image of what
> this task actually involves), and then actually try the compilation.
sure, getting well prepared does make all the difference.
>>> May do, ...
>> 'may' to me means "hadn't given it any thought yet", understandable
>> since the utilities likely aren't of any interest to you.
>> however, I cannot fathom why you're so keen to tell about the wonderful
>> "Windows subsystem for Linux" -- twice -- with all the "might"s and
>> "should"s, when not even yourself is using it for the purpose you
>> suggest. is that a "Windows thing"?
> Just my personal habit of letting others know stuff I found out about
> the world, I guess.
> Here's an alternative to cygwin (which used to put me off whenever I
> looked at it) & co. to run stuff on Windows, it's quite new and hasn't
> been mentioned yet (in this thread about nocomment), I have /some/
> experience with it (using it occasionally to build and test POV-Ray for
> Linux) and find it darn easy to use --- so why shouldn't I let folks
> know that this route /exists/?
(I hope) I'm not saying that alternatives oughtn't get mentioned, my
point was/is that such information is relevant ("helpful") only if this
route exists *and* it is a viable route.
> It's like, say, overhearing a conversation among sightseeing tourists
> pondering how to cross the Rhine river, and discussing which bridge to
> take, while I happen to know that there's also a ferry nearby -- why
> shouldn't I mention it to them as an alternative? Not that I've ever
> taken it myself, but they may still enjoy it; nor do I know /exactly/
> where the landing is situated, but they may still be able to find it
> themselves once they're aware of its existence. And if they're not
> interested in taking a ferry, they're perfectly free to politely decline
> the suggestion.
yeah well, it seems our ideas of "helpfulness" do differ somewhat.
using that example, so we (you + I) stand by the river, two bridges
visible in the distance, and we're discussing how to cross.
now a person approaches and tells us that: (a) there's a ferry nearby
though I do not know where exactly, and (b) by the way I've never
actually used it, only similar ferries elsewhere, would, I suggest, not
have "illuminated" us in our "predicament", nor would that person have
inspired my confidence. but, as always, YMMV.
> (If on the other hand they start complaining how I even dare suggest
> such a thing without trying it out for them first and/or giving them
> fully detailed directions, I'd consider that a bit inappropriate.)
no no, I'm quite comfortable with free speech.
jr.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
