Suggestions for future revisions of Studio

168101112

Comments

  • Spire_JeffSpire_Jeff Formerly Caffeinated Programmer Posts: 1,917
    jjames wrote: »
    On top of the auto complete not being enabled in comments suggestion / feature request, would anyone else find it helpful to have it disabled in string literals? I find that when typing a string literal it's just as annoying having the auto suggest pop up as in comments.

    Any takers?

    I could sign such a petition. I rarely envision a time when I would be inserting function names or variables into a string literal. But, now that I think about it, I wouldn't want them to waste much time doing this. It is very easy to just keep typing and the autocomplete goes away. (I guess the same is true in comments as well)

    Jeff
  • jjamesjjames AMX Sustaining Engineer Posts: 2,900
    Spire_Jeff wrote: »
    I could sign such a petition. I rarely envision a time when I would be inserting function names or variables into a string literal. But, now that I think about it, I wouldn't want them to waste much time doing this. It is very easy to just keep typing and the autocomplete goes away. (I guess the same is true in comments as well)

    Jeff

    Yeah - I hear ya . . . I was just noticing it in my string literals as well as the comments. If they were to implement such a feature - it'd be cool to disable them where they're not supposed to be all together.
  • Joe HebertJoe Hebert Junior Member Posts: 2,154
    jjames wrote: »
    it'd be cool to disable them where they're not supposed to be all together.
    Not supposed to be there for you perhaps but I happen to like auto complete in comments and string literals.
    To each their own...
  • jjamesjjames AMX Sustaining Engineer Posts: 2,900
    Joe Hebert wrote: »
    Not supposed to be there for you perhaps but I happen to like auto complete in comments and string literals.
    To each their own...

    Hehe - ok . . . then gimme the option to disable it for both. :D
  • ericmedleyericmedley Senior Member - 4000+ posts Posts: 4,159
    Not to be whiny but...


    I R E A L L Y Y Y Y would like my idea of a SUPER_INCLUDE. I'm dying right now on a project I'm doing.
  • jjamesjjames AMX Sustaining Engineer Posts: 2,900
    ericmedley wrote: »
    Not to be whiny but...


    I R E A L L Y Y Y Y would like my idea of a SUPER_INCLUDE. I'm dying right now on a project I'm doing.

    Is this your idea of a joke? Sheesh man . . . c'mon - stay on topic! NO THREAD HI-JACKING!






    J/K!!!!!!!!!!!

    You mean the super_include that does all the work for us? I want that too. :D
  • ericmedleyericmedley Senior Member - 4000+ posts Posts: 4,159
    jjames wrote: »
    Is this your idea of a joke? Sheesh man . . . c'mon - stay on topic! NO THREAD HI-JACKING!






    J/K!!!!!!!!!!!


    You mean the super_include that does all the work for us? I want that too. :D


    Acutally, it's a serious request. The SUPER_INCLUDE is an include file that doesn't matter where you put it in the main code. It populates all it's parts in the proper order. That way all your device,type,constant,variables, etc... can all go from include to main without a problem. the regualr include gets kinda goofy depending upon where you put the include statement in code. Ijust want to use Includes to organize my main code. Hence, the SUPER_INCLUDE
  • Spire_JeffSpire_Jeff Formerly Caffeinated Programmer Posts: 1,917
    ericmedley wrote: »
    Acutally, it's a serious request. The SUPER_INCLUDE is an include file that doesn't matter where you put it in the main code. It populates all it's parts in the proper order. That way all your device,type,constant,variables, etc... can all go from include to main without a problem. the regualr include gets kinda goofy depending upon where you put the include statement in code. Ijust want to use Includes to organize my main code. Hence, the SUPER_INCLUDE

    I don't think that this requires a separate include command, I just think the compiler should parse all includes to assemble the code into one master file that has only one DEFINE_VARIABLE section, one DEFINE_CONSTANT section and so forth. Then after this is done, it could perform a compile.

    I have personally moved modified my code so that I have one include file for global variables, one for global constants and one for global devices. Then I have the individual device includes contain the various constants, devices, and what not required for that device. I handle anything that needs to communicate with other devices using functions. For example, if I need the security system to be able to activate lights, in the light.axi I create a function along the lines of doLightButtonPush(integer Processor, integer Link, integer Keypad, integer Button) I then use the function in the security.axi file. Calls and functions are the only thing that the compiler will search all includes for regardless of order. This also makes it easier for me to switch to different lighting control systems without forgetting to change the other areas. These methods make me yearn for the autocomplete in NS3 that completes based on the entire project, not just the current file.

    Jeff
  • Joe HebertJoe Hebert Junior Member Posts: 2,154
    Spire_Jeff wrote: »
    I don't think that this requires a separate include command, I just think the compiler should parse all includes to assemble the code into one master file that has only one DEFINE_VARIABLE section, one DEFINE_CONSTANT section and so forth. Then after this is done, it could perform a compile.
    For what it's worth, I agree. I don't think we need a #super_include, we just need a #include that works correctly.
  • DHawthorneDHawthorne Junior Member Posts: 4,584
    Includes are supposed to be position sensitive. It's how they are handled in every programming language I have ever learned. It's how the compiler handles multiple DEFINE sections that's the problem.
  • ericmedleyericmedley Senior Member - 4000+ posts Posts: 4,159
    DHawthorne wrote: »
    Includes are supposed to be position sensitive. It's how they are handled in every programming language I have ever learned. It's how the compiler handles multiple DEFINE sections that's the problem.

    I guess this is my point. Includes are supposed to be positional. And also the fix is in how the compiler handles multiple define_whatever sections. I'm not sure why this would be so hard to do?
  • Spire_JeffSpire_Jeff Formerly Caffeinated Programmer Posts: 1,917
    Save File Revision

    It would be nice if when we use the Save File Revision command and have it rename the file to the new revision, the workspace is updated to use the new revision automatically.

    Jeff
  • ColzieColzie Senior Member Posts: 470
    Spire_Jeff wrote: »
    It would be nice if when we use the Save File Revision command and have it rename the file to the new revision, the workspace is updated to use the new revision automatically.

    Jeff

    It already does. ??
  • Spire_JeffSpire_Jeff Formerly Caffeinated Programmer Posts: 1,917
    hmmm, I just did it and I had to change my workspace to point to the new revision. It changed the file name and the declaration at the top of the file, but not the pointer in the workspace. I will try it again and verify this..... That is very odd. That time it worked, but I KNOW it did not do it the last time.

    Ok, I must be loosing it. I will have to try and figure out how I managed to make it miss this. I just tried it a couple of times and it worked every time except the first time. /me goes to wall and bashes head repeatedly.

    Jeff
  • DHawthorneDHawthorne Junior Member Posts: 4,584
    Spire_Jeff wrote: »
    hmmm, I just did it and I had to change my workspace to point to the new revision. It changed the file name and the declaration at the top of the file, but not the pointer in the workspace. I will try it again and verify this..... That is very odd. That time it worked, but I KNOW it did not do it the last time.

    Ok, I must be loosing it. I will have to try and figure out how I managed to make it miss this. I just tried it a couple of times and it worked every time except the first time. /me goes to wall and bashes head repeatedly.

    Jeff
    My bet is you accidentally did a "Save as..." instead of "Save File Revision.,." ; one of those low blood sugar moments, no doubt :).
  • Spire_JeffSpire_Jeff Formerly Caffeinated Programmer Posts: 1,917
    DHawthorne wrote: »
    My bet is you accidentally did a "Save as..." instead of "Save File Revision.,." ; one of those low blood sugar moments, no doubt :).

    I might have, but I am pretty sure the file name changed to indicate the new revision.... ohh well, if I see it happen again, I will try to pay better attention to what was or was not being clicked at the time, but user error seems to be the most logical error at this point :)


    I do have another suggestion tho. I would like for highlighting and autocomplete to recognize the arguments defined in a module. You know, the ones in the ( )s at the top that get used often in the code. Such as, dvDevice and vdvDevice? :) Or is there some setting I am not aware of? (Yes, I could just create definitions in the file and then comment them out when I am done making changes, but I'm a lazy American and I want it done for me :) )

    Jeff
  • Joe HebertJoe Hebert Junior Member Posts: 2,154
    DHawthorne wrote: »
    Includes are supposed to be position sensitive. It's how they are handled in every programming language I have ever learned. It's how the compiler handles multiple DEFINE sections that's the problem.
    Netlinx is not like other languages, it?s way cooler. :)

    My recollection of how includes were first explained to me is that when the compiler runs into an include it takes the file and simply merges the defines together (e.g. define_variables from the include gets merged with the define_variables of the includer) As we are all well aware that is clearly not the case. The include is logically placed inline from where called.

    I was always under the impression that includes didn?t work the way AMX originally intended. I must have been taking mind altering substances when includes were first explained to me but I?d swear that I was given the merging explanation by more than one AMX trainer.

    Whatever the case, I?m used to the way includes do work and it?s not that big of a deal. If I need to reach a variable that is not in scope at compile time I can always work around it by getting to it through a function call since all function calls can be seen by the main file or any include.
  • jjamesjjames AMX Sustaining Engineer Posts: 2,900
    I just want to see my include file's definitions, and ALSO be able to see main file definitions when working in the include files.

    :D
  • JeffJeff Junior Member Posts: 374
    jjames wrote: »
    I just want to see my include file's definitions, and ALSO be able to see main file definitions when working in the include files.

    :D

    I'm confused. Do you mean you want to be able to see them, highlighted and colored in within the include file, or do you want the include file to be able to access the main file definitions during compile?

    The second is thoroughly possible. I have several include files that access my main code all the time.

    J
  • jjamesjjames AMX Sustaining Engineer Posts: 2,900
    Jeff wrote: »
    I'm confused. Do you mean you want to be able to see them, highlighted and colored in within the include file, or do you want the include file to be able to access the main file definitions during compile?

    The second is thoroughly possible. I have several include files that access my main code all the time.

    J

    I want definitions from the main file to be highlighted in the include files. I want syntax highlighting to go both ways.
  • JeffJeff Junior Member Posts: 374
    Ahh.. Yes, well, thats a little more complicated.

    And here I thought I was gonna get a chance to be helpful to someone who'd been doing it longer and better than me :)

    J
  • PhreaKPhreaK Senior Member Posts: 966
    jjames wrote: »
    I want definitions from the main file to be highlighted in the include files. I want syntax highlighting to go both ways.

    I believe you will get your wish with NS3.
  • travistravis Junior Member Posts: 180
    Can the DEV structure have an IP Address slot added to it?
  • RVanceRVance AMX Engineering Posts: 14
    Change the way find/replace works. This is for keyboard commandos like me. Folks who prefer to click with the mouse are not affected by this issue.

    In 2.6, I press ctrl-h to get find/replace, enter the search criteria and the replacement value and click "find next", from there on out all I have to do it hit "f" or "r" on my keyboard. In 2.8, and I'm sure later revisions, after I click on "find next" focus returns to the "Find What:" field so that subsequent keyboard presses of "f" or "r" change the search criteria. Because of this, I reinstalled 2.6.
  • ROOROO Junior Member Posts: 46
    Breakpoint trace back in debug

    I'd like to be able to break at a point in the program and get a trace of the last "n" calls that were made before the break was encountered. I was troubleshooting some code written by someone else, and they had put it into a loop. I finally found it, but it would have been easier if the feature was available.

    ROO
  • trustworthytrustworthy Junior Member Posts: 74
    NS3 Inexplicably crashing

    The last few times I've used it, with the same workspace I've been working on for 2 months, NS3 crashes on close. Anyone else experience this?
  • PhreaKPhreaK Senior Member Posts: 966
    Yep, started happening to me about a week ago. Up until then I haven't had any issues.
  • rfletcherrfletcher Junior Member Posts: 217
    PhreaK wrote: »
    Yep, started happening to me about a week ago. Up until then I haven't had any issues.

    Yeah, I've had this happen a couple of times recently. It also crashes fairly regularly if I click on yes to closing files from a workspace when I open a new workspace.
  • ericmedleyericmedley Senior Member - 4000+ posts Posts: 4,159
    rfletcher wrote: »
    Yeah, I've had this happen a couple of times recently. It also crashes fairly regularly if I click on yes to closing files from a workspace when I open a new workspace.

    Mine will carsh after a failed attempt to connect to a master. It doesn't happen right away but a few mouse clicks after closing the 'FAIL' warning. I've gotten in the habit of just closing out and reopening when it happens.

    Thsi also happens in TPD4
  • BCalderwoodBCalderwood Junior Member Posts: 35
    Crash!

    How about while compiling? Mine crashes using N3 sometimes when I go to compile or connect to a master whether it will fail or not in connecting.

    Also, I noticed that the colors get all screwed up when you place or move a variable or constant. Example is I'll make a constant and then I want to change that to a variable and when I do, the color stays the same as if it were constant. Didn't start to happen that way until N3 and some real early versions of N2.

    Also, when extracting the source file from a master and then extracting the code from a .src, include files aren't recovered. Or am I missing something there?
Sign In or Register to comment.