Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.sys.acorn.programmer > #1171 > unrolled thread
| Started by | cferris@freeRemoveuk.com.invalid |
|---|---|
| First post | 2011-12-10 10:32 +0000 |
| Last post | 2011-12-13 16:37 +0000 |
| Articles | 8 on this page of 28 — 11 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.acorn.programmer
Running BASIC text files cferris@freeRemoveuk.com.invalid - 2011-12-10 10:32 +0000
Re: Running BASIC text files John Kortink <kortink@inter.nl.net> - 2011-12-10 12:27 +0100
Re: Running BASIC text files cferris@freeRemoveuk.com.invalid - 2011-12-11 11:11 +0000
Re: Running BASIC text files Steve Drain <steve@kappa.me.uk> - 2011-12-12 13:32 +0000
Re: Running BASIC text files Martin <News03@avisoft.f9.co.uk> - 2011-12-12 17:01 +0000
Re: Running BASIC text files Steve Drain <steve@kappa.me.uk> - 2011-12-12 17:50 +0000
Re: Running BASIC text files Martin <News03@avisoft.f9.co.uk> - 2011-12-12 22:00 +0000
Re: Running BASIC text files Alan Adams <alan@adamshome.org.uk> - 2011-12-18 12:37 +0000
Re: Running BASIC text files Steve Drain <steve@kappa.me.uk> - 2011-12-18 13:21 +0000
Re: Running BASIC text files Alan Adams <alan@adamshome.org.uk> - 2011-12-18 14:20 +0000
Re: Running BASIC text files Steve Drain <steve@kappa.me.uk> - 2011-12-18 17:17 +0000
Re: Running BASIC text files Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-20 05:58 +0100
Re: Running BASIC text files Steve Drain <steve@kappa.me.uk> - 2011-12-20 15:30 +0000
Re: Running BASIC text files Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-21 08:34 +0100
Re: Running BASIC text files "Ste (news)" <steve@revi11.plus.com> - 2011-12-20 13:36 +0000
Re: Running BASIC text files Steve Drain <steve@kappa.me.uk> - 2011-12-20 15:31 +0000
Re: Running BASIC text files "John Williams (News)" <UCEbin@tiscali.co.uk> - 2011-12-20 16:39 +0100
Re: Running BASIC text files Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-21 08:39 +0100
Re: Running BASIC text files Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-12 16:35 +0100
Re: Running BASIC text files John Kortink <kortink@inter.nl.net> - 2011-12-12 18:51 +0100
Re: Running BASIC text files Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-12-13 06:31 +0100
Re: Running BASIC text files Martin Wuerthner <spamtrap@mw-software.com> - 2011-12-13 10:11 +0100
Re: Running BASIC text files trevj <trevj@cwazy.co.uk> - 2011-12-13 02:36 -0800
Re: Running BASIC text files John Kortink <kortink@inter.nl.net> - 2011-12-13 15:20 +0100
Re: Running BASIC text files Martin Wuerthner <spamtrap@mw-software.com> - 2011-12-13 15:42 +0100
Re: Running BASIC text files cferris@freeRemoveuk.com.invalid - 2011-12-13 12:37 +0000
Re: Running BASIC text files John Kortink <kortink@inter.nl.net> - 2011-12-13 15:38 +0100
Re: Running BASIC text files <news@iank.org.uk> - 2011-12-13 16:37 +0000
Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]
| From | Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-13 06:31 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4ee6e33b$0$2537$ba4acef3@reader.news.orange.fr> |
| In reply to | #1180 |
On 12/12/2011 18:51, John Kortink wrote:
> Um, because you don't want to do that after every edit ?
Hmmm, I wrote code in both !Edit and !Zap, both of which understand (and
tokenise) BASIC.
I wonder what editor is being used that doesn't support BASIC natively? [*]
> It doesn't tokenise 'on the fly'. It tokenises all of
> it in one go, when it loads.
When I wrote "on the fly", I was referring to the act of loading the
text file. As in, it will tokenise during load *every* time the text
file is loaded.
Best wishes,
Rick.
* - I mean, you *could* code in OvationPro, it would just be a pretty
odd thing to do! ;-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Martin Wuerthner <spamtrap@mw-software.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-13 10:11 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <7252de4052.martin@bach.planiverse.com> |
| In reply to | #1182 |
In message <4ee6e33b$0$2537$ba4acef3@reader.news.orange.fr>
Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 12/12/2011 18:51, John Kortink wrote:
>> Um, because you don't want to do that after every edit ?
> Hmmm, I wrote code in both !Edit and !Zap, both of which understand (and
> tokenise) BASIC.
> I wonder what editor is being used that doesn't support BASIC natively? [*]
Editing is not the point. If you want to check the BASIC file into a
version control system, it needs to be plain text, otherwise you lose
most of the benefits of such a system. It is not practicable to
manually convert the file to/from text format all the time, so it is
really best stored in plain text, even more so as BASIC is happy
enough to execute plain text files - provided they do not have too
many lines and cause the line number range to be exceeded when
renumbered with the default renumbering step of 10, which brings us to
the original topic of this thread. I have been using a patched version
of BASIC with a default renumbering step of 1 (as described by John
earlier in this thread) for a long time to be able to run version
controlled plain text BASIC files.
--
Martin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Wuerthner MW Software http://www.mw-software.com/
RISC OS Software for Design, Printing and Publishing
---------------------------------------------------------------------
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | trevj <trevj@cwazy.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-13 02:36 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c2c6ba4d-ea34-4825-a76e-8a41888c4b24@r6g2000yqr.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #1183 |
For anyone wondering about version control systems/reasoning etc. check out this ROOL thread... Rob Sprowson has now kindly amended the renumbering step in RO5: http://www.riscosopen.org/forum/forums/2/topics/71#posts-9666
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Kortink <kortink@inter.nl.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-13 15:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <jvmee713orb99gmrvk3ake9itcu42ugfot@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #1184 |
On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 02:36:20 -0800 (PST), trevj <trevj@cwazy.co.uk> wrote: >For anyone wondering about version control systems/reasoning etc. >check out this ROOL thread... Rob Sprowson has now kindly amended the >renumbering step in RO5: >http://www.riscosopen.org/forum/forums/2/topics/71#posts-9666 I'm not sure I will ever use one of those cheerfully and colourfully patched up BASICs, but while they're at it, they should also fix another annoying quirk (which I've patched myself years ago), which is faulting zero shifts in assembly as 'Bad shift', unless it's LSL. All other zero shifts (LSR#0, ASR#0, ASL#0) can be silently turned into LSL#0 without generating an error. John Kortink -- Email : kortink@inter.nl.net Homepage : http://www.inter.nl.net/users/J.Kortink
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Martin Wuerthner <spamtrap@mw-software.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-13 15:42 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <8095fc4052.martin@bach.planiverse.com> |
| In reply to | #1186 |
In message <jvmee713orb99gmrvk3ake9itcu42ugfot@4ax.com>
John Kortink <kortink@inter.nl.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 02:36:20 -0800 (PST), trevj <trevj@cwazy.co.uk>
> wrote:
>>For anyone wondering about version control systems/reasoning etc.
>>check out this ROOL thread... Rob Sprowson has now kindly amended the
>>renumbering step in RO5:
>>http://www.riscosopen.org/forum/forums/2/topics/71#posts-9666
> I'm not sure I will ever use one of those cheerfully and
> colourfully patched up BASICs, but while they're at it,
> they should also fix another annoying quirk (which I've
> patched myself years ago), which is faulting zero shifts
> in assembly as 'Bad shift', unless it's LSL. All other
> zero shifts (LSR#0, ASR#0, ASL#0) can be silently turned
> into LSL#0 without generating an error.
Ah yes, good point. I have run into that problem in the past.
Obviously, it is not a problem to avoid a literal ASR#0 in the code,
but when assembling parameterized code there are often shift
statements like ASR#(BitsPerComponent - 2).
--
Martin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Wuerthner MW Software http://www.mw-software.com/
RISC OS Software for Design, Printing and Publishing
---------------------------------------------------------------------
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cferris@freeRemoveuk.com.invalid |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-13 12:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ad2cf14052.cferris@cferris.freeuk.com> |
| In reply to | #1183 |
In message <7252de4052.martin@bach.planiverse.com>
Martin Wuerthner <spamtrap@mw-software.com> wrote:
> In message <4ee6e33b$0$2537$ba4acef3@reader.news.orange.fr>
> Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > On 12/12/2011 18:51, John Kortink wrote:
>
> >> Um, because you don't want to do that after every edit ?
[snip]
> I have been using a patched version of BASIC with a default
> renumbering step of 1 (as described by John earlier in this thread)
> for a long time to be able to run version controlled plain text
> BASIC files.
>
I have just noticed that '!StrongEd' will load and save in &FD1 BasicTxt
format - still displaying BASIC keywords - ie picked out in colour.
(using a 1M byte demo prog)
Saves file quite quick too.
--
Colin Ferris Cornwall UK
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Kortink <kortink@inter.nl.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-13 15:38 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <iboee7tjbh9i1b1qho1re81ah4aaasrlcb@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #1182 |
On Tue, 13 Dec 2011 06:31:40 +0100, Rick Murray <heyrickmail-usenet@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >On 12/12/2011 18:51, John Kortink wrote: > >> Um, because you don't want to do that after every edit ? > >Hmmm, I wrote code in both !Edit and !Zap, both of which understand (and >tokenise) BASIC. > >I wonder what editor is being used that doesn't support BASIC natively? [*] Vim, for one. >> It doesn't tokenise 'on the fly'. It tokenises all of >> it in one go, when it loads. > >When I wrote "on the fly", I was referring to the act of loading the >text file. As in, it will tokenise during load *every* time the text >file is loaded. Well, then don't mention interpretation and tokenisation in the same sentence. They don't happen at the same time, and only the former can be described as being done 'on the fly' (i.e. while running) ... John Kortink -- Email : kortink@inter.nl.net Homepage : http://www.inter.nl.net/users/J.Kortink
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | <news@iank.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-13 16:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <5241072e04news@iank.org.uk> |
| In reply to | #1171 |
In article <e4355a3f52.cferris@cferris.freeuk.com>, <cferris@freeRemoveuk.com.invalid> wrote: > You can run BASIC text files - but when they are loaded - they are > renumbered. > Is there anyway of changing BASIC's choice of loading to RENUMBER 1,1? > ie for large files. > Thanks Have you tried 'Bastext' http://erikgrnh.home.xs4all.nl/riscos/bastext.html I have been using this with some very large basic programmes with no problems. You can just call it in the run file of the programme you are working on and it will convert the programme to tokenised and renumber it to your specifications each time you run it. It's pretty quick too. Regards Ian K
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]
Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.acorn.programmer
csiph-web