Overview
Examples
Screenshots
Comparisons
Applications
Download
Documentation
Tutorials
Bazaar
Status & Roadmap
FAQ
Authors & License
Forums
Funding Ultimate++
Search on this site
Search in forums












SourceForge.net Logo
Home » U++ Library support » U++ Library : Other (not classified elsewhere) » U++ suggestions
Re: User lists of "bad" naming of classes, functions etc in U++... [message #17827 is a reply to message #17826] Sat, 30 August 2008 10:05 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
mirek is currently offline  mirek
Messages: 14265
Registered: November 2005
Ultimate Member
amrein wrote on Fri, 29 August 2008 22:10


You are true. I really need more time to understand it. I tried again an again and each time someone show me I'm missing something.
Well, 34 years old, sys+net admin, and U++ make me feel I'm becoming old.

My problem: I compare "Assemblies" with Linux file system layout. "Nest" with LD_LIBRARY_PATH + PATH. "Packages" with SRPMS and their build dependencies.



Well, I think this nicely demonstrates what is wrong with "Package" name Smile

Package is basically a library in source form with dependencies etc.

Nest is just a directory that contains packages.

Assembly is ordered set of nests. Means, if something is close to LD_LIBRARY_PATH + PATH, it is Assembly. Also, you can have multiple assemblies. Means assembly is assembly of various groups of packages.

Quote:


I don't understand. You can have a complete book in HTML. Doxygen output can be HTML. You can select whatever font you want, colours, styles, tables, frames, even scripts...
All features from QTF are in HTML. Only problem: include images.



Yep, that is one problem. There are more.

Quote:


Cool!! If this help could be in fact in the source (with HTML tags, because doxygen can handle them) and if TheIDE could show or hide it from the source, them it would completely turn upside down the world of IDEs.



For now, the idea is to have then in T++. That is BTW one of reasons why T++ is inside package - it will always travel with the code.

In fact, bases of this already exist, see

http://www.ultimatepp.org/app$ide$Topic$en-us.html

the two problems are that

a) without the left bar in the editor, the process is tedious
b) our C++ parser needs to be more reliable

Quote:


Thanks for your answers. I don't bother you more. Ask me if you want help for the automatic build system.



It is OK, keep complaining. I do not see this as completely unproductive, if nothing else, it keeps me remembering why we have chosen some ways...

Mirek

[Updated on: Sat, 30 August 2008 10:26]

Report message to a moderator

 
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Previous Topic: "DoEvents" or "wxSafeYield" equivalent in Upp++
Next Topic: exit() -> heap leaks detected.
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Wed Jul 16 13:32:14 CEST 2025

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.02349 seconds