Re: Writing Extensions

That is nice, thanks. JB > On May 25, 2017, at 11:51 PM, Mark Wieder via use-livecode > wrote: > > On 05/25/2017 08:07 PM, JB via use-livecode wrote: >> Hi Mark, >> Your way is much better! >> I just started learning Java a few >> days ago so the reason I did

Re: Writing Extensions

On 05/25/2017 08:07 PM, JB via use-livecode wrote: Hi Mark, Your way is much better! I just started learning Java a few days ago so the reason I did it wrong was because I did not know what I was doing. THANK YOU! Nothing wrong with your java code. Your LC script was calling the java app

Re: Writing Extensions

Hi Mark, Your way is much better! I just started learning Java a few days ago so the reason I did it wrong was because I did not know what I was doing. THANK YOU! JB > On May 25, 2017, at 7:45 PM, Mark Wieder via use-livecode > wrote: > > On 05/25/2017

Re: Writing Extensions

On 05/25/2017 06:58 PM, JB via use-livecode wrote: After it has been compiled as Arguments.class you can call it in liveCode like this: on mouseUp put "Drink" into arg1 put "Hot" into arg2 put "Java" into arg3 put "/Users/THEUSER/Desktop/" & return & "java Arguments"into

Re: Writing Extensions

Here is the Java code to test args; public class Arguments { public static void main(String[] args) { for(int i = 0; i < args.length; i++) { System.out.println(args[i]); } } } After it has been compiled as Arguments.class you can call it in liveCode like

Re: Writing Extensions

I agree with this. I never use the fallthrough feature because it's backwards from how I think. Trying to detemine where to put the conditions in the tree to effect the correct fall through or breaks is challenging for me. But now it is what it is. Bob S > On May 24, 2017, at 03:03 , Mark

Re: Writing Extensions

And this is exactly why I love Switch, that I can use Case as an OR statement whilst using soft wrap \ (CR) for making the script more readable and understandable as the indenting is different. My specific situation is I have 99 objects that I need to test. Some are booleans, some integers, some

Re: Writing Extensions

> On 24 May 2017, at 10:21 pm, Mark Waddingham via use-livecode > wrote: > >> Switch in LCB -- Monte asked to have the opportunity to do the job: >> http://forums.livecode.com/viewtopic.php?p=131509#p131509 >>

Re: Writing Extensions

On 2017-05-24 18:44, Mark Wieder via use-livecode wrote: As I said before, the lack of switch in LCB isn't because we don't want a construct like that; just that we'd like one which doesn't have the issues of C-style switch. (The best way to avoid people accidentally introducing subtle bugs, is

Re: Writing Extensions

On 05/24/2017 03:25 AM, Mark Waddingham via use-livecode wrote: The use-case which causes subtle bugs and errors is where one case requires a 'bit more code' before the others (where code, fallthrough, code is *not* erroneous but intended) - also it is a rarely used pattern in C (because it

Re: Writing Extensions

It's just difficult to get my brain wrapped around it, still. Elanor's course (that I think still has not been released to the public) was a help, but more of that is needed, since we aren't in your brain. On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 9:21 AM, Mark Waddingham via use-livecode <

Re: Writing Extensions

On 2017-05-24 14:55, Mike Kerner via use-livecode wrote: On the CompileIt thoughts, that was what I was hoping we were going to get with LCB (We already have Double-XX). You could make any Mac Toolbox call in CompileIt, which meant you could build any XCMD/XFCN to add to your stack, but the

Re: Writing Extensions

I personally hate switch. That said, getting rid of the CR's would help make the new "choose" easier to read. If you want a CR, use \ choose tValue when 1 or 2 or 3 -- do something end choose choose tValue when 1\ or 2\ or 3 -- do something end choose On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 9:03 AM,

Re: Writing Extensions

On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 8:25 PM, Mark Waddingham via use-livecode wrote: > Thanks Mark for the explanation. > choose tValue > when 1 > when 2 > when 3 > -- executes if tValue is 1, 2 or 3 > -- never falls through > > when 4 > --

Re: Writing Extensions

On the CompileIt thoughts, that was what I was hoping we were going to get with LCB (We already have Double-XX). You could make any Mac Toolbox call in CompileIt, which meant you could build any XCMD/XFCN to add to your stack, but the syntax was still HC (with some restrictions). On Wed, May 24,

Re: Writing Extensions

On 2017-05-24 12:35, hh via use-livecode wrote: Switch in LCB -- Monte asked to have the opportunity to do the job: http://forums.livecode.com/viewtopic.php?p=131509#p131509 Yes... I'm not sure I quite see your point (especially as he said 'Is there any chance switch will be implemented as a

Re: Writing Extensions

Switch in LCB -- Monte asked to have the opportunity to do the job: http://forums.livecode.com/viewtopic.php?p=131509#p131509 ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your

Re: Writing Extensions

On 2017-05-24 12:03, Mark Waddingham via use-livecode wrote: Perhaps a better model would be to use 'continue', rather than 'break': switch yourName case "Mark" -- do something and finish case "John" continue case "Jon" -- do something else end switch The idea being that

Re: Writing Extensions

Hi Kay On 2017-05-24 10:19, Kay C Lan via use-livecode wrote: In that last one the only inference I could find was that due to the probability that in 97% of use 'fall through' is not intended, a whole heap of typing could be saved if no keyword (break) was required for the 97%, and a keyword

Re: Writing Extensions

On Wed, May 24, 2017 at 2:49 AM, Mark Waddingham via use-livecode wrote: > On 2017-05-23 18:02, Mark Wieder via use-livecode wrote: > > In regards to 'switch' - 'switch' in LiveCode copied the C 'switch' which > is pretty much universally considered to be one of the

Writing Extensions

Mark Waddinghan wrote: > At the end of the day I could go on at length here > (what do you know, language design and implementation > is probably my biggest computing interest ;) ); however, > I'll leave it as an 'interesting exercise for the reader' > to consider what becomes possible if we can >

Re: Writing Extensions

On 05/23/2017 11:41 AM, Ali Lloyd via use-livecode wrote: Another way to search individual guides is to search the markdown files on GitHub: https://github.com/livecode/livecode/tree/develop/docs/guides and https://github.com/livecode/livecode-ide/tree/develop/Documentation/guides. Again, not

Re: Writing Extensions

Another way to search individual guides is to search the markdown files on GitHub: https://github.com/livecode/livecode/tree/develop/docs/guides and https://github.com/livecode/livecode-ide/tree/develop/Documentation/guides. Again, not ideal. There's an outstanding enhancement request for

Re: Writing Extensions

On 2017-05-23 17:53, Mark Wieder via use-livecode wrote: I'm not doing this because it's fun. I'm stuck with parsing xml data, and it's much uglier trying to treat it as a text stream, especially with a subset of the xtalk chunking functions, than by using the revXML functions in LCS. Yes - so

Re: Writing Extensions

No results in the page ranges of the LCB language reference section. On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 5:49 PM Mark Wieder via use-livecode < use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote: > On 05/23/2017 09:41 AM, Ali Lloyd via use-livecode wrote: > > Well, you have a very different definition of can't to me

Re: Writing Extensions

On 2017-05-23 18:02, Mark Wieder via use-livecode wrote: I'm rather disappointed that there's no way to search the guides. For instance, to find out why the switch statement wasn't working in LCB, I opened the LCB guide and found that the only way to discover this was to read through the entire

Re: Writing Extensions

On 05/23/2017 09:41 AM, Ali Lloyd via use-livecode wrote: Well, you have a very different definition of can't to me then. LOL Can't in this sense for me involves getting useful results. What do you get when you search for "switch"? -- Mark Wieder ahsoftw...@gmail.com

Re: Writing Extensions

Well, you have a very different definition of can't to me then. On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 5:39 PM Mark Wieder via use-livecode < use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote: > On 05/23/2017 09:08 AM, Ali Lloyd via use-livecode wrote: > > The guides are built into a PDF at build-time - this is what you

Re: Writing Extensions

On 05/23/2017 09:08 AM, Ali Lloyd via use-livecode wrote: The guides are built into a PDF at build-time - this is what you get under Help > User Guide. So you can search this just using your PDF viewer. No. You can't. A: bringing up the LCB guide from Help > All Guides > Guide tab > LiveCode

Re: Writing Extensions

The guides are built into a PDF at build-time - this is what you get under Help > User Guide. So you can search this just using your PDF viewer. On Tue, May 23, 2017 at 5:02 PM Mark Wieder via use-livecode < use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote: > On 05/18/2017 10:30 AM, Mark Waddingham via

Re: Writing Extensions

On 05/18/2017 10:30 AM, Mark Waddingham via use-livecode wrote: Ah. So the dictionary isn't a good place to look for things. I'll spend some time working my way through the language reference instead. Heh - as Ali said, the docs and such need a fair bit of work :) I'm rather disappointed

Re: Writing Extensions

(getting back to this thread after being without internet for several days - it's rather an interesting experience) On 05/19/2017 12:40 AM, Mark Waddingham via use-livecode wrote: If we are honest then parsing XML even with LCS's excellent text chunking isn't necessarily *that* much

Re: Writing Extensions

On 5/19/17 2:18 AM, Mark Waddingham via use-livecode wrote: Referring to yourself as "this me"... Does that mean you are just a link in a longer behavior chain then, Mark? ;) He has a split personality. -- Jacqueline Landman Gay | jac...@hyperactivesw.com HyperActive Software

Re: Writing Extensions

On 2017-05-18 22:08, Mark Wieder via use-livecode wrote: On 05/18/2017 10:57 AM, Mark Waddingham via use-livecode wrote: The point is the whole problem can be sufficiently solved quite well with better tooling (which we are aware we need to work on); and in the future can be solved completely

Re: Writing Extensions

On 2017-05-19 06:23, Mark Wieder via use-livecode wrote: On 05/18/2017 07:14 PM, Alejandro Tejada via use-livecode wrote: Now that we are talking about widgets and extensions, many thanks again Mark Wieder for updating Peter Thirkell multicolor svg widget. Just for curiosity, Could you write

Re: Writing Extensions

On 2017-05-18 22:08, Mark Wieder via use-livecode wrote: On 05/18/2017 10:57 AM, Mark Waddingham via use-livecode wrote: Yes, but that's comparing two different things. I'm concerned about the differing binary formats, not the source compatibility. I'm stuck if I want to distribute an

Re: Writing Extensions

On 2017-05-19 03:08, Mark Wieder via use-livecode wrote: On 05/18/2017 12:59 AM, Mark Waddingham via use-livecode wrote: backported to LCS. I appreciate the team's reticence to make syntax changes to the core xtalk language, but even as a long-time C programmer, I wouldn't say we have a

Re: Writing Extensions

On 05/18/2017 07:14 PM, Alejandro Tejada via use-livecode wrote: Now that we are talking about widgets and extensions, many thanks again Mark Wieder for updating Peter Thirkell multicolor svg widget. Just for curiosity, Could you write a blog entry about your process of updating this widget?

Writing Extensions

Now that we are talking about widgets and extensions, many thanks again Mark Wieder for updating Peter Thirkell multicolor svg widget. Just for curiosity, Could you write a blog entry about your process of updating this widget? Maybe others would find this useful to update their own widgets. If

Re: Writing Extensions

On 5/18/17 8:08 PM, Mark Wieder via use-livecode wrote: "this me" still seems wrong to me. Or at least to this me I still chuckle about that. But I had the occasion to need it once and for the life of me, I couldn't think of a better definition. It fits all the syntax parameters. So now I

Re: Writing Extensions

On 05/18/2017 12:59 AM, Mark Waddingham via use-livecode wrote: backported to LCS. I appreciate the team's reticence to make syntax changes to the core xtalk language, but even as a long-time C programmer, I wouldn't say we have a 'reticence' to make syntax changes but it requires a great

Re: Writing Extensions

On the other hand, the bad thing about Linux is that there are so many to choose from... Bob S > On May 18, 2017, at 13:08 , Mark Wieder via use-livecode > wrote: > > Heh. The nice thing about linux is there are so many to choose from... > > -- > Mark Wieder

Re: Writing Extensions

On 05/18/2017 10:57 AM, Mark Waddingham via use-livecode wrote: On 2017-05-18 18:18, Mark Wieder via use-livecode wrote: That's unfortunate. It means that, aside from distributing the widget source code, compiled widgets are bound to a specific LC version with no guarantee that they will work

Re: Writing Extensions

On 2017-05-18 18:18, Mark Wieder via use-livecode wrote: That's unfortunate. It means that, aside from distributing the widget source code, compiled widgets are bound to a specific LC version with no guarantee that they will work with any other past or future version. Does 'major version' here

Re: Writing Extensions

On 2017-05-18 18:07, Mark Wieder via use-livecode wrote: Didn't find it in the dictionary, but I do see that now in the language reference. How would one define a quote constant? constant quote is "\q" ? Yes. The language guide explicitly states "Note: Constants are not currently

Re: Writing Extensions

It's not necessary to do any C++ (or any other language) coding to work with LCB. One of the reasons for LCB's existence is to allow the language to be extended into linking with parts of the operating system where it can't currently reach, and in that sense knowledge of how to interact with

Re: Writing Extensions

On 05/18/2017 12:30 AM, Mark Waddingham via use-livecode wrote: Unfortunately we aren't going to be guaranteeing binary-level compatibility of the LCB module format for quite some time - it will likely change in every major version for quite a while yet. That's unfortunate. It means that,

Re: Writing Extensions

On 05/18/2017 12:45 AM, Mark Waddingham via use-livecode wrote: You can define constants using: constant X is Y Currently Y has to be a literal - not an expression (just like LCS). Didn't find it in the dictionary, but I do see that now in the language reference. How would one define a

Re: Writing Extensions

I am following this discussion about extensions with great interest. Still, partially it goes over my head and as a simple LCS scripter, I sometimes feel a bit lost. As I read from different beginners sources, the best is always to know C and C++ as the "mothers" of languages to then being able

Re: Writing Extensions

On 2017-05-18 15:53, hh via use-livecode wrote: LCB bug reports by me only: 18899 CONFIRMED 2016-11-29, LCB: load image from resource file defunct in 9.0.0-dp2 18669 CONFIRMED 2016-10-24, LCB: display problem in Linux when rotating the canvas 18628 CONFIRMED 2016-11-03, LCB: Random 'jumping' of

Re: Writing Extensions

>> hh wrote: >> See for example (in forum/bug-triage): >> http://forums.livecode.com/viewtopic.php?p=148665#p148665 > Mark W. wrote: > I have to remind people - please file bug reports! If you don't then the > chances of these things getting addressed, explained, or advice given > reduces

Re: Writing Extensions

On 2017-05-17 01:02, hh via use-livecode wrote: Alejandro T. wrote: How fast is LCB working with imagedata? Would be great, if not too difficult to realise, to have a "do as javascript" here (which uses the js engine only of the browser widget). This is at least ten times faster with imagedata

Re: Writing Extensions

On 2017-05-18 13:29, hh via use-livecode wrote: No, not only the binary-level compatibility is the problem. LC Builder is not downward compatible (without documenting that), already running parts are removed. See for example (in forum/bug-triage):

Re: Writing Extensions

> hh wrote: >> But I wait for my next examples until there is a stable >> widget format (we have meanwhile three formats that work on >> some LC versions only, not on the others). > Mark Waddingham wrote: > Unfortunately we aren't going to be guaranteeing binary-level > compatibility of the LCB

Re: Writing Extensions

Thanks Mark, those comments on the docs are really helpful! I've filed bugs for the core language features, the fixed width font in the extension builder, script object docs and misleading CamelCase naming. On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 8:59 AM Mark Waddingham via use-livecode <

Re: Writing Extensions

On 2017-05-17 23:43, Mark Wieder via use-livecode wrote: Yes. In fact it's the areas where they differ that make for a difficult learning curve. There are features in LCB that I wish were backported to LCS. I appreciate the team's reticence to make syntax changes to the core xtalk language, but

Re: Writing Extensions

On 2017-05-17 21:27, Mark Wieder via use-livecode wrote: Well, I'd love to have more parity between LCS and LCB as far as keywords and syntax, but I guess that's outside the scope of the documentation per se. But finding that constants like comma and quote aren't defined in LCB was a shock.

Re: Writing Extensions

On 2017-05-17 01:02, hh via use-livecode wrote: But I wait for my next examples until there is a stable widget format (we have meanwhile three formats that work on some LC versions only, not on the others). Unfortunately we aren't going to be guaranteeing binary-level compatibility of the LCB

Re: Writing Extensions

On 2017-05-17 23:30, JB via use-livecode wrote: It looks to me like a the easier stepping stone to fill the gap is just write the code in C/C++, compile it and call it using a shell coimmand. That works fine for batch processing type scenarios, certainly. However, it doesn't work if you want

Re: Writing Extensions

This may sound crazy but I do not have any mobile phones. I have a really old iPad that won’t run the newer os. I think androids are written in Java and I have used Java. I have read C can be ported to Java but that is all I know. JB > On May 17, 2017, at 2:49 PM, Mark Wieder via

Re: Writing Extensions

On 05/17/2017 02:30 PM, JB via use-livecode wrote: It looks to me like a the easier stepping stone to fill the gap is just write the code in C/C++, compile it and call it using a shell coimmand. Is that working for you in Android apps? -- Mark Wieder ahsoftw...@gmail.com

Re: Writing Extensions

On 05/17/2017 01:10 PM, Ali Lloyd via use-livecode wrote: LCB as a language is marginally (if at all) more complex than LiveCode. In fact many lines of code are indistinguishable between the two. Yes. In fact it's the areas where they differ that make for a difficult learning curve. There are

Re: Writing Extensions

It looks to me like a the easier stepping stone to fill the gap is just write the code in C/C++, compile it and call it using a shell coimmand. I have been doing it in C and it works really good. I am amazed at how easy it is. If you can get the C code I posted to print out the argument you

Re: Writing Extensions

LCB as a language is marginally (if at all) more complex than LiveCode. In fact many lines of code are indistinguishable between the two. The difficulty Mark was having is more related to the fact that LCB is not 'live' like LiveCode Script, and that we certainly haven't quite cracked the

Re: Writing Extensions

On 2017-05-17 21:34, Richmond Mathewson via use-livecode wrote: Why do I feel that the reason for all this "wierdness" is because LCB has been written from C++ programmers from the ground up, while LiveCode still (well, just about) hangs onto to its HyperCard heritage. LiveCode, at its best,

Re: Writing Extensions

Why do I feel that the reason for all this "wierdness" is because LCB has been written from C++ programmers from the ground up, while LiveCode still (well, just about) hangs onto to its HyperCard heritage. LiveCode, at its best, preserves the clarity that was the best thing about HyperCard

Re: Writing Extensions

On 05/17/2017 12:09 AM, Ali Lloyd via use-livecode wrote: Mark, it would be lovely if you could be more specific. What parts of the docs in particular could be improved and how? What specific sticking points did you have? Oh, where to start? Here are some thoughts off the top of my head:

Re: Writing Extensions

On 2017-05-17 18:05, Mark Wieder via use-livecode wrote: Ha! Yes, It sounds like that should take care of that issue. I kept thinking the pointer was showing me where the error occurred (the line number was correct), but I kept changing the parameter it was pointing to and still got the same

Re: Writing Extensions

On 05/17/2017 12:19 AM, Mark Waddingham via use-livecode wrote: Yes - LCB errors now emit with a marker and code line as to where the error is... However, this requires a monospaced font to look right (it works really well from the terminal, for example) - so just making the log in field in the

Re: Writing Extensions

On 2017-05-17 09:09, Ali Lloyd via use-livecode wrote: Mark, it would be lovely if you could be more specific. What parts of the docs in particular could be improved and how? What specific sticking points did you have? Could you file a bug report about the extension builder? It may be that

Re: Writing Extensions

Mark, it would be lovely if you could be more specific. What parts of the docs in particular could be improved and how? What specific sticking points did you have? Could you file a bug report about the extension builder? It may be that something about error reporting has changed that hasn't been

Re: Writing Extensions

Herman: Your doAsJavascript suggestion is very cool. I might use it and might learn some javascript in order to use it. Great idea! Bill > On May 16, 2017, at 4:02 PM, hh via use-livecode > wrote: > >>> Alejandro T. wrote: >>> How fast is LCB working with

Re: Writing Extensions

This is why the LiveCode Infinity project had such attraction to me. There were to be fully documented examples. Oh well. ___ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your

Re: Writing Extensions

>> Alejandro T. wrote: >> How fast is LCB working with imagedata? Slower than slowest LC Script ever seen. I Stopped all my experiments with imagedata after one full day (was 12 hours). For a first own test simply take an image of screensize and walk through the pixeldata for each byte applying

Re: Writing Extensions

On 05/16/2017 02:47 PM, Stephen Barncard via use-livecode wrote: On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 1:48 PM, Mark Wieder via use-livecode < use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote: It took me three hours today to figure out how to convert a hex number into decimal format. Why? Because the IP is IPV6 ?

Re: Writing Extensions

Thanks for this post. I was already thinking it is just me who struggles with LCB. I tried a bit, gave up and decided to wait for the announced course. Matthias Matthias Rebbe +49 5741 31 ‌matthiasrebbe.eu ‌ > Am 16.05.2017 um 22:48 schrieb Mark Wieder via

Re: Writing Extensions

On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 1:48 PM, Mark Wieder via use-livecode < use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote: > It took me three hours today to figure out how to convert a hex number > into decimal format. Why? Because the IP is IPV6 ? Large hex number that overflows? -- Stephen Barncard - Sebastopol

Re: Writing Extensions

I also am curious about this. Sent from my iPhone > On May 16, 2017, at 4:03 PM, Alejandro Tejada via use-livecode > wrote: > > Hi Mark, > > Did you choose this task to measure how fast > is LiveCode Builder? > > I want to know the answer too. > How fast is

Writing Extensions

Hi Mark, Did you choose this task to measure how fast is LiveCode Builder? I want to know the answer too. How fast is LCB working with imagedata? How fast is LCB working with transform matrices? Al On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 4:48 PM, Mark Wieder via use-livecode < use-livecode at

Re: Writing Extensions

yep. it's not fun, yet. On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 4:48 PM, Mark Wieder via use-livecode < use-livecode@lists.runrev.com> wrote: > Having spent a bit of the day experimenting with LCB, I have this to say: > > the documentation is atrocious > > ...also, the only thing I have to say about error

Writing Extensions

Having spent a bit of the day experimenting with LCB, I have this to say: the documentation is atrocious ...also, the only thing I have to say about error reporting in the Extension Builder is that it lets you know there's an error. There's a caret displayed under the error line that