A89: Re: Re: CORRECTION: Shift+ON
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
A89: Re: Re: CORRECTION: Shift+ON
> > I should also mention that ASM programs are not intended to
> > use the Event Handler (but as long as it works, use it!)...
>
> Everything which exists is free for use in both C and ASM.
I believe that Scott mentioned this because of how the SDK docs extol the
benefits of flash apps over asm programs--they kind of glorify flash apps :)
> > that CM_IDLE [Zeljko: you guessed that name wrong =]
>
> Nothing strange: I think that a lot of my "guessed" names are
> wrong. By the way, which is real name of CM_IDLE message?
You were correct on many of them, and a few of them were only a little off.
Because of the NDA, I don't think TI would like us telling you what the real
names are, but, believe me, we are trying our hardest to get you included in
the beta (maybe even late alpha) testing.
--Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: "Zeljko Juric" <zjuric@utic.net.ba>
To: <assembly-89@lists.ticalc.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2000 5:52 AM
Subject: A89: Re: CORRECTION: Shift+ON
>
> Hi!
>
> > I downloaded the most recent doors source; apparently, the
> > new version DOES use the event handler for Shift+ON (strange,
> > certain "other" documentation doesn't appear to indicate you
> > can detect the ON key with events =).
>
> After a lot of experience, for me nothing is "strange" when
> TI is in question: if my TI-89 starts to emit ghosts in the
> space, like from Aladin's lamp, I will not be to surprised.
>
> > However, TEOS and old versions of doors DO still use int 6,
>
> TEOS 1.02 uses EV_hook
>
> > which I personally believe is a much more elegant solution
> > that installing a hook just for the shift+ON handler.
>
> I agree.
>
> > Allow me to pose the question to the list, then: which do
> > you consider a "better" solution, a small wrapper for int 6,
> > or an event handler?
>
> Small wrapper for int 6. By the way, I just mentioned in the
> tigcc documentation EV_hook method, because I saw it in TEOS
> source.
>
> > Seeing as the event handler poses some minor dificulties
> > when installing multiple handlers and is likely to generate
> > larger code, is that really a good idea?
>
> Not so good.
>
> > I should also mention that ASM programs are not intended to
> > use the Event Handler (but as long as it works, use it!)...
>
> Everything which exists is free for use in both C and ASM.
>
> > Also, I find it odd that Xavier tests whether the shift key
> > has been pressed EVERY SINGLE TIME
>
> Strange.
>
> > that CM_IDLE [Zeljko: you guessed that name wrong =]
>
> Nothing strange: I think that a lot of my "guessed" names are
> wrong. By the way, which is real name of CM_IDLE message?
>
> > is called, rather that just checking when the on button is
> > pressed? It's generating a bit more code and possibly
> > interfering with the calc's "normal" operations (at least a
> > little slowdown) for no reason I can determine...
>
> By the way, does anybody know why kernels sometimes interfere
> with some math functions (Solve for example)?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Zeljko
>
>
>
References: