A89: Re: Re: Re: A Address book With Some Real Problems
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
A89: Re: Re: Re: A Address book With Some Real Problems
Hello!
> Now there is a problem: as I just signed today a contract with
> TI about alpha testing (so I expect to get their documentation
> soon), I will not be able to correct this in the documentation
> regardless whether I discover the error by myself, or by reading
> their documentation ;-)
Haha, the key word there is "soon." When you become an alpha tester, that
word will come back and haunt you for the duration of your experience with
TI :) Anyway, welcome aboard.
> Of course. I just said what were necessary to be said about this
> topic ;-)
That is good. Scott needs some humbling every few seconds to keep his head
from swelling to unearthlyly proportions :)
Thanks,
--Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: "Zeljko Juric" <zjuric@utic.net.ba>
To: <assembly-89@lists.ticalc.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2000 12:44 PM
Subject: A89: Re: Re: A Address book With Some Real Problems
>
> Hi!
>
> > And if the originator of that thread is still reading
> > this, it IS possible to hook into turning the calc on via
> > replacing the event manager, although due to a glaring
> > mistake in the TI-GCC documentation, you're not gonna be
> > able to figure out how to do it yourself (Zeljko: one of
> > your event descriptions is completely wrong, giving you
> > two events with similar effects, one of which is completely
> > wrong...
>
> Nothing strange. The strange fact is that anything is correct,
> because it is really hard to discover correct meaning of
> events just by using VTI debugger and nothing more :-)
>
> > But you're probably not even going to find it with that
> > hint. I'm sorry, but I just can't reveal anymore.
>
> Now there is a problem: as I just signed today a contract with
> TI about alpha testing (so I expect to get their documentation
> soon), I will not be able to correct this in the documentation
> regardless whether I discover the error by myself, or by reading
> their documentation ;-)
>
> > But it's nice to see that Zeljko is human =)
>
> What you expect that I am :-)
>
> > To Zeljko again: actually, several of those are wrong. But some
> > are "wronger" than others =)
>
> I am happy because several of those are correct ;-)
>
> > Will more experienced C coders please back me up on the importance
> > of prototypes? It seems certain new programmers who I've told to
> > use prototypes grumpily added them, but don't believe me when I
> > state their importance.
>
> Yes, prototypes are very very very important, but not so important
> in Rob's code, because functions are called AFTER their definition:
> in such situation, prototypes are really not necessary. Anyway, I
> suggest putting (void) instead of () if the function does not have
> arguments. These two declarations are not the same; in second
> case, the compiler will accept ANY number of parameters (although
> getting them may be a nightmare in such case).
>
> > The static modifier should occur before the type (char), not after.
> > This is a fundamental of the C syntax and no code doing it as you
> > are will ever compile.
>
> "char static a;" is legal as well as "static char a;" in all C
> compilers I ever seen. The order of variable attributes is not
> proposed in the standard. I used this trick once in tigcclib (don't
> ask me why: it is a long story).
>
> > "Magic numbers" - that is, hardcoded constants - are bad. Try to
> > replace some of these numbers with symbolic constants; that is,
> > #define'd values, like the occurance of "CENTER" in the call to
> > DialogDo.
>
> Yes, but I don't think that ALL COORDINATES need to be #define's !?
>
> > while(result!=0&&result!=9)
> > Were you to fix up your syntax errors so that the code will actually
> > run, you'd see that result will never be see to either of those
> > values when encountering this pretest, and thus the loop is infinite.
>
> No: it is correct. "result" is changed in the loop as the result of
> the execution of "PopupDo".
>
> > Use a callback routine. I'm not sure how much of that has been
> > documented, so I'll leave that to Zeljko to answer if he so chooses
> > in order to avoid saying anything I shouldn't. But you shouldn't
> > even be THINKING about doing this yet.
>
> Callbacks are not so complicated to can not be explained to a
> beginner: dialogs.h documents it well (yes, Scott, I know that I
> surely missed something, but it seems what I wrote about it is correct).
> The code (with callback) is given in my previous letter.
>
> > Pat, Scott, Zeljko, et al: Go ahead, shoot me down. I dare ya. Fix
> > any glaring oversights and misinformation, and feel free to be as
> > rude and frank about it as you desire. It's the best way to learn =)
>
> Of course. I just said what were necessary to be said about this
> topic ;-)
>
> Zeljko
>
>
>
References: