1. Icons
how can you extract the icon from an executable or dll when you now the
index of the icon?
2. Icons
Hi all,
Is there a way of creating an icon directly from icon data in a
sequence?
i'm basically creating a sorta Resource Compiler like DCunys but with
win32 enhancents. i read the icon data using get_bytes() into a
sequence. All i wanna know is that can some one supply me a routine that
will take a sequence as the only parameter and return a handle to the
icon?
eg
sequence icondata icondata = {12,0,5,....blah}
function Licon(sequence data)
return icon_handle
end function
Thank you, Jordah
3. Icons
Hi all,
Is there some (relatively easy) way to set or change the icon of a bound
Euphoria file? I mean the icon that is shown next to the file name in
Explorer, and that shows up, for instance, on the taskbar when the program
is running.
Any advice or suggestions appreciated!
--Brent
++++++++++++++++++++ Brent Hugh / bhugh at cstp.umkc.edu ++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++ University of Missouri-Kansas City, Conservatory of Music +++++++
++ Sheet Music/Recordings: http://www.sunflower.org/~bhugh/pathetic.spm ++
+ Internet Piano Concert: http://cctr.umkc.edu/userx/bhugh/recital.html +
++++++++++ Classical Piano MP3s http://www.mp3.com/brent_d_hugh ++++++++++
4. Re: Icons
Brent Hugh wondered:
> Is there some (relatively easy) way to set or change
> the icon of a bound Euphoria file?
In the latest version of Win32Lib, you can write:
setIcon( myWindow, "iconfile.ico" )
to associate an icon with a window. Unfortunately, this can only be done at
runtime, and I don't know how to change the built-in icon.
-- David Cuny
5. Re: Icons
On Mon, 9 Aug 1999 17:29:47 -0500, Brent Hugh <bhugh at CCTR.UMKC.EDU> wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>Is there some (relatively easy) way to set or change the icon of a bound
>Euphoria file? I mean the icon that is shown next to the file name in
>Explorer, and that shows up, for instance, on the taskbar when the program
>is running.
>
>Any advice or suggestions appreciated!
>
>--Brent
Brent,
I found this on the 'net this morning:
<<The answer to the question "how to bind a default icon to an .EXE file"
is that the system looks for an icon resource with the (magic) number 1, so
you have to use the following in your resource file.
ICON 1 PRELOAD MYAPP.ICO
It was pointed out that this will cause trouble if you define a constant
for the number 1 because it conflicts with DID_OK, which is defined by the
Toolkit. My experience has indicated that the first icon resource found in
the executable is used, but since the first icon resource in my application
are usually the lowest numbered also, this could instead by the criteria.
Given that you can't get much lower than 1 (0?), the behavior I have seen
would be consistent with what is described above.>>
I'm sure somebody smarter than me can figure out what to do with this...
Brian Jackson
bjackson at 2fargon.hypermart.net
6. Re: Icons
>>ICON 1 PRELOAD MYAPP.ICO
That is used in the module definition file when you are using a "C"
compiler. There is no way to use a module definition file in Euphoria
wim32lib.ew because it is not compiling code only calling DLL routines.
7. Re: Icons
David you wrote:
>>In the latest version of Win32Lib, you can write:
>> setIcon( myWindow, "iconfile.ico" )
>>to associate an icon with a window. Unfortunately, this can only be done
>>at runtime, and I don't know how to change the built-in icon.
The Icon that shows up when minimize is the last entry in WNDCLASS structure
hIconSm ( small icon ) which is what I think he wants to change.
Couldn't you Unregister the class then re-Register the class with
different icons ?
Bernie
8. Re: Icons
Bernie Ryan wrote:
> Couldn't you Unregister the class then re-Register
> the class with different icons ?
Yes. But this is still a runtime operation.
-- David Cuny
9. Re: Icons
Thanks David
I will have to do some thinking to figure out another way then.
The only other ( difficult ) way is to set the Icons BLANK and
then paint the desired image on them.
Bernie
10. Re: Icons
Bernie Ryan wrote:
> I will have to do some thinking to figure out
> another way then. The only other (difficult)
> way is to set the Icons BLANK and then paint
> the desired image on them.
I would think that the best solution that can be hoped for is to build an
icon in memory (as some bitmaps are), and then the icon could be included as
XPM data or something similar.
-- David Cuny
11. Re: Icons
At 03:51 PM 8/9/99 -0700, you wrote:
>Brent Hugh wondered:
>
>> Is there some (relatively easy) way to set or change
>> the icon of a bound Euphoria file?
>
>In the latest version of Win32Lib, you can write:
>
> setIcon( myWindow, "iconfile.ico" )
>
>to associate an icon with a window. Unfortunately, this can only be done at
>runtime, and I don't know how to change the built-in icon.
I checked this out and it seems to work . . . I got poking around in the
win32.hlp file (look in the index under STM_SETICON and WM_SETICON) and
found out that the wparam sent with this function determines whether the
icon is set as the "large" or "small" icon for that window.
I'm not sure exactly what this is supposed to mean, but from a practical
point of view, I discovered that
if I set it to be the small icon, it became the small icon in the upper
left of the window, and next to the program in the title bar--but the
(larger) icon used during task-switching (alt-tab) was unchanged.
if I set it to be the large icon, then it set that icon to be the icon in
the upper left of the window, the taskbar, AND the larger icon seen during
alt-tab.
Upshot? It might be nice to at least have the option to select "large" or
"small" icon. (On the other hand, the other half of the setIcon procedure
which uses STM_SETICON doesn't have this option--or, apparently, need it .
. . . which makes some difficulties.)
--Brent
PS--thanks for the quick update of win32lib on that nasty menu bug--it
seems to work fine now!
--quoting------------------------------
[New - Windows 95]
WM_SETICON
wParam = (WPARAM) (BOOL) fType; // icon size (large or small)
lParam = (LPARAM) (HICON) hicon; // handle of icon
An application sends the WM_SETICON message to associate a new big or small
icon with a window. Windows draws the big icon when the window is
minimized, and the small icon in the window's title bar.
Parameters
fType
Value of wParam. Specifies the icon being set. If TRUE, the message sets
the big icon. If FALSE, the message sets the small icon.
hicon
Value of lParam. Identifies the new big or small icon. If this parameter is
NULL, the
icon indicated by fType is removed.
--quoting------------------------------
++++++++++++++++++++ Brent Hugh / bhugh at cstp.umkc.edu ++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++ University of Missouri-Kansas City, Conservatory of Music +++++++
++ Sheet Music/Recordings: http://www.sunflower.org/~bhugh/pathetic.spm ++
+ Internet Piano Concert: http://cctr.umkc.edu/userx/bhugh/recital.html +
++++++++++ Classical Piano MP3s http://www.mp3.com/brent_d_hugh ++++++++++
12. Re: Icons
Brent Hugh wrote:
> I got poking around in the win32.hlp file...
I'll hopefully add better icon support than Win32Lib currently has. I'd
ultimately like you to be able to build icons programmatically. I suspect
that they are internally similar to bitmaps, I just haven't had the time to
play with the data structures yet.
> PS--thanks for the quick update of win32lib on
> that nasty menu bug--it seems to work fine now!
Great!
-- David Cuny
13. Re: Icons
- Posted by Todd Riggins <triggins at AIRMAIL.NET>
Aug 12, 1999
-
Last edited Aug 13, 1999
Hiyas,
After reading some of the Icon threads after deleting some that I
deleted without reading, it caught my attention to look in the docs
on why you can't simply add icons to the exec file created with
Euphoria and associating icons to the hIcon member and the hIconSm
member of the WNDCLASSEX structure.
I understand now why euphoria 2.1 will never do this correctly
without using the WIN32 CreateIcon function or the way David Cuny's
win32lib does it. I'm assuming ya'll know why too, if not, I'll
try to explain it.
So my question, I guess directed to Rob, is, will a future version
of Euphoria be able to handle resources like MS Visual C/C++ does???
- Todd
14. Re: Icons
Todd Riggins writes:
> So my question, I guess directed to Rob, is, will a future
> version of Euphoria be able to handle resources like MS
> Visual C/C++ does???
Euphoria is an interpreter, not a compiler like Visual C/C++,
so it's a bit awkward to handle resource files. However,
David Cuny and others seem to have accomplished a
great deal without resource files, so I'm not too concerned
about it at the moment.
Regards,
Rob Craig
Rapid Deployment Software
http://members.aol.com/FilesEu/
15. Re: Icons
I was thinking more of something like a euphoria program that would
make a resource script and then compile it to a binary format to add
on to the end of a .exe file that was made by euphoria's bind. So then
all the Win32 functions that needs a resource can work properly.
I would guess that this kind of euphoria resource binder would
be an added bonus of registering a future version of the complete
edition of euphoria.
That is just on my wish list for euphoria. I guess I just
wanted a secured feeling that something like that would be
possible sometime down the road.
- Todd
Robert Craig wrote:
>
> Todd Riggins writes:
> > So my question, I guess directed to Rob, is, will a future
> > version of Euphoria be able to handle resources like MS
> > Visual C/C++ does???
>
> Euphoria is an interpreter, not a compiler like Visual C/C++,
> so it's a bit awkward to handle resource files. However,
> David Cuny and others seem to have accomplished a
> great deal without resource files, so I'm not too concerned
> about it at the moment.
>
> Regards,
> Rob Craig
> Rapid Deployment Software
> http://members.aol.com/FilesEu/
16. Re: Icons
> Euphoria is an interpreter, not a compiler like Visual C/C++,
> so it's a bit awkward to handle resource files. However,
> David Cuny and others seem to have accomplished a
> great deal without resource files, so I'm not too concerned
> about it at the moment.
Robert, Both bind and bindw should both have support for resource files.
These files are read only if they do not exist in the current directory by
using the standard 'open' file thingie.
The file should be appended in the 'standard win32' way, so other win32
tools can look, edit and see what the resources of a program,
Off course, it would solve the pathetic ICON issue.
Lastly, Robert your choice where you do and don't want/need 3rd party
support is confusing.
With a major new release, I suggest you reconsider some of these choices.
Take a look at DOS32: Built-in, executable size eating, support for SVGA,
Mouse, basic input, basic output & machien level acces. All part of the
compiled executable. Win32: Being able to open a DLL. Linux: Being able to
open a DLL.
I mean, people didn't want Win32 support, so they could also have their code
executed by an official 'win32 executable' .. they care about the Win32 GUI
and devices *interface* .. but they only interface Euphoria offers is to
open a dll.
That's fine, for built-in. But things such as win32lib/etc. (not to mention
the exitenz of mutliple standards: win32lib and visual-euphoria already
within the win32 interface) .. anyway, my point is win32-gui support should
have been in the 'final' win32 version of Euphoria as libraries we can
include. Simelar, at least the mouse! and the BIOS-text support can easily
be done with EUphoria code, rather than being packed into the interpreter. I
do understand moving the graphics support for DOs32 to real Euphoria code,
can be a time consuming thing, eventhough the right choice as well.
I don't want to offend you or anything, but I'm not noticing any clear
direction Euphoria is heading, although I'm sure you do have plans. Why not
share them with us ? You have to admit, that currently, it isn't a clear
distrubition anymore, with the different platforms, and the way they
integrate. I have yet to see the first program for Win32 and Linux, that
uses Euphoria because its clearly the best choice, while I can give many
'Dos32' examples.
Ralf N.
nieuwen at xs4all.nl
UIN:9389920
17. Re: Icons
Ralf writes:
> I don't want to offend you or anything, but I'm not noticing
> any clear direction Euphoria is heading, although I'm sure
> you do have plans. Why not share them with us ?
Long range planning can be very difficult.
In July 1993 when Euphoria 1.0 was released,
my long range planning completely ignored the
Internet and the Web, which barely existed
at that time. I spent a few hundred bucks on long
distance calls uploading Euphoria to numerous
BBS's (remember them?).
I also ignored Linux and WIN32 which also barely
existed. I remember thinking in August 1993,
"OK, 1.0 is out, now what? hmmm... Euphoria
is essentially *complete*, all that's left is to add a few
more builtin routines." A lot of really good features have
been added since then, most of them without any
long range planning.
It's usually a case of learning what users want,
determining that it's possible, and then doing it.
Currently Junko and I are getting the Linux
"alpha" release ready. New code has been
added, but mostly this involves bringing
all the documentation up-to-date, to include
Linux information everywhere. Junko is
fixing how2reg.ex since you'll now be able
to register for one of:
1. DOS32+WIN32 $39
2. Linux $25
3. DOS32+WIN32+Linux $59
Registered users of DOS32 and/or WIN32 can
get $15 off 1 and 3, but not 2.
We also have a new credit card order taker.
DigiBuy recently took over PsL. In the process
we negotiated a better deal with DigiBuy. They will
only take $3 from each order, where PsL was taking $5.
However they won't take telephone orders.
If you call them you'll be asked to use our
Web order form instead. About 98% of the credit card
orders were going through our Web site. Hardly
anyone called on the phone. (About 15% of the *total*
orders are via a check or money order mailed to RDS.)
Just before releasing the Linux alpha, we hope
to move our Web site to a registered domain name.
That should happen in the next week. We're waiting
for InterNIC approval.
Once the Linux 2.1 beta and official releases are
done, we will have a DOS32+WIN32 minor release
so DOS32 and WIN32 can benefit from
improvements we have made while doing the Linux release.
This will bring the 3 platforms into sync.
The DOS32+WIN32 minor release
will be a free upgrade for those who already have 2.1.
After that I want to improve the namespace
situation, and then look at a major rewrite
of the bind program.
Beyond that, there are many many things that can be
improved.
> You have
> to admit, that currently, it isn't a clear distrubition anymore,
> with the different platforms, and the way they integrate.
It's not practical to implement exactly the same
set of features on all platforms. Where a major feature
can be implemented on two or more platforms
we will try to make it as compatible as possible.
Regards,
Rob Craig
Rapid Deployment Software
http://members.aol.com/FilesEu/
18. Re: Icons
<< and then look at a major rewrite of the bind program. >>
I have a question.. when you bind a file, the overhead size is pretty
large. I checked this by binding a program that just said "hello", I can't
remember but it was at least 100K. I know you're pretty busy, but when you
get to the rewrite, I was wondering if you could add one feature: make it
where it only includes the built in routines you use in the program. For
example, in the above case, it will leave out every routine but puts(). Is
that possible? I'm working on a huge project, but I still only use about
40-60% of the routines... maybe this could make executables a little smaller.
Thanks,
Derek Brown
19. Re: Icons
- Posted by Greg Phillips <i.shoot at REDNECKS.COM>
Aug 14, 1999
-
Last edited Aug 15, 1999
Keep in mind, that large programs are not much larger than tiny ones. a *huge*
program shouldn't be much more than 500kb or so, bound.
There is the initial overhead of approx. 100kb, which is the interpreter, but
programs don't get much larger after that.
Greg Phillips
Derek Brown wrote:
> << and then look at a major rewrite of the bind program. >>
>
> I have a question.. when you bind a file, the overhead size is pretty
> large. I checked this by binding a program that just said "hello", I can't
> remember but it was at least 100K. I know you're pretty busy, but when you
> get to the rewrite, I was wondering if you could add one feature: make it
> where it only includes the built in routines you use in the program. For
> example, in the above case, it will leave out every routine but puts(). Is
> that possible? I'm working on a huge project, but I still only use about
> 40-60% of the routines... maybe this could make executables a little smaller.
>
> Thanks,
> Derek Brown
20. Re: Icons
>I have a question.. when you bind a file, the overhead size is pretty
>large. I checked this by binding a program that just said "hello", I can't
>remember but it was at least 100K. I know you're pretty busy, but when you
>get to the rewrite, I was wondering if you could add one feature: make it
>where it only includes the built in routines you use in the program. For
>example, in the above case, it will leave out every routine but puts(). Is
>that possible? I'm working on a huge project, but I still only use about
>40-60% of the routines... maybe this could make executables a little
>smaller.
>
>Thanks,
>Derek Brown
I have another suggestion, if you don't mind, Rob. How about having the
bound program binded only to the *core interpreter* without the trace and
profile modules and other built-in debugging tools. That might increase
speed and reduce file size.
Best regards,
Lionel W.
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
21. Re: Icons
On Sun, 15 Aug 1999, Rob wrote:
> Long range planning can be very difficult.
> In July 1993 when Euphoria 1.0 was released,
> my long range planning completely ignored the
> Internet and the Web, which barely existed
> at that time.....
> I also ignored Linux ..............
Don't feel badly - so did a guy named Bill Gates.
> Once the Linux 2.1 beta and official releases are
> done, we will have a DOS32+WIN32 minor release
> so DOS32 and WIN32 can benefit from
> improvements we have made while doing the Linux release.
> This will bring the 3 platforms into sync.
> The DOS32+WIN32 minor release
> will be a free upgrade for those who already have 2.1.
It's nice to see that everyone, not just Linux users, is going to benefit from
the Linux port.
> It's not practical to implement exactly the same
> set of features on all platforms. Where a major feature
> can be implemented on two or more platforms
> we will try to make it as compatible as possible.
Maybe it's time to reevaluate which functions belong in base Euphoria, and
which can be moved to "includes", either because they are platform dependent,
or because they are less-often used.
There's a topic that should keep the maillist busy for a while :)
Regards,
Irv
22. Re: Icons
-------Phoenix-Boundary-07081998-
Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-transfer-encoding: Quoted-printable
Hi Irv Mullins, you wrote on 8/15/99 9:06:16 AM:
> <lotsa snip>
>Maybe it's time to reevaluate which functions belong in base
>Euphoria, and
>which can be moved to "includes", either because they are
>platform dependent,
>or because they are less-often used.
>
>There's a topic that should keep the maillist busy for a while
>:)
>
>Regards,
>Irv
Oh, God.
Craig
(busily reading up on filters for email prog in
preparation for the coming wars :)
-------Phoenix-Boundary-07081998---
