CatchVideo()

[WolfgangS]

CatchVideo()
It would complete the Catch... commands.

MFG
WolfgangS

[Kendrel]

would it? i dont think so...

iam not quite sure, but i think its also not possible to include mp3 or mod files as binary... sure it would be a cool thing.

[WolfgangS]

would it? i dont think so...

iam not quite sure, but i think its also not possible to include mp3 or mod files as binary... sure it would be a cool thing.

Indeed! Just my friendly suggestions here ....
CatchModule(), CatchOGG()*, CatchFile(), CatchDll, ... does anyone have more ideas ?


MFG
WolfgangS



* Who needs mp3 ? Don´t forget you have to pay (2.50 US$ ?) if you sell your program with a build in mp3 decoder 8O

[Kendrel]

having all that catch commands would be indeed a great thing... but i dont think it is that easy or even possible to have a command like catchdll()...

ofcourse this would be very nice to include the OGRE dll into the pb exe... what a nice thing... or fmod... or bass... awesome!

[Amiga5k]

Instead of having all these catch commands, how about having an additonal (optional) parameter for commands that show\play\etc data which is the memory location of the data to be used? For example, now if I BinaryInclude some gfx, and use CatchImage, the image takes up space in two places: the original include location and the new buffer area allocated by the Catch... command. Why not allow the gfx\sound\etc commands to use this data directly?

example:

Code: Select all

Result = LoadImage(#Image, FileName$,?gfxLabel)

The third parameter here is optional. In this case, FileName$ would be ignored and there would be no actual 'loading' as it is already loaded. Only some information would be gathered (filetype, depth, etc).

Is this possible, or is there a OS-restrictive reason it couldn't be done?

Russell
Russell

[Amiga5k]

When you say CatchDll, I presume you are wanting to have a Static library (like asm, c\c++, etc)? Well, PB already uses static libraries of sorts. It's not 'visible', but it is included with your exe.

Including a dll in your exe would not change anything except make the dll unuseable by outside applications and reduce the number of files in your distributable. Most people these days expect more than a few files to be included with their programs, so it's no big deal.

If, on the other hand, YOU are the author of the dll, you can elect to compile the dll in with your source code if you like (if it's written in PB, of course )

Russell