Hmm, depending upon ones philosophy you could equally well sayOne of the overwhelming reasons for using modules is for sharing both global variables and common code routines and to access anything, anywhere by simply prefixing the request with the module name.
Have you found my StringsEx library? http://www.b4x.com/forum/additional-libraries/2022-stringsex-library.html It implements almost all the .NET stringy stuff that isn't exposed in Basic4ppc.SR.Strip(t) whenever I need to clear white space on both ends of a string.
For Erel:It's worth exploring the Additional Libraries forum for such gemsas my Collections library http://www.b4x.com/forum/additional-libraries/1682-collection-library.html Some of the most useful, if they haven't been posted to for a while, may be a way back as a download doesn't bring them forward again.
For Erel:
A thought - could we not have a forum (or similar browsable download area) with the only posts being the most up to date versions for each of the libraries? With links to their original posting thread.
It can be a pain trying to find the most recent version of something when v1.0 is in the first post & v3.7 (the most recent) is 2/3 of the way through the thread. agraham obviously excepted since he always edits the top post.
I find that the need to add to each public routine or variable the module name where it was declared as a disadvantage.
From my user point of view, when a routine or variable is public it is public with it's name whatever module it was declared in. I don't see the need to 'privatize' it again with it's module name when accessed from outside.
It should be the same principle as with the global module variables and the private subroutine variables, just one layer above. If one would have the module name in a routine or variable this would still be possible, but only if someone wants it, not as default need for everybody. I can understand that is's easier for the language developper, but it's more combersome for the language user.
I agree on that and I wanted to add it in version 6.50. However it was more complicated than expected and it will have to wait for the next release.Another missing feature for me is that the comlementary files 'belonging' to the module are not automatically copied with the module file. So I can load a given module in a project, the module file is copied to the program's folder, and then I must look in the modules folder, if the module is saved in a specific folder, or somewhere else, and copy all the complementary files, mainly image files for buttons. I declare the image files in an ImageList in the IDE to take advantage of the image embedding feature for the exe file. I find this not yet really userfriendly.
In principle yes as Visual Studio Basic4ppc use that to compile with but if you want to compile for the device you would need the device SDK for the Windows Mobile version you wanted to target installed on your PC - but you need that anyway to optimise compile for a device with Basic4ppc.Is it possible to compile your .CS file (or any CS for that matter) to a new .DLL using only the CSC.exe that is in the
Microsoft.NET folder?
I don't know as I have never done it. I let Visual Studio 2005 take care of that side of things. The command line string would be horrendously long with all the references as paths, you would need a response file to avoid mistakes. If you want to play then try SharpDevelop SharpDevelop @ic#code it is free and it too will front-end csc.exe for you. You still need the device SDK for device compilation. If you are only interested in desktop stuff then the Microsoft Visual C# Express Editions 2005 and 2008 are also free but can't do devices although (I believe) can produce dlls.If so, could you kindly give me the command line parameters for the compile?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?