Re: more for the wish list
A spooky feature that would be. But most certainly interesting.
Check out Neil´s -(old) ememcopy´s command list techniques.
They provide sort of that, but to gain speed and to declare a procces of
graphical actions in a more readable way. Before-hand, while in the actual
game-loop (or ..) you only change parameteres from the command list, or
insert-remove command (that were created before hand as well) .. the effect
is you can gain lots of lots of speed, since for each frame a lot of things
don´t change .. and now they don´t have to be calculated for each frame as
well ...
Maybe you can do something simerlar using routine-pointers and a sequence ?
Ralf N.
> While we are suggesting things,, i have another wish which seems at first
> glance to be useless. Access to the procedure/function call stack. This
way
> a program can check it's own flow, to see how it got to where it is, and
if
> possible to change the stack, to have more control over where it backs up
> to. I don't remember why this is on my pascal gripe list, it seems there
is
> a way to get this data covertly, and it's possible to record it in a user
> record, but there wasn't a clean way to alter it, to skip over a lot of
code
> when returning to the original calling line. I think i was getting really
> really deep into nested calls, with a huge call stack ( the debugger shows
> the call stack ), and wanted to pop straight back to the place that
started
> the recursion, rather than returning one procedure at a time, and testing
at
> each return to see if i should return to that calling procedure, and
testing
> at that line to see if i should return again, and .. ad infinitum. This
> could also allow a procedure to see who called it, to allow the calling
proc
> permission to use it or not. It would also allow a user-defined form of
> function overloading in a way, dealing with passed parms in a way
dependant
> on who passed them. Or seeing if it called itself and how many times. Put
> this one at the bottom of the wish list, it's a luxury, i suppose.
>
> Kat,
> rambling.
>
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
