How Much $$$ ?

BackupUser · Post by **BackupUser** » Fri Jan 10, 2003 10:01 pm

Restored from previous forum. Originally posted by JohnDeHope3.

I would like to know how much I would have to pay in order to get these features added to PureBasic. I would like to be able to just send the guys a check and have them put my issue at the top of the list of items for the next release. How much would this cost...

1. Require Variable Declaration
There must be a line of code something like "Dim name.s = "toad"" or the compiler throws an error. This could optionally be turned off with a checkbox in the Compiler Options dialog, but would be on when the software is initially installed.

2. Structures Without Pointers
I'd like the compiler to assume that structures being passed into procedures as parameters are having their address passed in, without me having to specify this in code. I'd also like to see procedures assume that their parameters (when they are structures) are pointers, without me having to specify this in the procedure heading. Basically, I want to program in PurseBasic without having to ever hear the word "pointer" unless I really, really need to.

3. "." Instead of "\"
How much would it cost to replace the "\" operator with a "."?

4. Multidimensional Arrays In Structures
I'd like my structures to be able to hold multi-dimensional fixed-size arrays.

BackupUser · Post by **BackupUser** » Fri Jan 10, 2003 10:20 pm

Restored from previous forum. Originally posted by tranquil.

Oh dear God, I fully agree to your first point!

Tranquilizer/ Secretly!
http://www.secretly.de
Registred PureBasic User
System: Windows 2000 Server, 512 MB Ram, GeForce4200 TI 128 MB DDR, Hercules Theater 6.1 DTS Sound
System 2: Mobile Pentium 4 2.4GHz 512 MB DDR GeForce4 420-32, Windows XP Home

BackupUser · Post by **BackupUser** » Fri Jan 10, 2003 10:38 pm

Restored from previous forum. Originally posted by TheBeck.

I support your first point too, but my second point would be 64, 80 and 128 bit math.

BackupUser · Post by **BackupUser** » Sat Jan 11, 2003 12:38 am

Restored from previous forum. Originally posted by tinman.

If you want to know the cost or whether Fred would do this, you are best asking him directly by email, or trying to catch him on the PureBasic IRC channel and chatting privately with him. He is the author of PureBasic so there's not many people on the forum who could answer that

--
It's not minimalist - I'm increasing efficiency by reducing input effort.
(Win98first ed. + SP1, PB3.40)

BackupUser · Post by **BackupUser** » Sat Jan 11, 2003 1:14 am

Restored from previous forum. Originally posted by Paul.

All of the above would have to be optional because some of us have been using PureBasic for a few years now and are quite comfortable (not to mention have quite a number of applications written) with the current syntax.

----------
Visit the PB Resources Site at http://www.reelmediaproductions.com/pb

BackupUser · Post by **BackupUser** » Sat Jan 11, 2003 4:07 am

Restored from previous forum. Originally posted by ricardo.

"." Instead of "\"
How much would it cost to replace the "\" operator with a "."?

Yes, im agree. Its difficult to read/write it with the slash.

I cant offer money, but i hope there is some way (or some tutorial) on how to call Activex from PB. Until now i dont get how to do it.

One wish:
That some of the extraordinary coders here develope some add-ons (shareware) that adds some features.

Best Regards

Ricardo

Dont cry for me Argentina...

BackupUser · Post by **BackupUser** » Sat Jan 11, 2003 10:43 am

Restored from previous forum. Originally posted by plouf.

i should agree to Paul since there are ppl
feel confortable with old syntax and a lot more
have lots sources that way written
btw strings need no Dim

Christos

BackupUser · Post by **BackupUser** » Sat Jan 11, 2003 10:55 am

Restored from previous forum. Originally posted by fred.

It won't cost anything to add all that, but I have to agree for all your points

. Let's see:

1) It's an explicit variable declaration. What I'm thinking of is the following:

Var.l ; will be ok, as type is specified
Var2 = 12 ; Not ok, as no type specified and not declared before.

This allow to catch spelling mistake if you don't use the type at the end of each variable each time. Will be optional of course (Explicit switch)

2) Not agree at all. Pointer and regular variables aren't the same at all, and if you need to use a pointer when passing a structured parameter, simply use a pointer.

3) "." is already for type declaration, so I can't change it like that..

4) ok, I put it on my list.

Thanks for all the suggestions !

Fred - AlphaSND

BackupUser · Post by **BackupUser** » Sat Jan 11, 2003 11:12 am

Restored from previous forum. Originally posted by tranquil.

Var.l ; will be ok, as type is specified
Var2 = 12 ; Not ok, as no type specified and not declared before.

Nice Idea to do it that way. So everybody can mix it if you need a temp variable inside a loop that does not need to declared again and again.

Mike

Tranquilizer/ Secretly!
http://www.secretly.de
Registred PureBasic User
System: Windows 2000 Server, 512 MB Ram, GeForce4200 TI 128 MB DDR, Hercules Theater 6.1 DTS Sound
System 2: Mobile Pentium 4 2.4GHz 512 MB DDR GeForce4 420-32, Windows XP Home

BackupUser · Post by **BackupUser** » Sat Jan 11, 2003 5:49 pm

Restored from previous forum. Originally posted by geoff.

chr(36),chr(36),chr(36) ..... IC no Q ?

sorry John, just joking

BackupUser · Post by **BackupUser** » Sat Jan 11, 2003 8:59 pm

Restored from previous forum. Originally posted by JohnDeHope3.

Thanks guys/fred for answering my post. I appreciate the feedback. I got 2 out of 4 requests so I feel very powerful now. I'm glad to hear other folks are as eager for explicit variable declaration as I am.

BackupUser · Post by **BackupUser** » Sun Jan 12, 2003 1:46 am

Restored from previous forum. Originally posted by vanleth.

The Nr. 1 issue from john is clearly my favorite. It would fix half of all my typing errors and troubles. Those thick glasses I wear ain't as reliable as a prober syntax parser.

B.t.w. First post here, cheers