Cmd-- 1.11
Not sure about ncurses to be honest... I'll take a more in depth look at it on a later date.
Pretty big rewrite today, functions are now "wrapped" in an inherited base class and have their pointers passed to the relevant menus. Its definitely much better than the previous function method, reads a hell of a lot better.
In other news, it turns out that a windows message box can be sent from the command line. Who knew?
I'll try to get the first draft of the docs written this weekend, then upload version 1.03 on Monday. Have a good weekend. :)
Pretty big rewrite today, functions are now "wrapped" in an inherited base class and have their pointers passed to the relevant menus. Its definitely much better than the previous function method, reads a hell of a lot better.
In other news, it turns out that a windows message box can be sent from the command line. Who knew?
I'll try to get the first draft of the docs written this weekend, then upload version 1.03 on Monday. Have a good weekend. :)
closed account (S6k9GNh0)
If you wish to treat this as a serious project, would you mind using an online repository (such as Github or BitBucket)?
Umm maybe, I'm not too familiar with either, so I cant make the switch right away, but I might consider it eventually. Using Github or Bitbucket might require some financial investment, no?
Cmd++ 1.10 is now up, lots of significant changes, please let me know what you think.
Cmd++ 1.10 is now up, lots of significant changes, please let me know what you think.
As long as you keep the repository public, github is gratis
You handle it case insensitive, then you could simply transform to uppercase the id, instead of asking the user to do it.
The link between menus is with the string id, I would prefer to provide a pointer
You need a virtual destructor for `CProgFx'
¿why don't simply make the method pure virtual?
¿ah? ¿why do you provide the method if you don't expect to be used? (
By the way, ¿why is the text centered in the docs?
| doc wrote: |
|---|
| When typing the string ids of both menus and functions, it is very important that they are added in all caps. |
The link between menus is with the string id, I would prefer to provide a pointer
|
|
You need a virtual destructor for `CProgFx'
|
|
|
|
delete this is a bad approach)By the way, ¿why is the text centered in the docs?
Last edited on
...Lemme see,
thanks for the heads up on Github then. I originally wanted to go Sourceforge, but Ive heard about less than honest dealings going on over there in recent times...
Yeah, I will implement that standard transform in the TCmdMenu constructor. I realized that when I was writing the docs, but didn't feel like jumping on it that instant. It'll be implemented in the next version.
Ummm passing menu pointers, right, Ill think about that...
I think there was some sort of frustration with virtual methods during testing, Ill give it another try next time I work on the core code base.
Yeah that bad constructor is ugly, would be better with some sort of a compile time flag or nothing at all. delete this; made sense at the time somehow...
The text is centered in the docs just because MS word had it like that when I started working on it. Ill shift it to left justify next time.
My turn for questions ;)
How/Why are you doing upside down question marks all the time?
Out of general curiosity, has anything like this been attempted before? Frameworks for GUIs, database management, and the like are everywhere, but I haven't noticed anything quite like this before. Maybe I'm just blind though...
Unfortunately I might have to change the name. The name CMD++ was already taken it seems.
thanks for the heads up on Github then. I originally wanted to go Sourceforge, but Ive heard about less than honest dealings going on over there in recent times...
Yeah, I will implement that standard transform in the TCmdMenu constructor. I realized that when I was writing the docs, but didn't feel like jumping on it that instant. It'll be implemented in the next version.
Ummm passing menu pointers, right, Ill think about that...
I think there was some sort of frustration with virtual methods during testing, Ill give it another try next time I work on the core code base.
Yeah that bad constructor is ugly, would be better with some sort of a compile time flag or nothing at all. delete this; made sense at the time somehow...
The text is centered in the docs just because MS word had it like that when I started working on it. Ill shift it to left justify next time.
My turn for questions ;)
How/Why are you doing upside down question marks all the time?
Out of general curiosity, has anything like this been attempted before? Frameworks for GUIs, database management, and the like are everywhere, but I haven't noticed anything quite like this before. Maybe I'm just blind though...
Unfortunately I might have to change the name. The name CMD++ was already taken it seems.
> Why are you doing upside down question marks all the time?
Revenge.
It is used to mark the start of the question, because in Spanish you identify one by the intonation, instead of word ordering. However, a lot of times is not respected.
So I blame the English influence,
If it spreads and becomes a norm, then maybe we could write correctly.
Revenge.
It is used to mark the start of the question, because in Spanish you identify one by the intonation, instead of word ordering. However, a lot of times is not respected.
So I blame the English influence,
If it spreads and becomes a norm, then maybe we could write correctly.
| Revenge. |
| in Spanish you identify one by the intonation, instead of word ordering. |
| got milk |
| So I blame the English influence, |
Norwegian uses word order to denote questions; for example, "You live in England" is "Du bor i England", but "Do you live in England?" is "Bor du i England?". You simply switch from SVO (subject-verb-object) to VSO (verb-object-subject). If the verb is first then you know you're about to be asked a question.
I don't think "got milk" (with or without a question mark) is a well-formed sentence in English. It doesn't have a subject. "Do you have milk?" or "You have milk" are better sentences.
I don't think "got milk" (with or without a question mark) is a well-formed sentence in English. It doesn't have a subject. "Do you have milk?" or "You have milk" are better sentences.
Last edited on
Auxiliary and subject omission are all too common in informal speech to just arbitrarily deem it not well-formed.
In any case, it was just an example to show how intonation is also factored in.
In any case, it was just an example to show how intonation is also factored in.
>> Revenge
> So if someone punched you, you would find a random stranger and punch them?
I want to believe that I'll fight back.
After that, yes.
>> in Spanish you identify one by the intonation, instead of word ordering.
> In English too.
I don't care, I don't speak English.
The point is, ¿how do you expect to read it properly if you don't mark the start of the question?
> In written text, there's no way of knowing if that's a question or a statement without punctuation
¿so?
> Blame stupid and lazy people.
Sometimes they are not stupid, but ignorant.
> So if someone punched you, you would find a random stranger and punch them?
I want to believe that I'll fight back.
After that, yes.
>> in Spanish you identify one by the intonation, instead of word ordering.
> In English too.
I don't care, I don't speak English.
The point is, ¿how do you expect to read it properly if you don't mark the start of the question?
> In written text, there's no way of knowing if that's a question or a statement without punctuation
¿so?
> Blame stupid and lazy people.
Sometimes they are not stupid, but ignorant.
@ne555 we can tell if we are at the start of a question or not without additional punctuation through an ability of retroactively changing our interpretation of what we have read. It doesn't work when reading aloud, however.
| The point is how do you expect to read it properly if you dont mark the start of the question |
Honestly, what your doing is no less irritating then omitting the '¿', or confusing "then" and "than".
> there's no way of knowing if that's a question or a statement without punctuation.
> Even without punctuation, it's easy to tell where your question starts.
.oi
> what your doing is no less irritating
good
> It doesn't work when reading aloud, however.
that's the point.
> Even without punctuation, it's easy to tell where your question starts.
.oi
> what your doing is no less irritating
good
> It doesn't work when reading aloud, however.
that's the point.
| > there's no way of knowing if that's a question or a statement without punctuation. > Even without punctuation, it's easy to tell where your question starts. |
| > what your doing is no less irritating good |
| ne555 wrote: |
|---|
| that's the point. |
closed account (S6k9GNh0)
ne555, it's implied given the context. Similar to how some people think plurals in English are stupid. Plurals are implied given the context and is obvious whenever you're talking about something, so there's no need for such things.
@compterquip
Plurals aren't always superfluous. For example, in the sentence "The dog were fighting each other", there are obviously at least two dogs, but in "The person were fighting the dog", there at least two people, but you can't tell whether there is one or several dogs. Without the indefinite plural you would have to give specific figures for such sentences to be unambiguous, and if you didn't know the exact numbers then you couldn't disambiguate the sentence. I suppose you could say "The person were fighting many dog" or "few dog" or "some dog" but that requires more effort than just saying "the people" and "the dogs".
Plurals aren't always superfluous. For example, in the sentence "The dog were fighting each other", there are obviously at least two dogs, but in "The person were fighting the dog", there at least two people, but you can't tell whether there is one or several dogs. Without the indefinite plural you would have to give specific figures for such sentences to be unambiguous, and if you didn't know the exact numbers then you couldn't disambiguate the sentence. I suppose you could say "The person were fighting many dog" or "few dog" or "some dog" but that requires more effort than just saying "the people" and "the dogs".
Good lord, this is the most off topic thread Ive ever seen in my life. :facepalm:
Anyways, thanks for sharing ne555.
Anyways, thanks for sharing ne555.