mithomas@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Michael Thomas Niehaus) (08/11/89)
I just received my second purchase from APDA (even though I haven't yet
received my membership materials): the Communications Toolbox. I have
successfully installed it and used it, but now I am wanting to try the
programming.
I converted the library and the .h files successfully (I think). I couldn't
figure out how to fix the different ProcPtr types, so I altered the prototypes
to accect generic ProcPtrs. Will this cause a problem (type checking is not
one of my major concerns)? Also, various routines had "const Str255" in their
prototypes. LSC doesn't seem to like this. I removed the "const". Will this
work?
As for what I have seen so far: Some parts are really good, others still need
work. But what do you expect from a beta version. It does show promise.
-Michael
p.s. Reading the documentation makes me hungry. All that talk about breakfast
cereals and magic deserts :-)
--
Michael Niehaus UUCP: <backbones>!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!mithomas
Apple Student Rep ARPA: mithomas@bsu-cs.bsu.edu
Ball State University AppleLink: ST0374 (from UUCP: st0374@applelink.apple.com)siegel@endor.harvard.edu (Rich Siegel) (08/11/89)
In article <10011@bsu-cs.bsu.edu> mithomas@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Michael Thomas Niehaus) writes: >prototypes. LSC doesn't seem to like this. I removed the "const". Will this >work? "const" is an ANSI-ism not supported by THINK C. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Rich Siegel Staff Software Developer Symantec Corporation, Language Products Group Internet: siegel@endor.harvard.edu UUCP: ..harvard!endor!siegel "When it comes to my health, I think of my body as a temple - or at least a moderately well-managed Presbyterian youth center." - Emo Phillips ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
awd@dbase.UUCP (Alastair Dallas) (08/14/89)
In article <2419@husc6.harvard.edu>, siegel@endor.harvard.edu (Rich Siegel): > In article <10011@bsu-cs.bsu.edu> mithomas@bsu-cs.bsu.edu (Michael Niehaus): > > >prototypes. LSC doesn't seem to like this. I removed the "const". Will > >this work? > > "const" is an ANSI-ism not supported by THINK C. THINK C thoughtfully provides a predefined symbol, "THINK_C," so that you can write a simple header file: #ifdef THINK_C #define const #define volatile #define class struct #endif and this way pretty much get around any slight incompatibilities. In case you're not aware, 'const' brings very little to party. The compiler is supposed to check to make sure you do what you said you'd do and not let you write to a const object. (C Chauvinist Pig voice:) If you want that kind of hand-holding, boy, better code in Pascal. /alastair/
pete@ics.uci.edu (Peter Miguel Oleary) (08/15/89)
In article <197@dbase.UUCP> awd@dbase.UUCP (Alastair Dallas) writes: >and this way pretty much get around any slight incompatibilities. In case >you're not aware, 'const' brings very little to party. The compiler is >supposed to check to make sure you do what you said you'd do and not let >you write to a const object. (C Chauvinist Pig voice:) If you want that >kind of hand-holding, boy, better code in Pascal. 'const' is also supposed to tell an intelligent compiler that the constant is eligible for certain optimizations, such as inline substitution. Pete O'Leary.
jimc@iscuva.ISCS.COM (Jim Cathey) (08/15/89)
In article <197@dbase.UUCP> awd@dbase.UUCP (Alastair Dallas) writes: >... In case >you're not aware, 'const' brings very little to party. The compiler is >supposed to check to make sure you do what you said you'd do and not let >you write to a const object. (C Chauvinist Pig voice:) If you want that >kind of hand-holding, boy, better code in Pascal. However, in MMU protected environments the compiler can place const objects into the TEXT space where it actually is write protected (no big deal there), but in most of these environments (Unix-oids) the TEXT space can also be shared among multiple invocations. This is the big win for the const modifier in my mind (especially for strings and constant tables). In the Mac environment, the const objects could be placed into the CODE resources so they didn't take up any of the 32K globals data space. LSC probably puts the strings elsewhere anyway, but _I_ couldn't tell you that. +----------------+ ! II CCCCCC ! Jim Cathey ! II SSSSCC ! ISC-Bunker Ramo ! II CC ! TAF-C8; Spokane, WA 99220 ! IISSSS CC ! UUCP: uunet!iscuva!jimc (jimc@iscuva.iscs.com) ! II CCCCCC ! (509) 927-5757 +----------------+ "With excitement like this, who is needing enemas?"
duggie@Jessica.stanford.edu (Doug Felt) (08/16/89)
In article <197@dbase.UUCP> awd@dbase.UUCP (Alastair Dallas) writes: [discussion of how to get around lack of 'const' and some other proposed ansi features deleted] >...and this way pretty much get around any slight incompatibilities. In case >you're not aware, 'const' brings very little to party. The compiler is >supposed to check to make sure you do what you said you'd do and not let >you write to a const object. (C Chauvinist Pig voice:) If you want that >kind of hand-holding, boy, better code in Pascal. > >/alastair/ I thought part of the purpose of const (and volatile) was to assist the compiler to make optimizations that would be difficult (or impossible) otherwise. Am I mistaken? Seems a lot of people want the hand-holding that protected memory would provide. Guess if anyone wants that kind of hand-holding, they'd better use a NeXT. :-) Doug Felt Courseware Authoring Tools Project duggie@jessica.stanford.edu