1. Keywords and Namesapces
- Posted by Vinoba Oct 03, 2011
- 40606 views
I had some explanation before about the need for namespaces in version 4.
I was looking at the total number of functions in Euphoria version 4, and it is about 570 functions under several namespaces.
In wxEuphoria there are 1600 functions under one namespace. If wxEuphoria with over 1600 functions can have only one namespace, why can't the non-GUI euphoria with 570 function be under one namespace?
2. Re: Keywords and Namesapces
- Posted by mattlewis (admin) Oct 03, 2011
- 40596 views
I had some explanation before about the need for namespaces in version 4.
I was looking at the total number of functions in Euphoria version 4, and it is about 570 functions under several namespaces.
In wxEuphoria there are 1600 functions under one namespace. If wxEuphoria with over 1600 functions can have only one namespace, why can't the non-GUI euphoria with 570 function be under one namespace?
I think that wxEuphoria should ideally be split up (originally, it was!). In fact, I started doing this at one point. There are several issues with doing so:
- Backwards compatibility
- Lots of work
Currently, it's fairly simple to use wxEuphoria. There's a single include file. There are a few drawbacks, too. It takes a little longer to parse and load, since it always loads everything. Also, the naming convention can be cumbersome. Since the library that's being wrapped (wxWidgets) is object oriented, you can have lots of methods with the same name in different classes. wxEuphoria has to disambiguate them "the C way," which is to say, by making the names bigger to include the type of object or something.
Euphoria doesn't have classes like C++ does, but we do have namespaces, and it would be relatively easy to separate the wxEuphoria wrappers this way, so that you could have lots of set_text routines that could be easily disambiguated via namespaces.
The namespace route is the way we decided to go with the euphoria standard library. From before 4.0, there were some routines that already used a prefix (e.g., the old database.e, now std/eds.e that uses the db_ prefix). You'll note that there are some routines in the std library that have the same names. We'd have to update these with the prefixes.
But this leads to another issue. As new libraries are written, we'd likely have additional collisions. Now you'd end up with some routines that were prefixed, and some that weren't. This, IMHO, would be very confusing. Ultimately, we decided that new development would use the namespace approach, as it is relatively clean and extensible.
The standard library is a lot bigger than it used to be. The namespaces help make it a lot more manageable.
Matt
3. Re: Keywords and Namesapces
- Posted by jeremy (admin) Oct 03, 2011
- 40618 views
I do not know anything about wxEuphoria but namespaces in any language make the use of a large standard library much more organized and usable. So much so that hardly any modern language exists without the benefit of namespaces. Sure, it can be done but why when you can use namespaces?
Jeremy
4. Re: Keywords and Namesapces
- Posted by Vinoba Oct 03, 2011
- 40592 views
"As new libraries are written, we'd likely have additional collisions." If we can use some low level software such as Euphoria, to scan the functions and look for key word and similar conflicts, the developer writing "new libraries" can avoid 110% of the time.
Addressing the issue of long names and 1600 functions, it is a relatively easy matter to condense to about 600 functions or even less. Where we have in wxEuphora: long_name_function_to_do_something(atom wind, sequence xyz)
long_name_function_to_do_nextthing(atom wind, sequence xyz)
long_name_function_to_do_goodthing(atom wind, sequence xyz)
long_name_function_to_do_specialthing(atom wind, sequence xyz)
long_name_function_to_do_uniquething(atom wind, sequence xyz)
we can change it to
long_name_function_to_do_everything(atom wind, sequence xyz, integer thingnumber)
thingnumber: 1 = something, 2=nextthing, 3=goodthing, 4=specialthing, 5=uniquething
A simple Euphoria routine in the wxeud.e can take care of these 5 alternative branches of one function and connect to the appropriate 5 C routines.
5. Re: Keywords and Namesapces
- Posted by mattlewis (admin) Oct 04, 2011
- 40495 views
we can change it to
long_name_function_to_do_everything(atom wind, sequence xyz, integer thingnumber)
thingnumber: 1 = something, 2=nextthing, 3=goodthing, 4=specialthing, 5=uniquething
A simple Euphoria routine in the wxeud.e can take care of these 5 alternative branches of one function and connect to the appropriate 5 C routines.
Yuck. No. I'm not going to do that.
Matt
6. Re: Keywords and Namesapces
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Oct 04, 2011
- 40514 views
we can change it to
long_name_function_to_do_everything(atom wind, sequence xyz, integer thingnumber)
thingnumber: 1 = something, 2=nextthing, 3=goodthing, 4=specialthing, 5=uniquething
A simple Euphoria routine in the wxeud.e can take care of these 5 alternative branches of one function and connect to the appropriate 5 C routines.
Yuck. No. I'm not going to do that.
Matt
I just had to reply to this.
7. Re: Keywords and Namesapces
- Posted by Vinoba Oct 04, 2011
- 40519 views
Yuck. No. I'm not going to do that….. Matt
Reason? Is this not a scientific discussion?
I just had to reply to this. … jimcbrown
But what is the reply?
8. Re: Keywords and Namesapces
- Posted by mattlewis (admin) Oct 04, 2011
- 40518 views
Yuck. No. I'm not going to do that….. Matt
Reason? Is this not a scientific discussion?
That creates code that's slower, more difficult to maintain and harder to use.
Matt
9. Re: Keywords and Namesapces
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Oct 04, 2011
- 40518 views
I just had to reply to this. … jimcbrown
But what is the reply?
You just quoted it.
10. Re: Keywords and Namesapces
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Oct 04, 2011
- 40527 views
Yuck. No. I'm not going to do that….. Matt
Reason? Is this not a scientific discussion?
That creates code that's slower, more difficult to maintain and harder to use.
Matt
It has precedents though. A lot of OOP libraries for Euphoria (llamagtk being one of them) do something like this where the real method that gets called depends on the type of the object.
I wonder what that says about OOP?
11. Re: Keywords and Namesapces
- Posted by mattlewis (admin) Oct 04, 2011
- 40517 views
Yuck. No. I'm not going to do that….. Matt
Reason? Is this not a scientific discussion?
That creates code that's slower, more difficult to maintain and harder to use.
Matt
It has precedents though. A lot of OOP libraries for Euphoria (llamagtk being one of them) do something like this where the real method that gets called depends on the type of the object.
I wonder what that says about OOP?
It doesn't say anything about OOP in general. Polymorphism can be a great thing. But adding an extra parameter isn't quite the same thing. There are some places in wxEuphoria where polymorphism is used at the C++ level, so the same function can be used for different types of objects.
Matt
12. Re: Keywords and Namesapces
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Oct 04, 2011
- 40473 views
Yuck. No. I'm not going to do that….. Matt
Reason? Is this not a scientific discussion?
That creates code that's slower, more difficult to maintain and harder to use.
Matt
It has precedents though. A lot of OOP libraries for Euphoria (llamagtk being one of them) do something like this where the real method that gets called depends on the type of the object.
I wonder what that says about OOP?
It doesn't say anything about OOP in general. Polymorphism can be a great thing. But adding an extra parameter isn't quite the same thing. There are some places in wxEuphoria where polymorphism is used at the C++ level, so the same function can be used for different types of objects.
Matt
This seems like the Right Thing(tm) to do.
13. Re: Keywords and Namesapces
- Posted by Vinoba Oct 04, 2011
- 40447 views
Presuming the example above has the Integer additinal parameter with a value 1 to 5,
1. I doubt if a “case”statement or a “if-then-elseif” type of structure in euphoria would be particularly time consuming. I am only talking theoretically, since I have not tested it.
2. If the five functions are designed to act on a Windows object to manipulate it, the time delay created by this would be insignificant compared to overall time take to do something to a window or a button
3. In assembler at least, a code such as this, is extremely efficient:-
I HAVE USED THE EUPHORIA COMMENT CHARACTER AND MY ASSEMBLER WRITING IS A BIT RUSTY.
LD A, [SI] – SI WAS POINTING TO THE INTEGER VALUE
DEC A
JRZ EXE0NE
DEC A
JRZ EXETWO
DEC A
JRZ EXETHREE
DEC A\ JRZ EXEFOUR
DEC A
JRZ EXEFIVE
JP ERROR
EXECONE: CALL FNONE
RET
EXECONE: CALL FNTWO
RET
EXECONE: CALL FNTHREE
RET
EXECONE: CALL FNFOUR
RET
EXECONE: CALL FNFIVE
RET
14. Re: Keywords and Namesapces
- Posted by petelomax Oct 07, 2011
- 40386 views
DEC A
JRZ EXE0NE
DEC A
JRZ EXETWO
Just so you know, on an x86 chip that's very bad indeed. Apart from the fact it only works for contiguous ranges, inc and dec generate a "partial flags stall", which cmp a,1 etc do not. According to Agner Fog, anyway.
Regards, Pete
15. Re: Keywords and Namesapces
- Posted by Vinoba Oct 07, 2011
- 40342 views
I should have said
Dec AL
I have used DEC A in Z80 processor and Dec AL or DEC AX in 8080 onwards processors till 80386, when I stopped programming in assembler.
IT ALWAYS WORKS TO SET THE Z FLAG if the decrement operation results in a zero in the accumulator.
Not only that, the setting of zero flag in the accumulator upon an arithmetic operation of a 8 and 16 bit processor is so fundamental as to be inviolable. Of course compare also works, but DEC takes you smoothly through trapping 1 to 5 and making a relative jump.
In the Euphoria way of describing things, DEC AL or DEC AX is a built-in excessively well tried and tested operation.
16. Re: Keywords and Namesapces
- Posted by petelomax Oct 08, 2011
- 40306 views
IT ALWAYS WORKS TO SET THE Z FLAG
I wasn't saying it does not work, I was saying it is unnecessarily slow.
A quick experiment (this is Phix inline assembly):
atom t0,t1,t2 t0 = time() constant LIM=1000000000 for i=1 to LIM do #ilasm{mov_eax_mem32,%isVar,0,0,i, cmp_eax_imm8,1, jz_rel32,%isJmp,0,0,:l1, cmp_eax_imm8,2, jz_rel32,%isJmp,0,0,:l1, cmp_eax_imm8,3, jz_rel32,%isJmp,0,0,:l1, cmp_eax_imm8,4, jz_rel32,%isJmp,0,0,:l1, cmp_eax_imm8,5, jz_rel32,%isJmp,0,0,:l1, cmp_eax_imm8,6, jz_rel32,%isJmp,0,0,:l1, cmp_eax_imm8,7, jz_rel32,%isJmp,0,0,:l1, cmp_eax_imm8,8, jz_rel32,%isJmp,0,0,:l1, ::l1 } end for t1 = time() for i=1 to LIM do #ilasm{mov_eax_mem32,%isVar,0,0,i, dec_eax, jz_rel32,%isJmp,0,0,:l1, dec_eax, jz_rel32,%isJmp,0,0,:l1, dec_eax, jz_rel32,%isJmp,0,0,:l1, dec_eax, jz_rel32,%isJmp,0,0,:l1, dec_eax, jz_rel32,%isJmp,0,0,:l1, dec_eax, jz_rel32,%isJmp,0,0,:l1, dec_eax, jz_rel32,%isJmp,0,0,:l1, dec_eax, jz_rel32,%isJmp,0,0,:l1, ::l1 } end for t2 = time() printf(1,"cmp:%f, dec:%f\n",{t1-t0,t2-t1}) if getc(0) then end if
Result is cmp:6s, dec: 8s, so the cmp does it in 75% of the time dec does. If you're really interested in finding out why, I'll have to refer you to Agner Fog.
Regards, Pete
17. Re: Keywords and Namesapces
- Posted by Vinoba Oct 08, 2011
- 40288 views
I wasn't saying it does not work, I was saying it is unnecessarily slow.
I did not realize that compare, which is internally a subtraction by value nnn using a second argument is faster than decrement which is internally a subtraction by 1. I accept your statement.
A quick experiment (this is Phix inline assembly):
Result is cmp:6s, dec: 8s, so the cmp does it in 75% of the time dec does. If you're really interested in finding out why, I'll have to refer you to Agner Fog.
Regards, Pete
I also accept the scientific proof thereof. If anything, I should apologize for presuming you did not understand the fundamentals of what I was suggesting.
18. Re: Keywords and Namesapces
- Posted by Vinoba Oct 09, 2011
- 40247 views
We have digressed from the main thrust of my argument. An extra parameter is not particularly time consuming nor difficult to implement. In Windows programming, most of the time the waiting is done by Bill Gates, not by me the programmer. Same philosophy applies to Windows under Limux and Mac, whatever you call it.
Here I have taken actual functions in wxEuphoria in CONTROL.HTML and changed to reflect what can be done.
-- New function -- client_transfer ( atom window , atom x , atom y , integer direction ) --(Link: #CLIENT_TRANSFER) -- integer direction = 1: client_to_window , -1: screen_to_client, 0: move -- -- the following could be deprecated -- client_to_screen (Link: #CLIENT_TO_SCREEN)( atom window, atom x, atom y ) -- screen_to_client (Link: #SCREEN_TO_CLIENT)( atom window, atom x, atom y ) -- move (Link: #MOVE)( atom win, integer x, integer y )
The following illustrates even further saving in the number of functions that a programmer has to struggle with.
-- New function get_winitems ( atom window , integer item ) --(Link: #GET_WINITEMS) -- integer item = 1: children, 2: parent, 3: rectangle, -- integer item 4: set focus, - 1: ?is_visible , 0: desktop window -- -- For get_desktop_window, one would ignore the atom window parameter in Euphria, -- before invoking the appropriate wxwidget dll item. -- -- -- the following could be deprecated -- get_children (Link: #GET_CHILDREN)( atom window ) -- get_parent (Link: #GET_PARENT)( atom window ) -- get_rect (Link: #GET_RECT)( atom win ) -- is_visible (Link: #IS_VISIBLE)( atom window ) -- set_focus (Link: #SET_FOCU)( atom window ) -- get_desktop_window (Link: #GET_DESKTOP_WINDOW)()
In the above examples, the time taken e.g. for client_to_screen or for get_rect in the second example, is far in excess of the extra time required for analysing (either in Euphoria or Assempler or C) integer direction and integer item respectively.
19. Re: Keywords and Namesapces
- Posted by DerekParnell (admin) Oct 09, 2011
- 40205 views
An extra parameter is not particularly time consuming nor difficult to implement ...
The main purpose of a programming language is to enable PEOPLE to read and write programs, thus it is important to make this process easier. The use of names to identify functionality for people has been shown to be more efficient than other methods.
To give another, more extreme implementation of your idea of parameterizing functions, we could have done this ...
file_access( fileid, access_type, otherdata .. ) -- access_type: 1 -> Open a file -- access_type: 2 -> Close a file -- access_type: 3 -> Read from a file -- access_type: 4 -> Write to a file
The real difficulty is to give good names to things, and that doesn't just apply to programming.
20. Re: Keywords and Namesapces
- Posted by Vinoba Oct 09, 2011
- 40214 views
An extra parameter is not particularly time consuming nor difficult to implement ...
The main purpose of a programming language is to enable PEOPLE to read and write programs, thus it is important to make this process easier. The use of names to identify functionality for people has been shown to be more efficient than other methods.
The main purpose of a programming language is to enable creation of a software that can be used to do repetitive tasks efficiently and fast. In this equation, the time spent by a programmer is colossally higher than the time taken by the final program to execute. THEREFORE, IT is both justifiable and IMPARATIVE, that in order to ease the task of programmer, you (u.e. the creator of language) give him a reasonable number of functions without cluttering him with nearly identical functions that he has to constantly look at a manual to find.
To give another, more extreme implementation of your idea of parameterizing functions, we could have done this ...
file_access( fileid, access_type, otherdata .. ) -- access_type: 1 -> Open a file -- access_type: 2 -> Close a file -- access_type: 3 -> Read from a file -- access_type: 4 -> Write to a file
The real difficulty is to give good names to things, and that doesn't just apply to programming.
There is no need to carry my suggestion to an extreme to prove me wrong.
Quite simply 1600 functions in the wxEuphoria are, in my opinion, far in excess of what they should and could be and would prevent people from using it.
For my own needs, I am already using condensed versions as illustrated by me above and teaching those rather than the 6-8 variations of the same, and students are taking to Windows programming nicely. Real life activities are full of such condensations. Human brain can catalog it better than remembering different names.
21. Re: Keywords and Namesapces
- Posted by jeremy (admin) Oct 09, 2011
- 40197 views
Just chiming in my preference. I would much rather deal with 1600 functions that are categorically named than to deal with 1/4 of that having various flags/options to change what a function does or how it acts.
Jeremy
22. Re: Keywords and Namesapces
- Posted by DerekParnell (admin) Oct 09, 2011
- 40232 views
There is no need to carry my suggestion to an extreme to prove me wrong.
Agreed.
23. Re: Keywords and Namesapces
- Posted by Vinoba Oct 09, 2011
- 40195 views
Just chiming in my preference. I would much rather deal with 1600 functions that are categorically named than to deal with 1/4 of that having various flags/options to change what a function does or how it acts.
Jeremy
The best way to address the large number of functions is to classify properly.
With due respect, the classification as portrayed in the HTML manual is not very good.
I always go for functional rather than alphabetic or anatomical classification. I had a three level classification to accommodate all the functions as posted, and even then it was cumbersome. I am now down to 2 level classification after condensing as described earlier. It is not the best, and I am still modifying it.
24. Re: Keywords and Namesapces
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Oct 09, 2011
- 40168 views
The main purpose of a programming language is to enable creation of a software that can be used to do repetitive tasks efficiently and fast. In this equation, the time spent by a programmer is colossally higher than the time taken by the final program to execute. THEREFORE, IT is both justifiable and IMPARATIVE, that in order to ease the task of programmer, you (u.e. the creator of language) give him a reasonable number of functions without cluttering him with nearly identical functions that he has to constantly look at a manual to find.
A non sequitur. At issue is not the language, but wxEuphoria - a set of wrappers for a library written in a different language.
There is no need to carry my suggestion to an extreme to prove me wrong.
Quite simply 1600 functions in the wxEuphoria are, in my opinion, far in excess of what they should and could be and would prevent people from using it.
Each of these functions represents one function in wxWidgets.
The implication is that the functions in wxWidgets are far in excess of what they should and could be and would prevent people from using it.
Or perhaps you meant to say that having all these functions in a single namespace is the problem, whereas breaking it up as wxWidgets does by class would solve the problem. If this is the case, then I think we have universal agreement that the best thing to do is to break wxEuphoria into namespaces.
Since that's such a big effort, I'm sure the wxEuphoria developers would be happ to accept patches for this.
Real life activities are full of such condensations. Human brain can catalog it better than remembering different names.
Is this really condensing anything? You'd have to remember the name of the function as well as the name of the parameter.
You'd end up with just as many constants (1600 of them at least), unless we're reusing the same constant names for different functions.
Like
display ( TIME, ... ) -- display the current time get ( TIME, ...) -- get the current time
For my own needs, I am already using condensed versions as illustrated by me above and teaching those rather than the 6-8 variations of the same, and students are taking to Windows programming nicely.
I'm tempted to say that the Windows API is a good example of a real life API that is not condensed yet widely used. Then again, that API is not really a good example of how to do anything. Horrible naming standard. (What's with all those Ex functions?)
Where are you teaching, btw? I'm curious to see what classrooms are using Euphoria.
25. Re: Keywords and Namesapces
- Posted by mattlewis (admin) Oct 10, 2011
- 40125 views
Or perhaps you meant to say that having all these functions in a single namespace is the problem, whereas breaking it up as wxWidgets does by class would solve the problem. If this is the case, then I think we have universal agreement that the best thing to do is to break wxEuphoria into namespaces.
Since that's such a big effort, I'm sure the wxEuphoria developers would be happ to accept patches for this.
I've been thinking about this for a while. I think the way to go is probably to rename all of the C++ wrappers. Basically, I'd prefix each one with the name of the file into which they would go. That way, I could continue with my automatic wrapping, as I'd have a way to determine which file should be used.
This doesn't solve the problem of how to deal with functions that are already polymorphic (the polymorphism is handled in the C++ code, either using regular old C++ or the wxWidgets RTTI).
Then comes the issue of porting old code to the new code. At this point, I usually feel compelled to find something else to do...
Matt
26. Re: Keywords and Namesapces
- Posted by Vinoba Oct 10, 2011
- 40121 views
Is this really condensing anything? You'd have to remember the name of the function as well as the name of the parameter.
Yes it is, when you can have a tool tip hovering on focus to the new integer parameter as you program - the post-grad student who pointed this out in answer to the similarly raised objections, is the person who suggested the changes in the first place.
You'd end up with just as many constants (1600 of them at least), unless we're reusing the same constant names for different functions.
We have a separate slate of "system variables" - these are not constants married to a particular namespace but predefined values which are frequently used - more like what you call Global Constants. These are available as click and insert just as all the function names and the user defined variables names are - no chance of misspelt words - period.
I'm tempted to say that the Windows API is a good example of a real life API that is not condensed yet widely used. Then again, that API is not really a good example of how to do anything. Horrible naming standard. (What's with all those Ex functions?)
I agree. We get RoundAllTheNonReadableMumboJumbo and simply use standard English language understandable phrases as function names and variable names (allowing spaces) to convey what we are programming, which makes comments unnecessary and we also allow comments intermingled with code to make one simple English sentence which is both code and comment.
Where are you teaching, btw? I'm curious to see what classrooms are using Euphoria.
I use Kenneth Iverson as an example of a great computing Guru, and his work (APL) describing Niladic, Monadic, and Dyadic functions with or without result as a background to introducing "multi-adic" concept (as seen in most of the C plus functions), doing way with the necessity of placement of right and left arguments, but keeping his goal of pipelining, i.e. of using the result of the last execution as one argument to the next function to be executed (3 + 7 / 2 * 15) applying the concept to all the functions of a language and doing away with "Procedures". The whole condensing issue came up when somebody suggested using the concept as used in APL circle (o) functions (i.e. trigonometric functios) where 1,2,3,4,5 etc left arguments are used to denote different trigonometric functions. He said we could use the same concept into condensing wxEuphoria, which was at the time before us as an illustration of what not to do when creating a set of functions.
Incidentally, APL had the Namespace concept because we always used a Workspace as a whole with its constituents as files, functions, variables, etc. We are extending that concept laterally into the multiple Workspaces in a Network.
I use Harbour (nee Clipper), FreeBasic, Xbasic, Powerbasic, Euphoria, Lua, APL, MySQL etc as teaching tools to teach what different people come up with when creating functions, language syntax etc and how languages, particularly scripting languages evolve. The next phase will be using the newer languages examples, which I may or may not teach. Instead of computerese, I use a lot of English language colloquialism in my expression. I hope I have explained something about what and why of things. My postgrad class (which is more like a discussion group) understands me!
27. Re: Keywords and Namesapces
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Oct 10, 2011
- 40127 views
Where are you teaching, btw? I'm curious to see what classrooms are using Euphoria.
Your answer was enlightening, but for the wrong question.
Is this really condensing anything? You'd have to remember the name of the function as well as the name of the parameter.
Yes it is, when you can have a tool tip hovering on focus to the new integer parameter as you program - the post-grad student who pointed this out in answer to the similarly raised objections, is the person who suggested the changes in the first place.
This sort of IDE functionality - basically a fancy auto-complete - also exists for classes, namespaces, and even between method/functions with the same prefix (so if you type "some_long_prefix_" then you'll get a tooltip that shows you "some_long_prefix_draw_function", "some_long_prefix_write_function", "some_long_prefix_create_function", etc).
You'd end up with just as many constants (1600 of them at least), unless we're reusing the same constant names for different functions.
We have a separate slate of "system variables" - these are not constants married to a particular namespace but predefined values which are frequently used - more like what you call Global Constants. These are available as click and insert just as all the function names and the user defined variables names are - no chance of misspelt words - period.
Which would work just as well with 1600 function names as it would with fewer function names and 1600 constants.
From my own personal use, I'm not convinced that these sort of IDE features are helpful in any case, but that's irrelevant here. These features can be equally helpful (or hinderful) to someone using the current 1600+ function names of wxEuphoria as they would be to someone using a library following the standards that you advocated.
It is not clear to me that using fewer functions with a special integer parameter - as you described - would make the sort of IDE you are describing any more useful or productive than it already is.
28. Re: Keywords and Namesapces
- Posted by Vinoba Oct 10, 2011
- 40118 views
This sort of IDE functionality - basically a fancy auto-complete - also exists for classes, namespaces, and even between method/functions with the same prefix (so if you type "some_long_prefix_" then you'll get a tooltip that shows you "some_long_prefix_draw_function", "some_long_prefix_write_function", "some_long_prefix_create_function", etc).
Auto completion in fact gives more headaches. We are already way ahead of this feature. Similar looking (at first) long names are a headache too. 1 = ABC, 2=CDE, 3=FGH, etc is more readable in a tooltip, which has to be small.
From my own personal use, I'm not convinced that these sort of IDE features are helpful in any case, but that's irrelevant here. These features can be equally helpful (or hinderful) to someone using the current 1600+ function names of wxEuphoria as they would be to someone using a library following the standards that you advocated.
It is not clear to me that using fewer functions with a special integer parameter - as you described - would make the sort of IDE you are describing any more useful or productive than it already is.
An IDE that allows for NO mispelt words and instant access to the System functions as well as newly created ones by the programmer and system variables and newly created variables - all without a single mistake or even a chance of mistake, an IDE that will not allow you to proceed when you have used a wrong type in a parameter, an IDE that will allow all these and more is an elusive often bragged about feature and we already have it.
We have a problem with classifying a lot of functions. You must realize by now that the wcEuphoria library would be adjuvant to other libraries in a fully function multi-faceted language and just as you and I abhor having to go through 5-6 level of menu to get at the item you are looking to click, so do we in our efforts to give the programmer the facility of access to EVERYTHING with as few a clicks as possible. And one has to remember, that the programmer is going to look to using about 100-200 functions and similar number of variables (and Constants) in a typical medium sized effort. The fewer the number of clicks, the better
Anyway that is the thrust of my teaching and our joint efforts and so far the students who are really colleagues, love it.
29. Re: Keywords and Namesapces
- Posted by mattlewis (admin) Oct 10, 2011
- 40119 views
Auto completion in fact gives more headaches. We are already way ahead of this feature. Similar looking (at first) long names are a headache too. 1 = ABC, 2=CDE, 3=FGH, etc is more readable in a tooltip, which has to be small.
I hope I'm reading this incorrectly. Are you arguing that the code should only be legible through the use of tooltips in an IDE?
Matt
30. Re: Keywords and Namesapces
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Oct 10, 2011
- 40103 views
This sort of IDE functionality - basically a fancy auto-complete - also exists for classes, namespaces, and even between method/functions with the same prefix (so if you type "some_long_prefix_" then you'll get a tooltip that shows you "some_long_prefix_draw_function", "some_long_prefix_write_function", "some_long_prefix_create_function", etc).
Auto completion in fact gives more headaches. We are already way ahead of this feature.
How so? (How far ahead are you?)
Similar looking (at first) long names are a headache too. 1 = ABC, 2=CDE, 3=FGH, etc is more readable in a tooltip, which has to be small.
Agreed, but this is easy to remedy - delete the shared prefix from the tooltip.
From my own personal use, I'm not convinced that these sort of IDE features are helpful in any case, but that's irrelevant here. These features can be equally helpful (or hinderful) to someone using the current 1600+ function names of wxEuphoria as they would be to someone using a library following the standards that you advocated.
It is not clear to me that using fewer functions with a special integer parameter - as you described - would make the sort of IDE you are describing any more useful or productive than it already is.
An IDE that allows for NO mispelt words and instant access to the System functions as well as newly created ones by the programmer and system variables and newly created variables - all without a single mistake or even a chance of mistake, an IDE that will not allow you to proceed when you have used a wrong type in a parameter, an IDE that will allow all these and more is an elusive often bragged about feature and we already have it.
[/quote]
This sounds more like a bad commercial advertisement than something that would be taught in a postgrad classroom or seminar.
We have a problem with classifying a lot of functions.
I believe Matt admitted that this was a real problem with wxEuphoria, but namespaces would solve this.
You must realize by now that the wcEuphoria library would be adjuvant to other libraries in a fully function multi-faceted language and just as you and I abhor having to go through 6-6 level of menu to get at the item you are looking to click, so do we in our efforts to give the programmer the facility of access to EVERYTHING with as few a clicks as possible.
Clicks? As in mouse clicks? When programming, one typically has to type. (Only programming language that I can think of that was primarily mouse driven was LEGO Mindstorms. That was one strange language.)
In any case, I'm not seeing a benefit in using enums here over using namespaces - or even prefixes. A properly designed IDE can use tooltips with namespaces / prefixes requiring only a single mouse click.
And one has to remember, that the programmer is going to look to using about 100-200 functions and similar number of variables (and Constants) in a typical medium sized effort. The fewer the number of clicks, the better
This entire IDE-based argument is looking like one really long non sequitur.
Anyway that is the thrust of my teaching and our joint efforts and so far the students who are really colleagues, love it.
I'm curious. You hint at being a professor (or at least a researcher or postgrad student) at a university - yet you won't identify which university you are from.
Additionally, you log onto these forums using Sympatico HSE rather than from your university's internet connection. If your goal is to prevent anyone from being able to independently verify your university affiliation, you are doing a very good job of it. I must say, however, that this goal seems very unusual for an academic professor or researcher - if you don't give your name, you don't get the fame, which generally translates into less funding.
31. Re: Keywords and Namesapces
- Posted by mattlewis (admin) Oct 10, 2011
- 40126 views
We have a problem with classifying a lot of functions.
I believe Matt admitted that this was a real problem with wxEuphoria, but namespaces would solve this.
I guess it also depends on what you mean by "classifying." The docs are broken out by classes mostly, and some special topics (like events), so I think they're generally easy to navigate to figure out what you want to do, if I do say so myself. In a gigantic library like that, there's no way you can hold all of it in your head.
You must realize by now that the wcEuphoria library would be adjuvant to other libraries in a fully function multi-faceted language and just as you and I abhor having to go through 6-6 level of menu to get at the item you are looking to click, so do we in our efforts to give the programmer the facility of access to EVERYTHING with as few a clicks as possible.
Clicks? As in mouse clicks? When programming, one typically has to type. (Only programming language that I can think of that was primarily mouse driven was LEGO Mindstorms. That was one strange language.)
I suspect that remembering that Vinoba seems to use APL will be helpful here. Trying to remember how to input the weirdness of APL's symbols would be a lot harder than using menus. But if you're going with APL, I think you've already given up on readable code.
Matt
32. Re: Keywords and Namesapces
- Posted by Vinoba Oct 10, 2011
- 40121 views
I will not bother to answer most of his comments as we are very far apart in our thinking and approach. However, i will try and answer this comment.
Matt Lewis said: "When programming, one typically has to type."
That is the crux of my mention of IDE, that types for you. You rejected it outright without thinking about it and without thinking about how our first conversations started here (Recall Unicode).
If you have gone through the intricacies of typing in different languages, if you have done real work with Unicode as applied to all languages INCLUDING languages FROM "EAST OF SUEZ" a mental and physical barrier which seems to baffle most Westerners and obstruct their thinking, then only would you realize the beauty of my statement ""When programming, one does not have to necessarily type everything or even most of the things in the program." The IDE we are using was written in HLA (High Level Assembler) two years ago in another class by another professor (i.e. under his direction). Last year we extended it somewhat for Unicode. This year's group is discussing in depth scripting and various techniques, BUT IN ALL DISCUSSIONS, IT IS MY DIRECTION to them that they do not forget the united nations of the Languages of the world.
As to advertising a commercial product, the IDE we have is NOT for sale and is NOT a commercially available product. I was hoping to get to use wxEuphoria to see if I can bring the IDE to a little more understandable level to the newer group of programmers.
As to the adverse comments on APL, long before the rest of the programming world had even dreamt about these things, APL had
1. Complete array usage (3 7 12 + 14 2 8). Applied also to 2 and 3 dimensional matrix. Yes I know Euphoria has it, because the original author of Euphoria was APL trained. I am talking about the late 70's.
2. The symbols used were a direct result of the need to execute more functions with the limited amount of ANSI character set.
3. The unique simplicity of line interpretation (right to left) without priorities. Even to this day, I have difficulty remembering precedence, because I am jumping between too many languages. In APL I did not have to remember priorities as there was only one -RIGHT TO LEFT.
4. Workspaces, a much later invention is Namespaces, encompassed a given set of files, functions and variables. Namespaces have not yet reached that level of sophistication.
5. Complete flexibility in the use and reuse of names for variables, e.g.
AA is assigned a single number and next line it can be assigned an array of literals.
Many of the modern day programmers do not like it - it is a matter of what format you are used to.
However much people promote C plus and F sharp, even Microsoft is sticking with Old is Gold and Visual Basic remains a good and solid foundation, and their other more elaborate products can use Visual basic addons.
As far as I am concerned my input on this subject and particularly about wxEuphora functions is over. I have had good enough input from you all, and realize that you all like the 1600 functions and I like the 600 functions my team has devised. The team is already talking about moving to Nokia's QT (for examples, etc in the same way as wxWidgets/wxEuphoria now ) and there is an equal force within the system asking them to stay with Randy Hyde's HLA and extend it. I think I am going to ask the class to look at Harbour with MiniGUI or with QT to study the variety of approaches.
Please be assured that I am NOT promoting any commercial product - I don't have one, not planning on one, and not prepared for one.
Thank you all for allowing me the use of this forum.
33. Re: Keywords and Namesapces
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Oct 10, 2011
- 40086 views
I will not bother to answer most of his comments as we are very far apart in our thinking and approach.
Actually, I believe you'd attempted to address most of them. The only exception that I notice is the most basic one.
This omission - and complete silence from you - make me question whether or not you are just making things up to prove your point.
However, i will try and answer this comment.
Matt Lewis said: "When programming, one typically has to type."
That is the crux of my mention of IDE, that types for you. You rejected it outright without thinking about it and without thinking about how our first conversations started here (Recall Unicode).
I never rejected the idea of an IDE that "types for you", simply because I was never given the chance - this is the first time you've made this claim.
In any case, unless the IDE supports coding with zero keyboard usage, my statement remains true: When programming, one typically has to type.
But my primary argument was that your claim of this IDE actually hurts your argument for changing wxEuphoria, because the IDE makes it too easy to use it (or any other library and language for that matter).
The IDE we are using was written in HLA (High Level Assembler) two years ago in another class by another professor (i.e. under his direction). Last year we extended it somewhat for Unicode. This year's group is discussing in depth scripting and various techniques, BUT IN ALL DISCUSSIONS, IT IS MY DIRECTION to them that they do not forget the united nations of the Languages of the world.
As to advertising a commercial product, the IDE we have is NOT for sale and is NOT a commercially available product. I was hoping to get to use wxEuphoria to see if I can bring the IDE to a little more understandable level to the newer group of programmers.
Is it available to the public at all? If not, why ask that wxEuphoria be modified to fit to the standards of the IDE? The developers who implement those changes and the regular users would not see the benefit. Only you would.
If it's not available to the public, why even mention it? Does it even exist? You can't name the university that you claim to be affiliated with. You haven't given this IDE a name either. What is it called?
However much people promote C plus
I am not aware of a language called C plus. C++, C+-, and C--, sure. but not C plus or C+.
Did you mean C++ or C# ? In that case, what does this say about your abilities, if you can't even get the name of a language right? A language name that isn't even 4 characters long!
If you have gone through the intricacies of typing in different languages, if you have done real work with Unicode as applied to all languages INCLUDING languages FROM "EAST OF SUEZ" then only would you realize the beauty of my statement ""When programming, one does not have to necessarily type everything or even most of the things in the program."
The idea of saving programmer time is always straightforwardly a good idea. We are getting off track however - my point was that your IDE was so good, that no changes in wxEuphoria are necessary to take advantage of its features. In fact, the recommended changes you are advocating would not offer any improvement.
(Ok, you might get unreadably long tooltips. But as I pointed out, you can fix that in the IDE itself.)
As far as I am concerned my input on this subject and particularly about wxEuphora functions is over. I have had good enough input from you all, and realize that you all like the 1600 functions and I like the 600 functions my team has devised.
I believe the main views of the other contributors of this thread were the opposite - that there is room for improvement, just not enough time from the developers of wxEuphoria to put the necessary effort into it.
But the easiest way to prove that your 600 functions are better is actually quite simple. Show us your complete changes. All 600 modified wxEuphoria functions.
Unless, of course, you are making this up and no such modified library exists.
a mental and physical barrier which seems to baffle most Westerners and obstruct their thinking
You will never know how ironic that statement you made is. Not everyone on this forum is necessarily a Westerner. In fact, it is rather offensive that you have simply assumed this.
34. Re: Keywords and Namesapces
- Posted by Vinoba Oct 10, 2011
- 40053 views
I made a suggestion which was not properly tried by me. Nobody in Euphoria was willing even to look at it. The answer from Matt way up in this thread confirms what I just said.
I then tried it with help of my "students" and of course, it works. In fact, you and others have not said it would not work.
Even a bit later when I gave a concrete example of 3 and 5 functions in Control.html changed, I was hoping for any enlightened better thought out method from you people. You all were negative about the whole idea of changes. In the meantime, the team here worked and produced the altered functions and we are using those against the old IDE. I have ALREADY SHELVED the idea of converting the IDE to wxWidgets of wxEuphoria. To us it was/is a learning/teaching exercise. Even if I had had a positive response from Matt, I would have let him and his team develop the alternative. The main idea however, was that you people might have had better solution or method of condensing to even lesser number of functions.
No product or software developed by us is ever made available to the General public or for commercial use. That is an inflexible rule of the Institution. So many people are involved in developing that one can't even give proper credits in the commercial sense.
BTW, the use of the word C plus was dictated by the quirks of your forum software which puts an underline after the real plus sign. I hastily changed from the arithmetic plus sign to the word plus. I did not think that at the level we are talking you would consider a fault on my part or lack of knowledge of that sophisticated world of modern day programmer with C plus plus plus plus plus plus to C sharp sharp sharp sharpest to F sharp sharp sharp sharpest. Next thing you might bring up is dot net and Microsoft's CLI. Another professor is working with the same team in that area - it is somebody else's baby, not mine and am glad it is not mine, because I dislike most things Microsoft.
Happy programming with Euphoria and wxEuphoria.
35. Re: Keywords and Namesapces
- Posted by mattlewis (admin) Oct 10, 2011
- 40043 views
I made a suggestion which was not properly tried by me. Nobody in Euphoria was willing even to look at it. The answer from Matt way up in this thread confirms what I just said.
I then tried it with help of my "students" and of course, it works. In fact, you and others have not said it would not work.
Even a bit later when I gave a concrete example of 3 and 5 functions in Control.html changed, I was hoping for any enlightened better thought out method from you people. You all were negative about the whole idea of changes.
Yes, I don't like the pattern that you suggested, though I mentioned two superior alternatives, so it's not like I simply said, "No." Also, as Jim said, the main benefit from your proposal seems to come when you use this proprietary IDE. So that's another unfortunate strike against it.
I don't find the prospect of lots of clicking while coding to be productive, either, unless you're coding in something like APL, where there's not really a sane way to type.
There are many things that would work. This doesn't mean that they should be done.
Matt
36. Re: Keywords and Namesapces
- Posted by Vinoba Oct 10, 2011
- 40080 views
unless you're coding in something like APL, where there's not really a sane way to type.
Matt
APL gives access to about 100 powerful functions using either one keyboard key or three keys (key + backspace + another key). It gives another 100 function or so, with a single key character called Quad character followed by English language verb.
I should have said "gave" access.
The current free interpreted only hobby level APL gives the full APL character set which is staring in front of you for ONE click
http://www.nars2000.org/
Unfortunately it lacks file functions, so it is mostly useless for business level programming or even teaching. I have toyed with the idea of my class connecting some file access DLL to it, and the source code is there to play with, but I have not taken that route yet. APL Plus has a dot net version built on top of CLI which is a full professional version, which I have not used lately. It has full Windows interface and has full 16 bit LE Unicode (like Microsoft's internal). It is pretty expensive to buy. I have lived with APL ridicule (and most APLers have lived through it) ad infinatum from people who have never used APL.
I am not here advocating APL. Just as you use words like BASIC like or better than BASIC, I am quoting about the facilities in another language as something I look at. Obviously I am using some of Euphoria and wxEuphoria instead of APL plus in my teaching, otherwise I would not be in this forum.
wxEuphoria is your baby and you can improve and modify it in your way. It does not mean that others may not give suggestions to you. And you always have had and have the full right to implement or reject those suggestions.
I am going to switch to Harbour with MiniGUI and with QT because it gives a whole new angle to programming and Harbour is now 32/64 bit and uses GCC compiler. I will also touch Excel and/or Open Office Spreadsheet at that time (time permitting). Somebody else is also going to teach Microsoft Access and possibly SQL so it will add a different level of understanding for the students.
37. Re: Keywords and Namesapces
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Nov 16, 2011
- 38977 views
I made a suggestion which was not properly tried by me. Nobody in Euphoria was willing even to look at it. The answer from Matt way up in this thread confirms what I just said.
I previously stated that I was in favor of this (stating that other Euphoria OOP libraries seemed to work this way).
I don't develop wxEuphoria or wxWidgets though, so it's not my decision to make.
I then tried it with help of my "students" and of course, it works. In fact, you and others have not said it would not work.
I never said this. I can't find anyone else who made that claim. If you believe I am wrong, I would appreciate a quote of the actual text.
No product or software developed by us is ever made available to the General public or for commercial use. That is an inflexible rule of the Institution. So many people are involved in developing that one can't even give proper credits in the commercial sense.
In an academic institution, teams would be clearly defined and granting proper credit to the right set of names would be critical.
In some sort of commercial R&D enterprise, one would expect that the company would be able to "give proper credits in the commercial sense".
The only thing that seems to fit is some sort of military or defense institution. I don't really know anything about these.
BTW, the use of the word C plus was dictated by the quirks of your forum software which puts an underline after the real plus sign. I hastily changed from the arithmetic plus sign to the word plus. I did not think that at the level we are talking you would consider a fault on my part or lack of knowledge of that sophisticated world of modern day programmer with C plus plus plus plus plus plus to C sharp sharp sharp sharpest to F sharp sharp sharp sharpest.
If you had called it "C plus plus" then there would have been no argument. Reading between the lines here, however, you seem to have thought the name of the language was C+ or "C plus" instead of C++ or "C plus plus". If this is the case, I would consider it a severe lack of knowledge on your part.
38. Re: Keywords and Namesapces
- Posted by Vinoba Nov 16, 2011
- 38976 views
Since somebody has bothered to look at this thread again, I am posting one third of one on Matt's
WXRICHTEXTCTRL1.TXT
that one of the students converted. Notice the extra letter 1 has been added by him because he split it up in three sections.
The functions which start with a single * are the final version.
The lines with two stars (showing below as an empty circle) are the explanation for the additional integer parameter pertaining to that one new function.
Underneath are the three * starred lines (showing as sold square in your software)which are the original functions, from which the new function was created.
I mentioned once before that we were planning to make all functions with results, and therefore the word "procedure" or "function" is not there. Some result is always returned for use by the next function as one parameter (if you wish to).
I am not interested in responding to the comments about my knowledge of C Plus or C Plus Plus or C Plus Plus Plus or C Plus Plus Plus Plus or C Plus.... ad infinatum. It is totally irrelevant.
The class has moved on to another low level language (Harbour) and minigui and also the QT GUI. So further feedback and discussion is not possible.
Please note that the following is only one third of that long list of functions in the original. The integer numbers were somewhat arbitrary, and I had asked for a better co-ordination between different sections.
Functions/Procedures
- rtext_is (Link: #RTEXT_IS)( atom rich)
- result 1=bold, 2=italic, 3= bold+italic, 4=underlined, 5=bold+underlined, 6= italic+underlined, 7= all three
- is_selection_bold (Link: #IS_SELECTION_BOLD)( atom rich )
- is_selection_italics (Link: #IS_SELECTION_ITALIC)( atom rich )
- is_selection_underlined (Link: #IS_SELECTION_UNDERLINED)( atom rich )
- result 1=bold, 2=italic, 3= bold+italic, 4=underlined, 5=bold+underlined, 6= italic+underlined, 7= all three
- rtext_apply (Link: #RTEXT_APPLY)( atom rich, integer rfont)
- rfont: 1=bold, 2=italic, 3= bold+italic, 4=underlined, 5=bold+underlined, 6= italic+underlined, 7= all three
- apply_bold_to_selection (Link: #APPLY_BOLD_TO_SELECTION)( atom rich )
- apply_italic_to_selection (Link: #APPLY_ITALIC_TO_SELECTION)( atom rich )
- apply_underline_to_selection (Link: #APPLY_UNDERLINE_TO_SELECTION)( atom rich )
- rfont: 1=bold, 2=italic, 3= bold+italic, 4=underlined, 5=bold+underlined, 6= italic+underlined, 7= all three
- rtext_begin (Link: #RTEXT_BEGIN)( atom rich, integer rfont)
- rfont: 1=bold, 2=italic, 3= bold+italic, 4=underlined, 5=bold+underlined, 6= italic+underlined, 7= all three
- begin_bold (Link: #BEGIN_BOLD)( atom rich )
- begin_italic (Link: #BEGIN_ITALIC)( atom rich )
- begin_underline (Link: #BEGIN_UNDERLINE)( atom rich )
- rfont: 1=bold, 2=italic, 3= bold+italic, 4=underlined, 5=bold+underlined, 6= italic+underlined, 7= all three
- rtext_end (Link: #RTEXT_END)( atom rich, integer rfont)
- rfont: 1=bold, 2=italic, 3= bold+italic, 4=underlined, 5=bold+underlined, 6= italic+underlined, 7= all three
- end_bold (Link: #END_BOLD)( atom rich )
- end_italic (Link: #END_ITALIC)( atom rich )
- end_underline (Link: #END_UNDERLINE)( atom rich )
- rfont: 1=bold, 2=italic, 3= bold+italic, 4=underlined, 5=bold+underlined, 6= italic+underlined, 7= all three
- rich_undo (Link: #RICH_UNDO)( atom rich, integer action )
**action: 1=begin suppress, 2=suppressing, 3=end suppress, 12=batch, 13=end batch- begin_suppress_undo (Link: #BEGIN_SUPPRESS_UNDO)( atom rich )
- suppressing_undo (Link: #SUPPRESSING_UNDO)( atom rich )
- end_suppress_undo (Link: #END_SUPPRESS_UNDO)( atom rich )
- batching_undo (Link: #BATCHING_UNDO)( atom rich )
- end_batch_undo (Link: #END_BATCH_UNDO)( atom rich )
- get_rich_style (Link: #GET_RICH_STYLE)( atom rich, integer which )
- which: 1= get basic style, 2=get style sheet
- get_basic_rich_style (Link: #GET_BASIC_RICH_STYLE)( atom rich )
- get_rich_style_sheet (Link: #GET_RICH_STYLE_SHEET)( atom rich )
- which: 1= get basic style, 2=get style sheet
- end_rich_styles (Link: #END_RICH_STYLES)( atom rich, integer which )
- which: 0=all, 1=char, 2=list
- end_all_rich_styles (Link: #END_ALL_RICH_STYLE)( atom rich )
- end_char_style (Link: #END_CHAR_STYLE)( atom rich )
- end_list_style (Link: #END_LIST_STYLE)( atom rich )
- which: 0=all, 1=char, 2=list
- end_spacing (Link: #END_SPACING)( atom rich, integer spacing )
- spacing: 0=end allignment, 1=left indent, 2=right indent, 3=line spacing, 4=para spacing
- end_alignment (Link: #END_ALIGNMENT)( atom rich )
- end_left_indent (Link: #END_LEFT_INDENT)( atom rich )
- end_right_indent (Link: #END_RIGHT_INDENT)( atom rich )
- end_line_spacing (Link: #END_LINE_SPACING)( atom rich )
- end_paragraph_spacing (Link: #END_PARAGRAPH_SPACING)( atom rich )
- spacing: 0=end allignment, 1=left indent, 2=right indent, 3=line spacing, 4=para spacing
- end_rfont (Link: #END_RFONT)( atom rich, what )
- what: 0=font, 1=size, 2=color
- end_font (Link: #END_FONT)( atom rich )
- end_font_size (Link: #END_FONT_SIZE)( atom rich )
- end_text_color (Link: #END_TEXT_COLOR)( atom rich )
- what: 0=font, 1=size, 2=color
- end_bullet (Link: #END_BULLET)( atom rich, integer bullet )
- which: -1=symbol, 0=standard, 1=>0 = numbered bullet
- end_symbol_bullet (Link: #END_SYMBOL_BULLET)( atom rich )
- end_standard_bullet (Link: #END_STANDARD_BULLET)( atom rich )
- end_numbered_bullet (Link: #END_NUMBERED_BULLET)( atom rich )
- which: -1=symbol, 0=standard, 1=>0 = numbered bullet
- rich_misc (Link: #RICH_MISC)( atom rich, integer misc )
- misc: 0=def to cursor style, 1=end url, 2=internal selection range, 3=selection range, 4=line break, 5=select none
- set_default_style_to_cursor_style (Link: #SET_DEFAULT_STYLE_TO_CURSOR_STYLE)( atom rich )
- end_url (Link: #END_URL)( atom rich )
- get_rich_internal_selection_range (Link: #GET_RICH_INTERNAL_SELECTION_RANGE)( atom rich )
- get_rich_selection_range (Link: #GET_RICH_SELECTION_RANGE)( atom rich )
- line_break (Link: #LINE_BREAK)( atom rich )
- select_none (Link: #SELECT_NONE)( atom rich )
- misc: 0=def to cursor style, 1=end url, 2=internal selection range, 3=selection range, 4=line break, 5=select none
39. Re: Keywords and Namesapces
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Nov 16, 2011
- 38958 views
I am not interested in responding to the comments about my knowledge of C Plus or C Plus Plus or C Plus Plus Plus or C Plus Plus Plus Plus or C Plus.... ad infinatum. It is totally irrelevant.
I have already stated my opposing views on this.
Since somebody has bothered to look at this thread again, I am posting one third of one on Matt's
WXRICHTEXTCTRL1.TXT
that one of the students converted. Notice the extra letter 1 has been added by him because he split it up in three sections.
The functions which start with a single * are the final version.
Please note that the following is only one third of that long list of functions in the original.
One third of it is less than 70 lines long. Hmm. Maybe the original form isn't so bad after all...
What did the wxWidgets folks say when you showed them this? That's really where this sort of change should go.
40. Re: Keywords and Namesapces
- Posted by Vinoba Nov 16, 2011
- 38935 views
- Last edited Nov 17, 2011
I did not know you counted the number of lines as a criteria!
the whole discussion, sir, is about reducing the number of functions.
The original as posted by Matt in the file wxTreeCtrl.txt had 63 functions.
My assignment to the students to reduce the NUMBER OF FUNTIONS and try to stick to 10-12 per file.
The students came with almost all files at 3-12 functions except two which had to be split.
wxTreeCtrl1.txt has 11 functions.
wxTreeCtrl2.txt has 13 functions.
wxTreeCtrl2.txt has 10 functions.
THEREFORE, SIR, the reduction in the number of functions (from 96 to 34) is 66%
There are over 1600 functions and we managed to dwindle them down to about 650, i.e. over 59% reduction.
The original has 96 functions.
Functions/Procedures
- add_paragraph (Link: #ADD_PARAGRAPH)( atom rich, sequence text )
- add_rich_image (Link: #ADD_RICH_IMAGE)( atom rich, atom image )
- apply_alignment_to_selection (Link: #APPLY_ALIGNMENT_TO_SELECTION)( atom rich, atom alignment )
- apply_bold_to_selection (Link: #APPLY_BOLD_TO_SELECTION)( atom rich )
- apply_italic_to_selection (Link: #APPLY_ITALIC_TO_SELECTION)( atom rich )
- apply_rich_style (Link: #APPLY_RICH_STYLE)( atom rich, atom style_def )
- apply_rich_style_sheet (Link: #APPLY_RICH_STYLE_SHEET)( atom rich, atom style_sheet )
- apply_underline_to_selection (Link: #APPLY_UNDERLINE_TO_SELECTION)( atom rich )
- batching_undo (Link: #BATCHING_UNDO)( atom rich )
- begin_alignment (Link: #BEGIN_ALIGNMENT)( atom rich, atom align )
- begin_batch_undo (Link: #BEGIN_BATCH_UNDO)( atom rich, sequence cmd_name )
- begin_bold (Link: #BEGIN_BOLD)( atom rich )
- begin_char_style (Link: #BEGIN_CHAR_STYLE)( atom rich, sequence named_style )
- begin_font (Link: #BEGIN_FONT)( atom rich, atom font )
- begin_font_size (Link: #BEGIN_FONT_SIZE)( atom rich, atom size )
- begin_italic (Link: #BEGIN_ITALIC)( atom rich )
- begin_left_indent (Link: #BEGIN_LEFT_INDENT)( atom rich, atom indent, atom sub_indent )
- begin_line_spacing (Link: #BEGIN_LINE_SPACING)( atom rich, atom spacing )
- begin_list_style (Link: #BEGIN_LIST_STYLE)( atom rich, sequence named_style, atom level, atom number )
- begin_numbered_bullet (Link: #BEGIN_NUMBERED_BULLET)( atom rich, atom number, atom indent, atom sub_indent, atom style )
- begin_paragraph_spacing (Link: #BEGIN_PARAGRAPH_SPACING)( atom rich, atom before, atom after )
- begin_paragraph_style (Link: #BEGIN_PARAGRAPH_STYLE)( atom rich, sequence named_style )
- begin_rich_style (Link: #BEGIN_RICH_STYLE)( atom rich, atom style )
- begin_right_indent (Link: #BEGIN_RIGHT_INDENT)( atom rich, atom indent )
- begin_standard_bullet (Link: #BEGIN_STANDARD_BULLET)( atom rich, sequence bullet_name, atom indent, atom sub_indent, atom style )
- begin_suppress_undo (Link: #BEGIN_SUPPRESS_UNDO)( atom rich )
- begin_symbol_bullet (Link: #BEGIN_SYMBOL_BULLET)( atom rich, sequence symbol, atom indent, atom sub_indent, atom style )
- begin_text_color (Link: #BEGIN_TEXT_COLOR)( atom rich, atom color )
- begin_underline (Link: #BEGIN_UNDERLINE)( atom rich )
- begin_url (Link: #BEGIN_URL)( atom rich, sequence url, sequence style )
- end_alignment (Link: #END_ALIGNMENT)( atom rich )
- end_all_rich_styles (Link: #END_ALL_RICH_STYLE)( atom rich )
- end_batch_undo (Link: #END_BATCH_UNDO)( atom rich )
- end_bold (Link: #END_BOLD)( atom rich )
- end_char_style (Link: #END_CHAR_STYLE)( atom rich )
- end_font (Link: #END_FONT)( atom rich )
- end_font_size (Link: #END_FONT_SIZE)( atom rich )
- end_italic (Link: #END_ITALIC)( atom rich )
- end_left_indent (Link: #END_LEFT_INDENT)( atom rich )
- end_line_spacing (Link: #END_LINE_SPACING)( atom rich )
- end_list_style (Link: #END_LIST_STYLE)( atom rich )
- end_numbered_bullet (Link: #END_NUMBERED_BULLET)( atom rich )
- end_paragraph_spacing (Link: #END_PARAGRAPH_SPACING)( atom rich )
- end_paragraph_style (Link: #END_PARAGRAPH_STYLE)( atom rich )
- end_rich_style (Link: #END_RICH_STYLE)( atom rich )
- end_right_indent (Link: #END_RIGHT_INDENT)( atom rich )
- end_standard_bullet (Link: #END_STANDARD_BULLET)( atom rich )
- end_suppress_undo (Link: #END_SUPPRESS_UNDO)( atom rich )
- end_symbol_bullet (Link: #END_SYMBOL_BULLET)( atom rich )
- end_text_color (Link: #END_TEXT_COLOR)( atom rich )
- end_underline (Link: #END_UNDERLINE)( atom rich )
- end_url (Link: #END_URL)( atom rich )
- get_basic_rich_style (Link: #GET_BASIC_RICH_STYLE)( atom rich )
- get_rich_internal_selection_range (Link: #GET_RICH_INTERNAL_SELECTION_RANGE)( atom rich )
- get_rich_selection_range (Link: #GET_RICH_SELECTION_RANGE)( atom rich )
- get_rich_style_sheet (Link: #GET_RICH_STYLE_SHEET)( atom rich )
- has_char_rich_attr (Link: #HAS_CHAR_RICH_ATTR)( atom rich, atom first, atom last, atom rich_attr )
- has_char_text_attr (Link: #HAS_CHAR_TEXT_ATTR)( atom rich, atom first, atom last, atom text_attr_ex )
- has_para_char_attr (Link: #HAS_PARA_CHAR_ATTR)( atom rich, atom first, atom last, atom rich_attr )
- has_para_text_attr (Link: #HAS_PARA_TEXT_ATTR)( atom rich, atom first, atom last, atom text_attr_ex )
- is_selection_aligned (Link: #IS_SELECTION_ALIGNED)( atom rich, atom alignment )
- is_selection_bold (Link: #IS_SELECTION_BOLD)( atom rich )
- is_selection_italics (Link: #IS_SELECTION_ITALIC)( atom rich )
- is_selection_underlined (Link: #IS_SELECTION_UNDERLINED)( atom rich )
- layout_rich_content (Link: #LAYOUT_RICH_CONTENT)( atom rich, atom only_visible )
- line_break (Link: #LINE_BREAK)( atom rich )
- move_down (Link: #MOVE_DOWN)( atom rich, atom n_pos, atom flags )
- move_end (Link: #MOVE_END)( atom rich, atom flags )
- move_home (Link: #MOVE_HOME)( atom rich, atom flags )
- move_left (Link: #MOVE_LEFT)( atom rich, atom n_pos, atom flags )
- move_rich_caret (Link: #MOVE_RICH_CARET)( atom rich, atom pos, atom at_start )
- move_right (Link: #MOVE_RIGHT)( atom rich, atom n_pos, atom flags )
- move_to_line_end (Link: #MOVE_TO_LINE_END)( atom rich, atom flags )
- move_to_line_start (Link: #MOVE_TO_LINE_START)( atom rich, atom flags )
- move_to_paragraph_end (Link: #MOVE_TO_PARAGRAPH_END)( atom rich, atom flags )
- move_to_paragraph_start (Link: #MOVE_TO_PARAGRAPH_START)( atom rich, atom flags )
- move_up (Link: #MOVE_UP)( atom rich, atom n_pos, atom flags )
- page_down (Link: #PAGE_DOWN)( atom rich, atom pages, atom flags )
- page_up (Link: #PAGE_UP)( atom rich, atom pages, atom flags )
- pop_rich_style_sheet (Link: #POP_RICH_STYLE_SHEET)( atom rich )
- push_rich_style_sheet (Link: #PUSH_RICH_STYLE_SHEET)( atom rich, atom style_sheet )
- select_none (Link: #SELECT_NONE)( atom rich )
- select_word (Link: #SELECT_WORD)( atom rich, atom pos )
- set_basic_rich_style (Link: #SET_BASIC_RICH_STYLE)( atom rich, atom style )
- set_basic_rich_text_style (Link: #SET_BASIC_RICH_TEXT_STYLE)( atom rich, atom style )
- set_default_style_to_cursor_style (Link: #SET_DEFAULT_STYLE_TO_CURSOR_STYLE)( atom rich )
- set_rich_internal_selection_range (Link: #SET_RICH_INTERNAL_SELECTION_RANGE)( atom rich, atom start, atom finish )
- set_rich_selection_range (Link: #SET_RICH_SELECTION_RANGE)( atom rich, atom start, atom finish )
- set_rich_style_sheet (Link: #SET_RICH_STYLE_SHEET)( atom rich, atom style_sheet )
- suppressing_undo (Link: #SUPPRESSING_UNDO)( atom rich )
- word_left (Link: #WORD_LEFT)( atom rich, atom words, atom flags )
- word_right (Link: #WORD_RIGHT)( atom rich, atom words, atom flags )
- write_image (Link: #WRITE_IMAGE)( atom rich, atom image, atom bitmap_type )
- write_image_block (Link: #WRITE_IMAGE_BLOCK)( atom rich, atom image_block )
- write_image_from_file (Link: #WRITE_IMAGE_FROM_FILE)( atom rich, sequence filename, atom bitmap_type )
After reducing the number of functions three files were created and had, 11,13,and 10 functions.
Functions/Procedures (11 functions in section 1)
- rtext_is (Link: #RTEXT_IS)( atom rich)
- result 1=bold, 2=italic, 3= bold+italic, 4=underlined, 5=bold+underlined, 6= italic+underlined, 7= all three
- is_selection_bold (Link: #IS_SELECTION_BOLD)( atom rich )
- is_selection_italics (Link: #IS_SELECTION_ITALIC)( atom rich )
- is_selection_underlined (Link: #IS_SELECTION_UNDERLINED)( atom rich )
- result 1=bold, 2=italic, 3= bold+italic, 4=underlined, 5=bold+underlined, 6= italic+underlined, 7= all three
- rtext_apply (Link: #RTEXT_APPLY)( atom rich, integer rfont)
- rfont: 1=bold, 2=italic, 3= bold+italic, 4=underlined, 5=bold+underlined, 6= italic+underlined, 7= all three
- apply_bold_to_selection (Link: #APPLY_BOLD_TO_SELECTION)( atom rich )
- apply_italic_to_selection (Link: #APPLY_ITALIC_TO_SELECTION)( atom rich )
- apply_underline_to_selection (Link: #APPLY_UNDERLINE_TO_SELECTION)( atom rich )
- rfont: 1=bold, 2=italic, 3= bold+italic, 4=underlined, 5=bold+underlined, 6= italic+underlined, 7= all three
- rtext_begin (Link: #RTEXT_BEGIN)( atom rich, integer rfont)
- rfont: 1=bold, 2=italic, 3= bold+italic, 4=underlined, 5=bold+underlined, 6= italic+underlined, 7= all three
- begin_bold (Link: #BEGIN_BOLD)( atom rich )
- begin_italic (Link: #BEGIN_ITALIC)( atom rich )
- begin_underline (Link: #BEGIN_UNDERLINE)( atom rich )
- rfont: 1=bold, 2=italic, 3= bold+italic, 4=underlined, 5=bold+underlined, 6= italic+underlined, 7= all three
- rtext_end (Link: #RTEXT_END)( atom rich, integer rfont)
- rfont: 1=bold, 2=italic, 3= bold+italic, 4=underlined, 5=bold+underlined, 6= italic+underlined, 7= all three
- end_bold (Link: #END_BOLD)( atom rich )
- end_italic (Link: #END_ITALIC)( atom rich )
- end_underline (Link: #END_UNDERLINE)( atom rich )
- rfont: 1=bold, 2=italic, 3= bold+italic, 4=underlined, 5=bold+underlined, 6= italic+underlined, 7= all three
- rich_undo (Link: #RICH_UNDO)( atom rich, integer action ) **action: 1=begin suppress, 2=suppressing, 3=end suppress, 12=batch, 13=end batch
- begin_suppress_undo (Link: #BEGIN_SUPPRESS_UNDO)( atom rich )
- suppressing_undo (Link: #SUPPRESSING_UNDO)( atom rich )
- end_suppress_undo (Link: #END_SUPPRESS_UNDO)( atom rich )
- batching_undo (Link: #BATCHING_UNDO)( atom rich )
- end_batch_undo (Link: #END_BATCH_UNDO)( atom rich )
- get_rich_style (Link: #GET_RICH_STYLE)( atom rich, integer which )
- which: 1= get basic style, 2=get style sheet
- get_basic_rich_style (Link: #GET_BASIC_RICH_STYLE)( atom rich )
- get_rich_style_sheet (Link: #GET_RICH_STYLE_SHEET)( atom rich )
- which: 1= get basic style, 2=get style sheet
- end_rich_styles (Link: #END_RICH_STYLES)( atom rich, integer which )
- which: 0=all, 1=char, 2=list
- end_all_rich_styles (Link: #END_ALL_RICH_STYLE)( atom rich )
- end_char_style (Link: #END_CHAR_STYLE)( atom rich )
- end_list_style (Link: #END_LIST_STYLE)( atom rich )
- which: 0=all, 1=char, 2=list
- end_spacing (Link: #END_SPACING)( atom rich, integer spacing )
- spacing: 0=end allignment, 1=left indent, 2=right indent, 3=line spacing, 4=para spacing
- end_alignment (Link: #END_ALIGNMENT)( atom rich )
- end_left_indent (Link: #END_LEFT_INDENT)( atom rich )
- end_right_indent (Link: #END_RIGHT_INDENT)( atom rich )
- end_line_spacing (Link: #END_LINE_SPACING)( atom rich )
- end_paragraph_spacing (Link: #END_PARAGRAPH_SPACING)( atom rich )
- spacing: 0=end allignment, 1=left indent, 2=right indent, 3=line spacing, 4=para spacing
- end_rfont (Link: #END_RFONT)( atom rich, what )
- what: 0=font, 1=size, 2=color
- end_font (Link: #END_FONT)( atom rich )
- end_font_size (Link: #END_FONT_SIZE)( atom rich )
- end_text_color (Link: #END_TEXT_COLOR)( atom rich )
- what: 0=font, 1=size, 2=color
- end_bullet (Link: #END_BULLET)( atom rich, integer bullet )
- which: -1=symbol, 0=standar, 1=>0 = numbered bullet
- end_symbol_bullet (Link: #END_SYMBOL_BULLET)( atom rich )
- end_standard_bullet (Link: #END_STANDARD_BULLET)( atom rich )
- end_numbered_bullet (Link: #END_NUMBERED_BULLET)( atom rich )
- which: -1=symbol, 0=standar, 1=>0 = numbered bullet
- rich_misc (Link: #RICH_MISC)( atom rich, integer misc )
- misc: 0=def to cursor style, 1=end url, 2=internal selection range, 3=selection range, 4=line break, 5=slect none
- set_default_style_to_cursor_style (Link: #SET_DEFAULT_STYLE_TO_CURSOR_STYLE)( atom rich )
- end_url (Link: #END_URL)( atom rich )
- get_rich_internal_selection_range (Link: #GET_RICH_INTERNAL_SELECTION_RANGE)( atom rich )
- get_rich_selection_range (Link: #GET_RICH_SELECTION_RANGE)( atom rich )
- line_break (Link: #LINE_BREAK)( atom rich )
- select_none (Link: #SELECT_NONE)( atom rich )
- misc: 0=def to cursor style, 1=end url, 2=internal selection range, 3=selection range, 4=line break, 5=slect none
Functions/Procedures (13 functions in Section 2)
- has_rich_attr (Link: #HAS_RICH_ATTR)( atom rich, atom first, atom last, atom rich_attr, integer which )
- which: 1=char_rich, 2=text_rich, 3=para char, 4=text char
- has_char_rich_attr (Link: #HAS_CHAR_RICH_ATTR)( atom rich, atom first, atom last, atom rich_attr )
- has_char_text_attr (Link: #HAS_CHAR_TEXT_ATTR)( atom rich, atom first, atom last, atom text_attr_ex )
- has_para_char_attr (Link: #HAS_PARA_CHAR_ATTR)( atom rich, atom first, atom last, atom rich_attr )
- has_para_text_attr (Link: #HAS_PARA_TEXT_ATTR)( atom rich, atom first, atom last, atom text_attr_ex )
- which: 1=char_rich, 2=text_rich, 3=para char, 4=text char
- selection_alignment (Link: #SELECTION_ALIGNMENT)( atom rich, atom alignment, integer action )
- action: -1 = is aligned?, 0=begin, 1=apply
- is_selection_aligned (Link: #IS_SELECTION_ALIGNED)( atom rich, atom alignment)
- begin_alignment (Link: #BEGIN_ALIGNMENT)( atom rich, atom align )
- apply_alignment_to_selection (Link: #APPLY_ALIGNMENT_TO_SELECTION)( atom rich, atom alignment )
- action: -1 = is aligned?, 0=begin, 1=apply
- begin_left_indent (Link: #BEGIN_LEFT_INDENT)( atom rich, atom indent, atom sub_indent )
- rich_begins_more(Link: #RICH_BEGINS_MORE)( atom rich, atom value, integer action )
- action: 1=font size, 2=right indent, 3=line spacing
- begin_font_size (Link: #BEGIN_FONT_SIZE)( atom rich, atom size )
- begin_right_indent (Link: #BEGIN_RIGHT_INDENT)( atom rich, atom indent )
- begin_line_spacing (Link: #BEGIN_LINE_SPACING)( atom rich, atom spacing )
- action: 1=font size, 2=right indent, 3=line spacing
- select_word (Link: #SELECT_WORD)( atom rich, atom pos )
- rich_style_sheet (Link: #RICH_STYLE_SHEET)( atom rich, atom style_sheet, integer action )
- action: -1=push, 0=set, 1=apply
- push_rich_style_sheet (Link: #PUSH_RICH_STYLE_SHEET)( atom rich, atom style_sheet )
- set_rich_style_sheet (Link: #SET_RICH_STYLE_SHEET)( atom rich, atom style_sheet )
- apply_rich_style_sheet (Link: #APPLY_RICH_STYLE_SHEET)( atom rich, atom style_sheet )
- action: -1=push, 0=set, 1=apply
- rich_style (Link: #RICH_STYLE)( atom rich, atom style, integer action )
- action: 0=begin, 1=set basic style, 2=set basic text style
- begin_rich_style (Link: #BEGIN_RICH_STYLE)( atom rich, atom style )
- set_basic_rich_style (Link: #SET_BASIC_RICH_STYLE)( atom rich, atom style )
- set_basic_rich_text_style (Link: #SET_BASIC_RICH_TEXT_STYLE)( atom rich, atom style )
- action: 0=begin, 1=set basic style, 2=set basic text style
- set_selection_range (Link: #SET_SELECTION_RANGE)( atom rich, atom start, atom finish, integer action )
- action: -1=internal range, 0= paragraph spacing, 1=range
- set_rich_internal_selection_range (Link: #SET_RICH_INTERNAL_SELECTION_RANGE)( atom rich, atom start, atom finish )
- begin_paragraph_spacing (Link: #BEGIN_PARAGRAPH_SPACING)( atom rich, atom before, atom after )
- set_rich_selection_range (Link: #SET_RICH_SELECTION_RANGE)( atom rich, atom start, atom finish )
- action: -1=internal range, 0= paragraph spacing, 1=range
- move_extreme (Link: #MOVE_EXTREME)( atom rich, atom flags, integer dest )
- dest: -3=to para start, -2=line start, -1=home, 1=end, 2=line end, 3=para end
- move_to_paragraph_start (Link: #MOVE_TO_PARAGRAPH_START)( atom rich, atom flags )
- move_to_line_start (Link: #MOVE_TO_LINE_START)( atom rich, atom flags )
- move_home (Link: #MOVE_HOME)( atom rich, atom flags )
- move_end (Link: #MOVE_END)( atom rich, atom flags )
- move_to_line_end (Link: #MOVE_TO_LINE_END)( atom rich, atom flags )
- move_to_paragraph_end (Link: #MOVE_TO_PARAGRAPH_END)( atom rich, atom flags )
- dest: -3=to para start, -2=line start, -1=home, 1=end, 2=line end, 3=para end
- move_rcaret (Link: #MOVE_RCARET)( atom rich, atom n_pos, atom flags, integer deviation )
- deviation: -2=left, -1=up, 0=move caret, 1=down, 2=right
- move_left (Link: #MOVE_LEFT)( atom rich, atom n_pos, atom flags )
- move_up (Link: #MOVE_UP)( atom rich, atom n_pos, atom flags )
- move_rich_caret (Link: #MOVE_RICH_CARET)( atom rich, atom pos, atom at_start )
- move_down (Link: #MOVE_DOWN)( atom rich, atom n_pos, atom flags )
- move_right (Link: #MOVE_RIGHT)( atom rich, atom n_pos, atom flags )
- deviation: -2=left, -1=up, 0=move caret, 1=down, 2=right
- move_wordspages (Link: #MOVE_WORDSPAGES)( atom rich, atom pages, atom flags, integer howmuch )
- howmuch: -2=word left, -1=up, 1=down, 2=right
- word_left (Link: #WORD_LEFT)( atom rich, atom words, atom flags )
- page_up (Link: #PAGE_UP)( atom rich, atom pages, atom flags )
- page_down (Link: #PAGE_DOWN)( atom rich, atom pages, atom flags )
- word_right (Link: #WORD_RIGHT)( atom rich, atom words, atom flags )
- howmuch: -2=word left, -1=up, 1=down, 2=right
- paragraph_text (Link: #PARAGRAPH_TEXT)( atom rich, sequence text, integer action)
- action: 0=begin, 1=add
- begin_paragraph_style (Link: #BEGIN_PARAGRAPH_STYLE)( atom rich, sequence named_style )
- add_paragraph (Link: #ADD_PARAGRAPH)( atom rich, sequence text )
- action: 0=begin, 1=add
- rich_bullets (Link: #RICH_BULLETS)( atom rich, sequence anything, atom indent, atom sub_indent, atom style, integer action )
- action: 1=numbered, 2= standard, 3=symbol.. anyhting: sequence number,or bullet name or sympbol.
- begin_numbered_bullet (Link: #BEGIN_NUMBERED_BULLET)( atom rich, atom number, atom indent, atom sub_indent, atom style )
- begin_standard_bullet (Link: #BEGIN_STANDARD_BULLET)( atom rich, sequence bullet_name, atom indent, atom sub_indent, atom style )
- begin_symbol_bullet (Link: #BEGIN_SYMBOL_BULLET)( atom rich, sequence symbol, atom indent, atom sub_indent, atom style )
- action: 1=numbered, 2= standard, 3=symbol.. anyhting: sequence number,or bullet name or sympbol.
Functions/Procedures (10 functions in section 3)
- apply_rich_style (Link: #APPLY_RICH_STYLE)( atom rich, atom style_def )
- begin_font (Link: #BEGIN_FONT)( atom rich, atom font )
- begin_list_style (Link: #BEGIN_LIST_STYLE)( atom rich, sequence named_style, atom level, atom number )
- begin_text_color (Link: #BEGIN_TEXT_COLOR)( atom rich, atom color )
- begin_url (Link: #BEGIN_URL)( atom rich, sequence url, sequence style )
- layout_rich_content (Link: #LAYOUT_RICH_CONTENT)( atom rich, atom only_visible )
- add_rich_image (Link: #ADD_RICH_IMAGE)( atom rich, atom image )
- write_image (Link: #WRITE_IMAGE)( atom rich, atom image, atom bitmap_type )
- write_image_block (Link: #WRITE_IMAGE_BLOCK)( atom rich, atom image_block )
- write_image_from_file (Link: #WRITE_IMAGE_FROM_FILE)( atom rich, sequence filename, atom bitmap_type )
I suggest you try and be professional when you look at it. This is not one of those forums where people try to ridicule others.
I will restate: An over 66% reduction in the number of functions and full details shown above. The total for all the 169 files was an over 59% reduction.
41. Re: Keywords and Namesapces
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Nov 16, 2011
- 38921 views
I did not know you counted the number of lines as a criteria!
the whole discussion, sir, is about reducing the number of functions.
I was using it to gauge the number of original functions. My conclusion - that there weren't too many in the first place.
THEREFORE, SIR, the reduction in the number of functions (from 63 to 34) is 46%
There are over 1600 functions and we managed to dwindle them down to about 650, i.e. over 59% reduction.
I will restate: An over 46% reduction in the number of functions and full details shown above. The total for all the 169 files was an over 59% reduction.
Well, I'll ask again - what was the wxWidget group's reaction to these numbers?
- is_tree_item_bold (Link: #IS_TREE_ITEM_BOLD)( atom tree, atom item )
Note the one-to-one correspondence to methods in wxWidgets itself.
http://docs.wxwidgets.org/2.8/wx_wxtreectrl.html#wxtreectrlisbold
If this idea really works, it should be applicable directly to wxWidgets.
I suggest you try and be professional when you look at it. This is not one of those forums where people try to ridicule others.
Fine by me. This is easier when you refrain from making untrue (or at least unverifable) claims - such as referencing our "supposed" discussions on Unicode.
42. Re: Keywords and Namesapces
- Posted by Vinoba Nov 17, 2011
- 38911 views
I had posted by mistake the Tree control original file instead of the Richtext control original file. I have edited it. It was by mistake apples and oranges before; now it is clearly all apples with unwanted ones taken out and new fewer apples put in
The work I intended to show was for the original Richtext control functions (currently 96, not 63 as I originally stated) which are now reduced to 34. Because of my directive to keep the number of functions in a file to 10-12, the students had split it to three files - one file with 11 functions, a second file with 13 functions and a third file with the remaining 10 functions. The first two files show the old (discontinued) functions with a square marker and the new functions with a bold circular marker. the third file has the remaining unaltered functions- functions they could not reduce in number mainly because of the number and types of parameters.
As I said before the total of over 1600 functions in wxEuphoria has been reduced to about 650, without sacrificing any functionality. It is NOT my intention to write to wxWidgets, because this exercise is over. I have given extensive demo above (edited 10 minutes ago) for anybody to see what can be done, and how it can be done. It is not a question of whether it can be done, but whether the approach taken by me is suitable overall for the common good of all Euphoria users using wxEuporia. If Matt decides to go that route (he has already rejected the idea), he will have to fine tune the details.
43. Re: Keywords and Namesapces
- Posted by mattlewis (admin) Nov 17, 2011
- 38886 views
As I said before the total of over 1600 functions in wxEuphoria has been reduced to about 650, without sacrificing any functionality. It is NOT my intention to write to wxWidgets, because this exercise is over. I have given extensive demo above (edited 10 minutes ago) for anybody to see what can be done, and how it can be done. It is not a question of whether it can be done, but whether the approach taken by me is suitable overall for the common good of all Euphoria users using wxEuporia. If Matt decides to go that route (he has already rejected the idea), he will have to fine tune the details.
Yes, I have no plans to combine functions like this, although, truth be told, I couldn't really follow what you did or were trying to express in those lists of function descriptions.
Matt
44. Re: Keywords and Namesapces
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Nov 17, 2011
- 38892 views
It is not a question of whether it can be done
Agreed. It is not necessary to continously point this out, as everyone who has ever posted on this thread to date agrees with this point.
but whether the approach taken by me is suitable overall for the common good of all Euphoria users using wxEuporia.
It is NOT my intention to write to wxWidgets, because this exercise is over.
Any particular reason why other, non-Euphorian users of wxWidgets should be excluded from these benefits?
I have given extensive demo above (edited 10 minutes ago) for anybody to see what can be done, and how it can be done.
If Matt decides to go that route (he has already rejected the idea), he will have to fine tune the details.
Detail which you indicated had already been fleshed out into functional code. An "extensive demo" that consists of nothing but statistics and documentation.
You are asking Matt (or anyone else who may want to follow up on and expand this idea) to redo the entire thing from scratch. Might as well ask him to re-invent the wheel.
45. Re: Keywords and Namesapces
- Posted by Vinoba Nov 17, 2011
- 38879 views
Any particular reason why other, non-Euphorian users of wxWidgets should be excluded from these benefits?
wxEuphoria is a wrapper on wxWidgets. Wrappers make things easier for the "foreign" language to be understood by the users of the "native" language. There was never any intention to doubt the validity of the approach of wxWidgets. There was every intention on my part to make it easier to express the thoughts of that "foreign" language using Euphoria, this group's native language, and hopefully make Windows programming easier using wxEuphoria. That it would be easier, is my personal opinion, shared by my students.
You are asking Matt (or anyone else who may want to follow up on and expand this idea) to redo the entire thing from scratch. Might as well ask him to re-invent the wheel.
I am NOT asking Matt to do anything. I am bringing before him a way of wrapping to reduce the number of functions, which HE can decide whether or not to use. The demo and the effort of the sudents was an exercise and far from perfect. To do it properly, one has to sit down and decide on certain ruls (such as using the same integer value for substiting say "Bold")
46. Re: Keywords and Namesapces
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Nov 17, 2011
- 38859 views
Any particular reason why other, non-Euphorian users of wxWidgets should be excluded from these benefits?
wxEuphoria is a wrapper on wxWidgets. Wrappers make things easier for the "foreign" language to be understood by the users of the "native" language.
Agreed. To this extend, wxEuphoria is a very thin wrapper.
There was never any intention to doubt the validity of the approach of wxWidgets.
Since wxEuphoria is a very thin wrapper, it should be identical to wxWidgets in the manner of the approach (or more explicitly, the use of name choice, the style of names, the style of classes, etc.).
Although you have not said that you explicitly doubt the validity of the approach of wxEuphoria, the fact that you believe these changes to be useful only to wxEuphoria and not to wxWidgets implies it.
So, why do you doubt the validity of the approach for wxEuphoria, when you feel that the same one works for wxWidgets?
this group's native language
What does that mean?
There was every intention on my part to make it easier to express the thoughts of that "foreign" language using Euphoria, and hopefully make Windows programming easier using wxEuphoria. That it would be easier, is my personal opinion
Either the approach of wxWidgets is itself against the philosophy of Euphoria (I don't believe this is true) and therefore the simple "thin wrapper" style is inappropriate for Euphoria programming (I don't buy this at all), or the language behind wxWidgets is so different to the point that the concepts used by wxWidgets can't be expressed in Euphoria (but the existence of the current form of wxEuphoria shows that this is clearly false).
The approach of wxWidgets is almost perfectly expressed by wxEuphoria (with a small caveat that Matt had previously mentioned here), and your demonstration suggests a significant change to it.
Useful? Easier? Better? For the sake of argument I'll accept all these. Just keep in mind that your recommendation, rather than being an attempt to better express the C format of wxWidgets in Euphoria, is actually a move away from the current form of wxWidgets to make wxEuphoria less similiar to it.
Of course, these changes can be directly applied to wxWidgets itself, or a fork of it. There is nothing in them that suggests that an interested party would be unable to do this.
You also state that you want to make programming easier. Yet, as Matt pointed out, all of the benefits you stated seemed to depend on a special IDE that is not publicly available. Even though I'd expressed skeptcism in the past that even this IDE would benefit, let us again assume for the sake of argument that this is true.
How's it make programming easier for the rest of us?
You are asking Matt (or anyone else who may want to follow up on and expand this idea) to redo the entire thing from scratch. Might as well ask him to re-invent the wheel.
I am NOT asking Matt to do anything. I am bringing before him a way of wrapping to reduce the number of functions, which HE can decide whether or not to use. The demo and the effort of the sudents was an exercise and far from perfect. To do it properly, one has to sit down and decide on certain ruls (such as using the same integer value for substiting say "Bold")
Why only Matt? It's possible that someone else might come along and like your approach and make a new fork of wxEuphoria based on it.
Except that they can't. They'd have to start from scratch (well, from the current version of wxEuphoria) and do all the legwork from there.
Let's assume Matt did make the decision to use this. He'd also have to do all the heavy lifting himself.
You bring a new idea, and claim that the code to prove that it works has already been written, but essentially require that anyone else who agrees and wants to give it a try has to reinvent the wheel. You may not be literally asking anyone to do that, but it seems that the wheel has to be reinvented, regardless.
47. Re: Keywords and Namesapces
- Posted by mattlewis (admin) Nov 17, 2011
- 38876 views
Since wxEuphoria is a very thin wrapper, it should be identical to wxWidgets in the manner of the approach (or more explicitly, the use of name choice, the style of names, the style of classes, etc.).
The difficulty is in mapping object oriented C++ code to procedural C and Euphoria. I've taken the standard C approach of prepending the class name (or similar) to the function name, although I haven't necessarily been consistent.
There are a few places where certain wxWidgets classes are based on the same super classes (widgets that store a list come to mind) have occasionally been merged, with the polymorphism handled in the wxEuphoria C++ code.
I've said before that I think a better approach would be to break the wrappers up into separate files and use euphoria namespaces to differentiate the different functions for different classes. Also, using euphoria's public scope, I could more closely and consistently mimic the C++ class hierarchy of wxWidgets.
My understanding of Vinoba's proposal is to add an integer parameter to distinguish the target class. This seems more error prone and less elegant, which is why I've rejected that approach. As you've stated, if someone wanted to fork wxEuphoria, they could certainly do so.
Matt
48. Re: Keywords and Namesapces
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Nov 17, 2011
- 38891 views
My understanding of Vinoba's proposal is to add an integer parameter to distinguish the target class.
If you look closely at the docs, the integer parameter being suggested works differently. It is not used to distinguish the target class.
Instead it tends to have a meaning akin to:
enum stuff { BOLD, ITALIC, BOLD_PLUS_ITALIC, UNDERLINE... }
Totally different.
49. Re: Keywords and Namesapces
- Posted by mattlewis (admin) Nov 17, 2011
- 38842 views
My understanding of Vinoba's proposal is to add an integer parameter to distinguish the target class.
If you look closely at the docs, the integer parameter being suggested works differently. It is not used to distinguish the target class.
Instead it tends to have a meaning akin to:
enum stuff { BOLD, ITALIC, BOLD_PLUS_ITALIC, UNDERLINE... }
Totally different.
Ah. That might be reasonable. Like I said, I didn't really understand what he was posting, probably because he was doing this sort of thing, and I was looking for something related polymorphism.
This approach just means more effort spent wrapping. As you said, the vast majority of wxEuphoria C++ code is simply a very thin wrapper (typically a cast and a method call). Most methods are very easy to deal with like this, and it doesn't even take much planning or thought, especially since the euphoria wrappers are generated automatically.
IIRC, the rich text control was a massive class, and I think that I basically copied and pasted a lot of it from header files to speed up the process. I'm not fundamentally against that sort of thing, but I'm not terribly motivated to work on it, either.
I wouldn't mind seeing a patch for that sort of change.
Matt
50. Re: Keywords and Namesapces
- Posted by Vinoba Nov 17, 2011
- 38802 views
I will comment at length tonight, when I have time. In the meantime, i suggest, please get away from the concept of "class" etc.
I job has to be done, and a pyramid of functions is to be built on top of the basic CPU function of move one value from one register to another or do some simple arithmetic with one value in a register to a value pointed to be another register, etc., etc., etc,etc.
The libraries (including wxWidgets build a part of a pyramid on top of these basic functions of CPU functions.
With euphoria you add to this pyramid and so on to the final application on the desktop of some Banking genius who can make billions disappear from the economy.
In that process, one has to consolidate, remove functions, etc. e.g.
Whether you give access via 5 separate functions to change to bold, italic, underline etc, or give one function to say, something like this hypothetical function:-
change-font(agridid,scell,sfontname,iweight,bitalic,bunderline,icolournumber) -- a prefix used for atom, s for sequence, i for integer and b for boolean
This decision has NOTHING to do with developers of wxWidgets, and is entirely in the province of the developers of higher language who would like to use the facility of wxWidgets in THEIR OWN UNIQUE WAY and create their own UNIQUE APPROACH to using these facilites. Every new layer causes loss of speed of final execution (in the Interpreter), which is mostly nullified by creating an executable.
All the change made to reduce the number of functions, were executed using small Euphoria functions and
if ... then
51. Re: Keywords and Namesapces
- Posted by mattlewis (admin) Nov 17, 2011
- 38821 views
In the meantime, i suggest, please get away from the concept of "class" etc.
What? I think you've lost me. Or I've lost you. Classes are what I have to work with from wxWidgets. I have to somehow map C++ classes to euphoria code. And UI widgets actually tend to fit the OO paradigm pretty well.
Matt
52. Re: Keywords and Namesapces
- Posted by Vinoba Nov 17, 2011
- 38781 views
- Last edited Nov 18, 2011
Matt says: “The difficulty is in mapping object oriented C plus plus code to procedural C and Euphoria.”
I say: Please continue doing what you are doing there. I am not suggesting any change there.
Matt says: “My understanding of Vinoba's proposal is to add an integer parameter to distinguish the target class.”
My proposal is to add an integer parameter to simply combine 2-8 functions as one function. In its simplest form, you have in the file “wxFlexGridSizer”, the following two functions:- (Notice I use the word “file” not “Class”)
add_growable_col ( atom sizer, atom idx, atom proportion ) -- (Link: #ADD_GROWABLE_COL) add_growable_row ( atom sizer, atom idx, atom proportion ) -- (Link: #ADD_GROWABLE_ROW)
I/we noticed that both the functions have the same three parameters, viz.
atom sizer
atom idx
atom proportion
So we create a new function with the same parameters and add one more parameter “integer colrow” and remove the words “row” and “col” from the two names.
add_growable (Link: #ADD_GROWABLE)( atom sizer, atom idx, atom proportion, integer colrow ) -- colrow: 1=col, 2=row -- Here I have arbitrarily defined variable “colrow” to mean col if its value is 1 -- and row if its value is 2. -- If the methodology is adopted, we must try and use the same values for rows and columns throughout.
Then we define in a new wxeudex.e, where all these changes will be accommodated.
include wxeud.e -- public constant newpara_error = 9999 -- public function add_growable ()( atom sizer, atom idx, atom proportion, integer colrow ) if (colrow < 1) or (colrow > 2) then return newpara_error -- We retun an error. Error No 9999 has been defined as a universal error number for the new work. -- end if if colrow = 1 then add_growable_col ( sizer, idx, proportion ) end if if colrow=2 then add_growable_row ( sizer, idx, proportion ) end if return colrow -- since these were originally "procedures" in wxeud.e, and we want to use them as functions, -- we return something. -- we could return the atom sizer, or anything else if that is likely to be more useful -- for becoming an argument (parameter) to the next function. end function
No major change to the existing work.
In fact, the existing functions "add_growable_col" and "add_growable_row" remain usable till finally deprecated.
53. Re: Keywords and Namesapces
- Posted by euphoric (admin) Nov 17, 2011
- 38768 views
I've been working with wxEuphoria a little more these days and have been thinking that get_text() could cover the variety of "get text" functions (get_selected_text(), get_status_text(), get_text_value(), etc.). I can sympathize with Vinoba in this regard.
With get_text(), you wouldn't even need to supply a control parameter. It should be smart enough to figure out the control you want it from and call that control's get_text() function.
However, we're talking about a wrapper of a wrapper; increased maintenance cost by violating DRY. I never violate DRY.
Just my useless two cents.
54. Re: Keywords and Namesapces
- Posted by ne1uno Nov 18, 2011
- 38787 views
I've been working with wxEuphoria a little more these days and have been thinking that get_text() could cover the variety of "get text" functions (get_selected_text(), get_status_text(), get_text_value(), etc.). I can sympathize with Vinoba in this regard.
With get_text(), you wouldn't even need to supply a control parameter. It should be smart enough to figure out the control you want it from and call that control's get_text() function.
Qt has a meta compiler, so it is relatively easy in euqt to determine the type of most widgets and call the correct set/get_text() including for the clipboard. at a little loss of efficiency & safety, because in a wrapper this happens at runtime, but it must be hardly noticeable unless you include the time it takes to fit everything into one function. and most widgets in Qt inherent from the the same class so are the same size. which makes it less prone to crash.
depending on always using the correct enum with the intended widget in a consolidated function is asking too much. you may not find the mistake unless you have full coverage and not even then.
different widgets accept various parameters and you also have to have some default values and manage them. set_text on a tree vrs a tooltip, you are loosing a little there by passing default NULL for things the tree requires but the tooltip doesn't.
you have to have the API docs open no matter, may as well try to keep the end user code easy to read. so you compromise and have set_text(tree, "") only work on the current selected node. the end user has no idea of that compromise. so now you need two docs open. set & get text would seem to be simple. all the exceptions have to be maintained as the original GUI changes too.
wrapping the wrap is an easier way to test the theory that less functions is more functional. build on the already working/tested/used wrap. "you" may find the cost of converting existing demos and sample code & docs now in the native GUI takes more work.
not exactly the same topic, hall-of-api-shame-boolean-trap
55. Re: Keywords and Namesapces
- Posted by jimcbrown (admin) Dec 08, 2011
- 37487 views
I will comment at length tonight, when I have time.
I look forward to it.
This decision has NOTHING to do with developers of wxWidgets, and is entirely in the province of the developers of higher language who would like to use the facility of wxWidgets in THEIR OWN UNIQUE WAY and create their own UNIQUE APPROACH to using these facilites. Every new layer causes loss of speed of final execution (in the Interpreter), which is mostly nullified by creating an executable.
But if this were done directly in the wxWidgets layer, then wxEuphoria would have the advantages of this approach without the downside of the loss of speed.
(I'm a little skeptical here, I'm not sure that there'd be any significant loss of speed at all.)