[Implemented] new constant : #String = 4

[Froggerprogger]

Just a simple one:

constant #String

I often need this and define it as 4, because :

Code: Select all

#String = 4
Debug #Byte
Debug #Word
Debug #Long
Debug #Float
Debug #String

[GPI]

Strings doesn't have any fixed length.

But i think you mean the "length" in a structure (for example), but a better name would be:

#Pointer=4

(Strings are special kind of pointers)

[Froggerprogger]

...the variables #Byte, #Word, etc. are not giving the length, but an Type-Identifier:

Atm they are defined as:
#Byte = 0
#Word = 1
#Long = 2
#Float = 3

#String = 4 would make it complete.

I use it often, because for some kind of SortAlgorithms/Queues/Stacks/Trees, etc. I use the following 'Objects' as elements:

Code: Select all

Structure Object
  StructureUnion
    b.b
    w.w
    l.l
    f.f
    s.s
  EndStructureUnion
  type.l
EndStructure

where type.l holds the identifier and may be #Byte, ... , #Float, #String (and #Structure - of course i would love a further identifier #Structure as well, but I think not many people would need this)

[NoahPhense]

...the variables #Byte, #Word, etc. are not giving the length, but an Type-Identifier:

Atm they are defined as:
#Byte = 0
#Word = 1
#Long = 2
#Float = 3

#String = 4 would make it complete.

I use it often, because for some kind of SortAlgorithms/Queues/Stacks/Trees, etc. I use the following 'Objects' as elements:

Code: Select all

Structure Object
  StructureUnion
    b.b
    w.w
    l.l
    f.f
    s.s
  EndStructureUnion
  type.l
EndStructure

where type.l holds the identifier and may be #Byte, ... , #Float, #String (and #Structure - of course i would love a further identifier #Structure as well, but I think not many people would need this)

Why don't you create a .res file with all your customizations in it?

Code: Select all

; my customizations

#String = 4

whatever.pb

Then drop it into the compiler directory, and type:
pbcompiler.exe whatever.pb /RESIDENT whatever.res

Then put that .res file in your /PureBasic/Residents/ folder..

Check out freaks post here:
viewtopic.php?t=7815

- np

[Froggerprogger]

@Noah
Of course I could, I'm just wondering if this could be implemented in PB.
Each of PB's build-in types has it's own identfier - all but string - so introducing #String would make it complete.

[NoahPhense]

@Noah
Of course I could, I'm just wondering if this could be implemented in PB.
Each of PB's build-in types has it's own identfier - all but string - so introducing #String would make it complete.

*edit*
I just meant that until (or if) it gets added, you can always use the
resident file way until then.

- np

[Froggerprogger]

10-4.. that'll keep you going though

Sorry, my English isn't good enough to understand what you wanted to say with this 8O

[blueznl]

wouldn't this only make real sense with a typeof() instruction?

[Froggerprogger]

OK, now I see

I just meant that until (or if) it gets added, you can always use the
resident file way until then.

Yes, I'll do so. But it's not so comfortable for sharing with other's. They would have to 'install' this resident, too, or to define this constant by hand with the same value, which could make complications with so easy names like #String (perhaps they already use it with another value).

This whole theme is no big problem, of course, but I cannot see any reason that is against introducing #String.

wouldn't this only make real sense with a typeof() instruction?

At the moment #String would make 'the same sense' as #Byte, etc. already are doing. But of course a typeof() instruction would be cool in addition, if it would work e.g. on structureparameters, so we could copy a structure.

[freak]

added the #String=4 constant.

Timo

[blueznl]

TypeOf()? pretty pretty please?

[freak]

This is a compiler thing.. you'll have to ask Fred for that one

Timo

[blueznl]

well, if fred feels bored, i happen to have a little wishlist somehwere around here... http://www.xs4all.nl/~bluez/datatalk/pu ... 2_wishlist

not totally sure it's up to date, but at least it's somewhat motivated

[helpy]

TypeOf()? pretty pretty please?

I do not see any sense in this command!

This command makes only sense, if one variable can change its datatype. And this is not possible in PureBasic. It makes sense if there would be a data type "VARIANT" (like in VB, VBA, VBScript, ...), but there is no data type like this in PureBasic.

So, why would you need a comman like TypeOf()?

cu, helpy

[Dare2]

typeOf would be useful, I think. I know I would use it.

Variants would also be nice.

Imagine if we could pass unknown (to the function) arithmetic types as arguments, have the function do a typeOf() and then take appropriate action.

Then we could have doSomething(v) instead of multiple functions like doSomethingLong(v.l), doSomethingFloat(v.f), etc.

Esp. useful for for dlls, libs, etc.

Overhead would be relatively small.