In article <3980ECAB.761DB51F@hotmail.com>, Pabs <pab### [at] hotmailcom> 
wrote:

> Do any other IDEs have the equivalent of MSVC's Source Browser & 
> ClassWizard functions.

It would help if you described what those features *are*.
MetroWerks CodeWarrior has a class browser which allows you to 
graphically browse the class heirarchy and look at class members, and 
has a nifty feature which allows you to find definitions/implementations 
of #defines, structs, classes, and functions by simply highlighting a 
word in the source code and popping up a contextual menu. There are 
probably several other features of this sort in CodeWarrior, but I 
haven't used them much.

-- 
Christopher James Huff - Personal e-mail: chr### [at] maccom
TAG(Technical Assistance Group) e-mail: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
Personal Web page: http://homepage.mac.com/chrishuff/
TAG Web page: http://tag.povray.org/

Post a reply to this message

Chris Huff wrote:

> In article <3980ECAB.761DB51F@hotmail.com>, Pabs <pab### [at] hotmailcom>
> wrote:
>
> > Do any other IDEs have the equivalent of MSVC's Source Browser &
> > ClassWizard functions.
>
> It would help if you described what those features *are*.

Source browser is like this.
When you compile a project M$VC saves all definitions & references of all
symbols to a browse file.  You can then bring up a list of these and for
functions call & callers lists & for classes & structs members lists & (I
think) inheritance lists.

> MetroWerks CodeWarrior has a class browser which allows you to
> graphically browse the class heirarchy and look at class members, and
> has a nifty feature which allows you to find definitions/implementations
> of #defines, structs, classes, and functions by simply highlighting a
> word in the source code and popping up a contextual menu. There are
> probably several other features of this sort in CodeWarrior, but I
> haven't used them much.

Classwizard is similar to what you describe & to Source browser but it is
more dynamic in that you don't need to recompile to find variables, structs
etc.

Both are a little deficient when it comes to defines & typedefs

--
Bye
Pabs

Post a reply to this message

Pabs wrote:

> Both are a little deficient when it comes to defines & typedefs

So is the autocomplete function.

--
Bye
Pabs

Post a reply to this message

Thorsten Froehlich wrote:

> typedef struct Frame_Struct FRAME;
>
> struct Frame_Struct
> {
>   CAMERA *Camera;
>   int Screen_Height, Screen_Width; /* OPTIONS */
>   int Number_Of_Light_Sources;
>   LIGHT_SOURCE *Light_Sources;
>   OBJECT *Objects;
>   DBL Atmosphere_IOR, Atmosphere_Dispersion, Antialias_Threshold;
>   COLOUR Background_Colour;
>   COLOUR Ambient_Light;
>   COLOUR Irid_Wavelengths;
>   IMEDIA *Atmosphere;
>   FOG *Fog;
>   RAINBOW *Rainbow;
>   SKYSPHERE *Skysphere;
> };
>

Hmm....this looks like a good foundation for the basic "scene" object that I
think should be the proxy class (object) for the whole scene in an
OO-version...

(think java)

public class scene{
  povCamera camera;
  povObject objects[];
  // everything is an object - light sources too, for example
  povIniOption ini_options;
  double initial_clock, final_clock, clock;
  povAtmosphere atmosphere;
  povFog fog;
  povSkysphere sky_sphere;
  public class image{
    int width, height;
    outputType output_type;
    // etc.
  }
  // etc.
}

This way, the scene object encapsulates everything regarding the scene to be
rendered, and it feels logical to write lines as these:

scene.image.width
scene.camera.look_at
scene.atmosphere
scene.sky_sphere
..
#if (scene.current_frame=scene.ini_options.initial_frame) ... #end // new one,
that...
#declare scene.objects[0].scale = foo;
#if(scene.camera.look_at=myFoo.location) ... #end

Well, hope I'm not the only one who sees the possibilities here...sorry for
being OT.

----------------------------------------------------
Mikael Carneholm, B.Sc.
Dep. of Computer Science and Business Administration


Personal homepage:
http://www.studenter.hb.se/~arch
E-mail:
sa9### [at] idautbhbse

Post a reply to this message

Btw, good OO design says that you DON'T put member attributes in the public
part of a class.
  Just a side note :)

-- 
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):_;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/

Post a reply to this message

In article <399d1d63@news.povray.org> , Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg>  wrote:

>   Btw, good OO design says that you DON'T put member attributes in the public
> part of a class.
>   Just a side note :)

And just as another side note:  What is the difference between a struct and
a class only containing public data members...?


     Thorsten


____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde

Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org

Post a reply to this message

Thorsten Froehlich wrote:
> 
> And just as another side note:  What is the difference between a struct and
> a class only containing public data members...?

None.

Markus

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:

>   Btw, good OO design says that you DON'T put member attributes in the public
> part of a class.
>   Just a side note :)
>

Yep, that's right....but I (personally) do not think that any "project" in POV
will be large enough to require information hiding, which was (if I remember
correctly) the reason for inventing encapsulation. I don't think any POV user
would like having to write

#if(MyObject.getLocation()=scene.getCurrentCamera().getLookAt())
  MyObject.setLocation(fubar)
#end

...at least I know _I_ wouldn' t like it. I don't know about you, of
course....would you? :)

----------------------------------------------------
Mikael Carneholm, B.Sc.
Dep. of Computer Science and Business Administration


Personal homepage:
http://www.studenter.hb.se/~arch
E-mail:
sa9### [at] idautbhbse

Post a reply to this message

Thorsten Froehlich wrote:

> And just as another side note:  What is the difference between a struct and
> a class only containing public data members...?
>

As long as you don't want to inherit from that class: none....

:)

----------------------------------------------------
Mikael Carneholm, B.Sc.
Dep. of Computer Science and Business Administration


Personal homepage:
http://www.studenter.hb.se/~arch
E-mail:
sa9### [at] idautbhbse

Post a reply to this message

In article <399D27CE.F6D3DC58@ida.utb.hb.se> , Mikael Carneholm 
<sa9### [at] idautbhbse>  wrote:

>> And just as another side note:  What is the difference between a struct and
>> a class only containing public data members...?
>>
>
> As long as you don't want to inherit from that class: none....

Exactly, so why would it make any difference if it is a class or a struct?

After all, this is the idea behind the rewrite of POV-Ray 4.0:  it is not
about calling every struct "class" now, as a matter of fact a lot of code
has to be changed to provide proper encapsulation.  And this is the major
problem in the current POV-Ray core code <sigh>


     Thorsten


____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde

Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org

Post a reply to this message