This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - BlakPilar
1
« on: July 29, 2012, 12:07:00 pm »
Cool. I like the preprocessor directives especially since I'm starting to understand their usefulness (remember, I have mostly confined myself to C# where they are largely unnecessary). Do you plan to add #pragma, or would that not be needed?
Also, with the outside struct method declaration, I don't mind it. I would more than likely keep structs in their own files, though, then.
2
« on: July 27, 2012, 12:10:00 pm »
TFE? But thank you for the support. It was pretty fun working on it, especially the GDI+ bits, but like I said, I am no longer interested in developing this type of IDE. And thanks  I hope that my game comes out great, too.
3
« on: July 26, 2012, 09:54:13 pm »
Well the zip is only 442 KB, so I don't think Merth would have much to look through lol. But yeah, I understand. His was released far before mine, and I only released mine on here and Cemetech (not TI-Calc), so it didn't get much exposure, but either way I'm fine with that. All-in-all, the project helped me a lot with understanding file structures and bits / bytes.
My game is written in C# with OpenGL targeting .NET 2, so it should run on pretty much any Windows computer, and any Linux/Mac with Mono installed. I have yet to decide if it will be open source or not, but I am a large proponent of open source software (as evidenced by BexIDE), so it more than likely will be. As with the language, like I said it is still in planning, but I plan to have it rely heavily on OpenGL / OpenAL with my own wrappers and target the .NET framework, with possible compilation to Java as well to allow for easy multi-platform support, including Android. (I would have to look into Apple devices, but I am not entirely sure about them.)
4
« on: July 26, 2012, 09:42:00 pm »
Lookin' good - No more embedding of funcs or cofuncs within structs or cofuncs (enforces clarity) Does this mean we have to use C++ style method declaration? I.e. struct Foo { ... }
func Foo::Bar() : byte { ... }
5
« on: July 26, 2012, 09:32:28 pm »
No, this release is far from functional in its current state. It technically could be at least used to open, edit, and save programs if a textbox were to be added. For AppVars I planned to use a hex-editor (which is in the bin/Debug folder), and for pictures I was going to salvage my old image editor, but those abilities are not available as-shipped.
Merthsoft can use whatever he feels he can from BexIDE, but again, the license must be adhered to. I don't think it is too limiting if he decided to use anything, though I'm sure what he has now is better than what I had.
I will still visit Omnimaga because I'm following Antelope (OPIA), and I'll post about my current projects (an unnamed game and a compiler for a game-oriented programming language which is still in planning) as I get some actual news to post about, but I no longer do any kind of development for the calculator either, so anything I post about would not be calc-related.
6
« on: July 23, 2012, 09:43:29 pm »
I am stopping all development of BexIDE by me. I am no longer interested in such a project, and I have no time to work on it along with my other projects which are receiving my full attention. I am including what I had as of the last time I worked on BexIDE as an attachment under the GPLv3 license (included in the ZIP file). The attached version includes a theme-supported ToolStripRenderer, very easy .8x* loading / saving (though not thoroughly tested), and an updated and more customizable token format. There may be more, but I cannot think of everything I have done with it. For the very small number of you actually interested in the project, I am sorry. For everyone else, feel free to look at the source and do whatever you want with it, as long as those actions are license-permitted. All other versions, including the one attached, are able to be downloaded from here. In all honesty, I cannot say that I was ever very proud of BexIDE as I always opted for the easier, lazy ways of performing certain tasks, and I felt like I cheated myself in some way in doing so, even with this most recent "version." As a recap: I will no longer be working on BexIDE, and the most recent work I have done for the project is attached (along with its license).
7
« on: July 22, 2012, 08:30:25 pm »
Ahh okay, I think I understand this all now.
8
« on: July 20, 2012, 11:16:01 pm »
Oh okay. I see what you mean. But then again, instead of "<T:Printer>," you could just make Printer an abdtract class with a default method and only make a new instance of the code body if it overridden in a class that inherits from Printer.
Also, are you sure Foo and Foo<T> would have the same methods? The former would be of type Foo, but the latter's type would probably be something like IEnumerable<T>.
9
« on: July 19, 2012, 04:04:35 pm »
If it's my understanding, then this:
interface Printer { Print(); }
struct Foo<T:Printer> { []T data; }could just as easily be this:
interface Printer { Print(); }
struct Foo<Printer> { []Printer data; }because inheriting from Printer would automatically make it a Printer type. Having something like struct Foo<T:Printer> ... is far more complicated than necessary because if something has a Print() method, but is not yet a Printer, it would be just as easy to simply make it inherit from Printer.
As for the parsing bit ("x<y,z>w"), maybe you could adopt a sort of Lisp syntax for that and drop the comma ("x<y z>w")?
Also, interfaces are kind of templates by definition, at least in C#. Not every Print() method would be the same for every Printer. They would each contain a definition for the method, but the bodies may be different, so I would say go with the template form. (That is, unless I'm understanding this wrong.)
10
« on: July 18, 2012, 05:50:20 pm »
Before I took a break from my compiler, I had my tokenizer run through a .NextToken() basis. However, I may need to do some looking ahead, so I think I may put all of the read tokens into an array when I get back to it. As for the reserved words bit, maybe you could have special types of reserved words? As in some way to see if they would return a value ("typeof" or "sizeof," for instance, though I'm not sure if you're using those in particular).
Could you perhaps link to your conundrum?
11
« on: July 18, 2012, 01:43:43 pm »
Woah, looks like I missed a few posts. I don't know why, but I wasn't receiving emails. Anywho, the grammar looks good! I'll have to take a gander at the source sometime soon
12
« on: July 03, 2012, 01:01:47 am »
Yeah, he assumes most of the people who go to watch his tutorials are those kinds of people who skip over the basics and go straight to the hard stuff then complain when they don't understand it lol.
13
« on: July 02, 2012, 11:34:14 am »
He's still a student, and kind of stopped right before collision with the actual 3D part, but just from there it really helped me. I've found another tutorial by thecplusplusguy for 3D. He does it with OpenGL, SDL, and C++, but I've been following along with Tao and C#. He explains everything really well, and it's very helpful.
14
« on: June 27, 2012, 04:13:24 pm »
Hazzah for lambda expressions and anonymous functions!  One question, though: I just noticed bit rotation. Is that where 0b00100110 >>> 3 == 0b11000100?
15
« on: June 18, 2012, 12:26:45 pm »
Nice! That's similar to what I'm doing, except I only have statements and expressions. I have a method I created for extracting token patterns that I found is pretty useful, at least for namespaces. Yours is looking good, though! 
|
Show Posts