Using "real(" Functions
Moderator: tr1p1ea
- JoostinOnline
- Regular Member
- Posts: 133
- Joined: Wed 11 Jul, 2007 10:42 pm
- Location: Behind You
Using "real(" Functions
Why, oh why did you have to make xlib use real(00 through real(30 ?
Whenever I run something that uses xlib, first I have to disable both Omnicalc and Symbolic, which makes Pretty Print just about worthless. I love those apps since I only do Basic programming. Without Omnicalc I can't restore my ram if my calc crashes (that happens alot b/c of all the testing I do on it ). I am forced to use your old buggy version of xlib that was an asm program, so I am missing a bunch of features. Is it not possible to change the real( function to somthing else
Whenever I run something that uses xlib, first I have to disable both Omnicalc and Symbolic, which makes Pretty Print just about worthless. I love those apps since I only do Basic programming. Without Omnicalc I can't restore my ram if my calc crashes (that happens alot b/c of all the testing I do on it ). I am forced to use your old buggy version of xlib that was an asm program, so I am missing a bunch of features. Is it not possible to change the real( function to somthing else
-
- Calc Master
- Posts: 1110
- Joined: Mon 20 Dec, 2004 10:01 pm
- Location: In the state of Roo Fearing
- Contact:
Except it won't work if you have apps that use the same numbers in real( -- one of you is going to have to change your numbers, which would break all preexisting programs using it. =\
How am I supposed to know if you mean real(10 from Omnicalc or from xLIB? I just can't do anything about something like that, sorry.
How am I supposed to know if you mean real(10 from Omnicalc or from xLIB? I just can't do anything about something like that, sorry.
- JoostinOnline
- Regular Member
- Posts: 133
- Joined: Wed 11 Jul, 2007 10:42 pm
- Location: Behind You
- JoostinOnline
- Regular Member
- Posts: 133
- Joined: Wed 11 Jul, 2007 10:42 pm
- Location: Behind You
But Omnicalc and Symbolic are the only apps that seem to have a big problem with it . Besides, the only people who need it to run at the same time are programmers.tr1p1ea wrote:I think backwards compatibility is more useful to people than breaking it just for omnicalc.
I assume this would still disable symbolic's functions, as well as all of Omnicalc's non-programming options . Still, that would be really nice !tr1plea wrote: I might be able to make a 'run omnicalc function' function though.
- JoostinOnline
- Regular Member
- Posts: 133
- Joined: Wed 11 Jul, 2007 10:42 pm
- Location: Behind You
Hmm.. .Andy_J wrote:There's no reason for all of Omnicalc's other options to be forcibly disabled.
It's actually been awhile since I even tried installing both, and that was when I used TI-OS v2.41, which had about 3 million bugs, so the ram clears and all that other crap may have just been TI's fault . Also, I used your previous version of xlib. Would that make a difference
- JoostinOnline
- Regular Member
- Posts: 133
- Joined: Wed 11 Jul, 2007 10:42 pm
- Location: Behind You
If I recall, xLIB did chain properly with Omnicalc, and the problem was just that it used the same function numbers as Symbolic. Someone could change the numbers that Symbolic uses, but the problem is that Omnicalc doesn't properly chain with Symbolic. Instead of passing the numbers to it's parser hook, it directly calls Symbolic's functions (I think), so both Symbolic and Omnicalc would have to be altered.
So, I think the one solution is for xLIB to have an option that switches between using the old numbers and using a new set of numbers compatible with Omnicalc and Symbolic. Then you'd choose whether you're interested in playing existing xLIB games or if you're interested in the new, compatible functions.
Another solution is for xLIB to determine whether the user wants to use it's function or Symbolic's function based on the number and type of parameters (for functions that have different parameters), and then passes on to Symbolic if necessary.
I'd say the first version is simpler to implement, but the second version could potentially be more compatible overall. If my post is hard to understand or is inaccurate, please let me know.
So, I think the one solution is for xLIB to have an option that switches between using the old numbers and using a new set of numbers compatible with Omnicalc and Symbolic. Then you'd choose whether you're interested in playing existing xLIB games or if you're interested in the new, compatible functions.
Another solution is for xLIB to determine whether the user wants to use it's function or Symbolic's function based on the number and type of parameters (for functions that have different parameters), and then passes on to Symbolic if necessary.
I'd say the first version is simpler to implement, but the second version could potentially be more compatible overall. If my post is hard to understand or is inaccurate, please let me know.
magicdanw wrote:If I recall, xLIB did chain properly with Omnicalc, and the problem was just that it used the same function numbers as Symbolic.
When tr1p says it's so, it's so.tr1p1ea wrote:Indeed it has nothing to do with the real( token, its the parser hook. I could change it to anything, like int( for example and it would still conflict with omnicalc.
Shaun
-
- Calc King
- Posts: 1513
- Joined: Sat 05 Aug, 2006 7:22 am