enhanced macro functions #2

[hellhound66]

It would be cool, if there would be a compiler directive to check, if a parameter is given to the macro or not.

example:

Code: Select all

Macro Test(_Test1,_Test2=#NULL)
  compilerif DefinedParameter(_Test2)
     debug "Test has two parameters"
  compilerelse
     debug "Test has one parameter"
  compilerendif

If that's not possible i would like to see strings to be possible in compiler directives.
example:

Code: Select all

  #Hallo = "TEST"
  Compilerif #Hallo = "TEST"
   ...

In that way I could solve the first problem like this:

Code: Select all

Macro DQ
    "
EndMacro

Macro Test(__TEST=0)
    CompilerIf DQ#__TEST#DQ<>"0"
    Debug "TEST"
    CompilerEndIf
EndMacro

Test()  ;debug output "TEST"
Test(*Event) ; no debug output

[hellhound66]

PUSH [Thread]
POP [Forum]

[freak]

Bumping a ton of old threads only decreases your chances of us taking your requests seriously...

[hellhound66]

Affirmative.

Question?
Is it because you behave like a little child or is there a serious explanation?

/edit: I could open a new one with the same content, if that would be better.

[Trond]

How old are you hellhound66?

[freak]

Affirmative.

Question?
Is it because you behave like a little child or is there a serious explanation?

/edit: I could open a new one with the same content, if that would be better.

This is the same as a family going on a trip by car, and the child asks "are we there yet" every 5 minutes.
It is not me here behaving like the child...

[Henrik]

/edit: I could open a new one with the same content, if that would be better.

Well you could piss up against the wind too.

[rsts]

We shouldn't have to concern ourselves with this anymore -

Snip

@Myself:
My summary:
- There are several people who wants OOP in PB. The others who don't want it, start a flame war on "we want native OOP in PB"-threads.
- The generated code of PB is relatively slow.
- I don't think the compiler isn't well programmed. I come to this conclusion due to some weird answers of Fred.
- I don't like many of the community. They think they are so divine.
- I'm in enough to switch over to C++.

Good bye, community

[remi_meier]

You can't even imagine, what a great loss hellhound66 is to the community,
you don't know him and you don't have the right to judge him.

But yes, just spread his words to malign him, it doesn't interest him anymore.

[thefool]

At least he had the honor to leave with a happy smile :/
I do understand him though. That OOP flaming was very childish. Even for me..

[fsw]

@hhound66
If you still read this topic: Rather than using C++ try D.
I'm using GDC 0.22 with partial (stripped down) MinGW.
Total install is 12Mb and it's working great so far (using libphobos).

[Brice Manuel]

I do understand him though. That OOP flaming was very childish. Even for me..

Seriously, what thread were you reading? The ONLY people flaming were the couple of people from the German board moaning for OOP over and over again when they already know the answer to their question.

[PB]

Agreed. It's as though they thought the constant whining would make Fred
give up and agree to it. I think the problem is that Fred has been so liberal
with taking suggestions that some people think he has to do anything they
ask, which isn't the case. Paying for PB doesn't mean they own the right to
demand features, especially when said features have been clearly stated
will NOT appear. The sooner they learn that, the better.

[thefool]

I think the problem is that Fred has been so liberal
with taking suggestions that some people think he has to do anything they
ask, which isn't the case.

While some people think they can restrict Fred from doing something they don't like? Of course they can ask for it. If Fred says a clear no, then they should accept it.

The ONLY people flaming were the couple of people from the German board

I'm sure i could dig up some pretty rough comments from all of you. Especially Kale.. I didn't even think he could be so mean

But i agree, they were just as bad with the jerky comments :/

What side am i on? thanks for asking. I don't know. really, i don't. I use pb for some professional commercial-grade robot/pneumatic controlling for a company here, and it does do the job, and its damn fast to write the code in it. Im developing large(yes, large.) shareware app's in pb with another guy these day's, and that goes on pretty well too, even though we don't have OOP to manage this big a project. All it took was a little planning on our source structure, and here we go! One of the projects is soon available for you hehe

So no, I don't need OOP in purebasic. Agreed it would be fun to play with classes and so on, but i find purebasic very productive right now. If i needed OOP badly, i would choose another language.

[PB]

> If Fred says a clear no, then they should accept it

He has. That's why we're so frustrated -- because some people WON'T accept
no and keep asking for it. That's the entire basis for this OOP argument in the
forums. Some people just can't take no for an answer. It's very childish.

Freak is an official PureBasic team member too -- second in charge. He has
also stated OOP is not happening. So the two lead developers of PureBasic
have said no. OOP fans need to accept this, get over it, and stop asking.