Now This Really Irritates!

[oldefoxx]

I was logged in, tried to search for some help. did not find what I was looking for, and began a new topic.

I got that done, submitted it, was told I had to be logged in first, clicked on the login button, was told I had logged in successfully, and was sent to blank new ropic page. My post was gone. This is really frustrating.

I'm going to cut it down to one sentance:
Please anybody, I would like a plain text file of all the keywords and constants in PB.

Thank you.

[jwrjrjwrjr]

Open PB > Help > Reference Manual > See Overview Title (Lower Right Corner) > Command Index and Pure Basic Constants

[oldefoxx]

You lost me after Reference Manual. There is no "> See Overview Title (Lower Right Corner) " to be seen. Nothing in the lower right corner at all. The only thing that comes close is where it says " UserGuide - Overview" and lower down, "Basic Keywords", which is just a header. Are you talking of another way of looking at Help besides going through the IDE?

I used wine to pull up the pirebasic.chm file, and it is very similar to the view of Help via the IDE. So I am still at a loss.

[Demivec]

Overview about PureBasic Constants

[W4GNS]

Maybe the online doc's would be easier for you to navigate, in the future.
http://www.purebasic.com/documentation/index.html

[Danilo]

Please anybody, I would like a plain text file of all the keywords and constants in PB.

- Keyword list
- Capitalisation of keywords
- GetPBInfo - get constants structures procedures interfaces

[Dude]

You lost me after Reference Manual. There is no "> See Overview Title (Lower Right Corner) " to be seen. Nothing in the lower right corner at all.

[Vera]

I used wine to pull up the purebasic.chm file

To me the *.chms don't work well under wine.

I have installed KCHM-viewer (for KDE) under Linux which works good. [Better searchresults than under windows ] It is very likely that you can find other CHMviewers that run with your desktop manager.

Sure this won't help to call the pb.chm from within /wine/pbIDE but it will allow you an independend help-access aside from wine or Linux-pbIDE-help, which is good to have anyway

[oldefoxx]

Maybe the online doc's would be easier for you to navigate, in the future.
http://www.purebasic.com/documentation/index.html

This was a good tip. I pulled it up last night, and while it's the same thing as I have already, the font size is remarkably bigger and easier to read.

That's one thing I've found odd in operating systems to date: You change the window size by dragging the borders or corners, you merely change the viewpoint of what is being displayed. What's being displayed remains the same. Why didn't they give you the option to display the same area and just make it the display bigger or smaller? Like zoom, but controlled with the mouse. Or zoom built in to every window.

If course there is the issue that much of what is displayed is in pixels, a digital dot-for-dot representation of the graphical world that we are part of, and with pixels, you scale up in a doubling, tripling, or quadrupling the number of pixels used along the horizontal and vertical planes. You have vectoring, which handles scaling much better, but so much of our electronic word is the former rather than the latter. How do you deal with that?

The answer may be to make the pixels ever smaller, but that isn't working out ao well when it means ever smaller representations of what we already have stored for viewing. I think there has to be a combining effect, where you take into consideration the original size of the displayed image and superimpose that original size onto the present pixel structure in a blending, layering kind of way.

Sounds fanciful, but what you are really trying to do is move away from a focus on pixels as rhe primary mode in defining a image back to a point where its outer dimensions are used instead. You know how much real estate you want the picture or text to cover, and the underlying hardware/sofware renders it it terms of closest pixelcounts when mapped to the screen. I don't know the algorithm needed, but the thing you can do in cirtcutry is ramping, a graduated effect between two distinct variances, such as two voltages, or in this case, two points across an image.

And if you don't have it in hardware, you might have to fall back on software to serve the same purpose. It's a matter of using floating point representations for integer values, and making tweaks at juncture points where the differences are minor, while keeping the distinctiveness of borders wjere the differences are sharpest. Then you take this graduation and distinctiveness and map it to the pixels that occupy that same region.

What we have is a situation where taking something small and making it larger brings distortion and fuzziness with it. You may have to apply factal math on the presumption that what you saw before represents what you would see up close as well. I'm just guessing here, I am certainly no expert or hands-on person in these areas.

Just some idle thoughts, simply because I could not make a help file large enough to read well, and appreciate the link provided as an alternative approach.

[blueb]

Just some idle thoughts, simply because I could not make a help file large enough to read well, and appreciate the link provided as an alternative approach.

You can fetch the PDF file from PureBasic... then zoom in at will.

http://www.purebasic.com/documentation/PureBasic.pdf

[oldefoxx]

Thank you. I just downloaded it. But I'm having a problem with the GetPBInfo.pb program. I had the impression I just had to compile it and run it. And it finished quickly.

But as far as I can tell, it did nothing. I'm trying to go through it now and figure out what it did do. It looks like I should have got some Debug messages with different counts, as reported by other users. I didn't see those. It should have produced some *.pb files. That didn't happen.

It's a sharp, structured, and well thought out program, and I know it ran to a point, because it asked me to turn off a compiler option. Am I just missing something here? It might take me a good while to tinker with it and try different things in an effort to puzzle it out, and I just decided to ask.

[Danilo]

@oldefoxx:
You need to save the source, enable debug, and enable to create the temp executable in the source directory -
otherwise the output files are somewhere in %TEMP%.

Code: Select all

    If CreateFile(0,GetPathPart(ProgramFilename())+"Constants.pb")

And, of course:

Code: Select all

#Compiler = #PB_Compiler_Home+"compilers\pbcompiler.exe"

exists only on Windows.

[oldefoxx]

I'm still lost. I changed it as you said and tried to compile with Debugger and Compile/Run, and see nothing. It's over in an instant. No files produced, No counts. And I have no idea what %TEMP% is or what it is set to. A find command in the terminal dies not turn up any matches.

You are not talking my language. Dumb it down a notch or two. I haven't anything to compare this to, that I can use as a starting point, except compiling other example programs, something I am vaguely familiar with.

Now this I recognize. You are generating Constants.pb in the same directory as the source code for GetPBInfo.pb was saved to. So I checked, and GetPBInfo.pb is there, but the others are not. I'm stumped. I can try to run it in other environments to see if that makes a difference or not.

Okay. It compiled and ran under Windows XP. Here are the results:
STARTING 5.31 PureBasic 5.31 (Windows - x86)
READY
found 684 structures
found 1603 procedures
found 15106 constants
found 2111 interfaces
DONE.

I don't think these numbers match up with others' results, but at least some progress has been made. Now let me get the code over to my other laptop and see what happens there. Now where would I find the lists where all the results appear?

[oldefoxx]

I could not get thr IDE to run on my 2nd laptop, so downloaded the compressed file from purebasic.com again and reinstated it. But it complained I had the wrong compiler and would not load along with the IDE, which did start. I used uname -a and confirmed that i had GNU/Linux x86-64. I will look at that again later.

I downloaded the 32-bit Windows version and installed it on a VM Win2kPro client, then tried the program there. Again. as with XP, it worked:
STARTING 5.31 PureBasic 5.31 (Windows - x86)
READY
found 684 structures
found 1603 procedures
found 15106 constants
found 2111 interfaces
DONE.

I tried the program on another Linux 64-bit install of PB 5.31, and again, the program produced no output. I'm going to try it on my one remaining install of 32-bit Ubuntu

Okay, I tried it on the 32-bit version of Ubuntu, and this produced no results either..

[Danilo]

On Linux, there is probably no #PB_Compiler_Home+"compilers\pbcompiler.exe".
I wrote it on Windows only. Don't know if the compiler interface is the same on other OS.

On Windows, the generated files are in the same directory as the source, if the directory is writeable
and if you use the compiler option '[X] Create temporary executable in the source directory'.

If you can't find that option, change the line:

Code: Select all

If CreateFile(0,GetPathPart(ProgramFilename())+"Constants.pb")

to a fixed path, like:

Code: Select all

If CreateFile(0,"D:/Constants.pb")

Same for the other CreateFile() lines.

The numbers of constants and structures found are different for different PB versions, because new constants
and structures get added sometimes.

Beside that, it may very likely break with future version of PB, when ASCII compilation gets removed, etc.