PureBasic Forums - English

swhite wrote:Hi

Coming from a dynamic language background where it never mattered what order the procedures were in I initially found it a nuisance to remember to put the procedures in order. However as mentioned here the rule is very simple and easy to remember and I have adjusted to it quickly so it is no longer an issues for me and I have only been programming in PB for a few months.

If I were to take feature from Power Basic I would take the ability to "Define Classes"

Simon

I wholeheartedly agree with this. Although I know it won't happen.

Well.. It may be a shot in the dark, but I stumbled upon this in google recently.

It's a paper discussing OOP concepts realized in PB. I don't know what version of PB it is based on, however, and if it would even work with the current release.
But I found it to be an interesting read nevertheless.

http://drac.site.chez-alice.fr/Tutorial ... uoi_en.htm


edit: It would appear this paper is from 2005. Although for those truly interested in working OOP concepts into PB, perhaps a good starting ground for your own projects.

Zach wrote:edit: It would appear this paper is from 2005. Although for those truly interested in working OOP concepts into PB, perhaps a good starting ground for your own projects.

On the subject of OOP, there is also this guide by srod.

This topic ist still open.
A (optional?) second Pass so no declares are needed any more.

Well, the answer Fr34k said to your initial request still stands, it's not easy to do ir right and will lead to more complex code at the end. Just use Declare() at your program top and it will be OK.

There are people who made a small "program" that will collect all procedures and make a "declares" file?
If just this would be included in the compiler, the problem would be solved.

Eventually it could even be included in the IDE (transparent)?
I don't see any complexity in here, if there are people who can make it themselves with a small addon.

>You can make manually DECLARE statements ..

Yes, but this is an additional (useless) work, that needs to done by the compiler.
Its like that anywhere else. Thats just the point.
Why do I need to do that if it can be done automatic?

Hi,

simply do it, use it and everything is fine.

I think someone had written such a tool already.

Bernd

PB is not JavaScript!

I don't want to throw some procedures around and let the compiler organize my stuff.

You don't need to declare variables in the header of a procedure like in Pascal; that's enough freedom.

Btw., FreeBasic has a scope block as keyword (SCOPE); that's nice, too; it let's You declare a local scope block anywhere You want.

I like to list all the procs in a declaration section and let the compiler lookup any typos in a fraction of a second!

SINGLE-PASS! SINGLE-PASS!

This is a very prominent feature of PureBasic with built-in advantages, as pointed out by Fr34k. With time and experience you will learn to accept these things.

Lets see what time and experience will bring.
Coming from PowerBasic, that was a "Singel Pass Compiler" before version 8 i really know both sides of the medal.

Besides that, of course PureBasic is good as it is.
We are just in the "Tell me your wish" section of the forum - thats why.

newtheogott wrote:Lets see what time and experience will bring.

I'll tell you the answer now so you don't have to wait: probably nothing will happen.

People have been requesting a double-pass compiler for 13 years (since February 2003):

http://www.purebasic.fr/english/viewtop ... f=3&t=4994

So I'm 99% sure it's not going to happen.

Dude wrote:...
I'll tell you the answer now so you don't have to wait: probably nothing will happen.

People have been requesting a single-pass compiler for 13 years (since February 2003):

http://www.purebasic.fr/english/viewtop ... f=3&t=4994

So I'm 99% sure it's not going to happen.

PB has a single pass compiler, hasn't it?
So what should happen when requesting a single pass compiler?

As he said "Nothing".
But who knows.
Maybe Freds GF will one day tell him that she leaves him if he doesn't make it a (optional) second pass?
Who knows the future

Lord wrote:PB has a single pass compiler, hasn't it?
So what should happen when requesting a single pass compiler?

So I made a fucking typo.