Does this exist, and if not, is it possible?

[Z!re]

To make some sort of addon for QB (A new IDE actually) that supports the following:

MyLib:MyFunctionInTheLib x,y,blargh,r$

t=AnotherLib:Mipp(test, 50, t$)

You get the idea, the ability to use multiple libs without loading them. You would have to merge the libraries when you run and compile the program:

User hits F5 or compiles:
Go through code, find all libraries used. And change the calls so you remove the Library: thingy.
Merge all libraries.
Add DECLARES to the top of the program.
Compile the program.
If F5 then run it.
Return to the IDE

Something like that.

I don't see why this shouldnt be possible...
The only problem I see is if you have the same function name in different libraries, but that can be solved if you have the lib source code.

Personally I think this would be a major improvement to QB, making it a lot easier to use multiple libs and change lib when needed, fast.

[Zack]

Kinda like the class namespace stuff in C++.
Interesting suggestion, but just try to alter QB IDE/Compiler code and get it to compile. :wink:

[Z!re]

Kinda like the class namespace stuff in C++.
Interesting suggestion, but just try to alter QB IDE/Compiler code and get it to compile. :wink:

Huh? Do you even want to look at the QB IDE and Compiler code? That is without some powerfull tranquilizers in hand.

It would be easier to just make a simple parser, how many of you use the functions in the QB IDE?

Just a new IDE, a simple text editor, with the F5 and compile ability. Then you just pares the code, merge libraries and compile it. I would do it, but I'm not sure how.

Also, if it was/is possible to extract individual functions from a lib it would be cool to make it do something like:
Go throught the library extract the functions, build a new library with only the functions used, with NEW NAMES! (So you can do: Lib1:Nana.. Lib2:Nana.. and get it to work) then merge all the functions togheter, and use the new library to compile the file.

In the file you have parsed so it goes from:

Code:

Lib1:Mupp

to

Code:

DECLARE SUB Lib1.Mupp () 'or something
Lib1.Mupp

I'm like excited now, someone will come and ruin my day by saying it's impossible, I just know it :lol:

[Agamemnus]

ask 1001001.....

[TheBigBasicQ]

Z!re there isnt anything that is impossible. So technically what you have said is sound. But you could merge those libraries before hand and use 'em =P.

[relsoft]

Ask Plasma. :*)

[Plasma]

You can already do that with QBMCX...just use multiple '$LIB statements. You'll have to add the declares or BIs, but that's easy enough.

(The colon thing wouldn't work anyway, as it could break some programs with labels.)

[relsoft]

So when is the next ver comming?

And finish your site. We need a new Nemesis QB. :*)

[Z!re]

Where can I find QBMCX?


And can it handle multiple libraries with functions/subs named the same? Is that even possible? To extract individual functions, rename them and remake the lib?


The colon thing was just an example, I know it would break it.

[1000101]

BPP which is basically the same as QBMCX can be found here:

http://uregina.ca/~cowles1e/

As to functions/subs (normally called 'procedures') with the same name...No.

Nothing can. The linker (which handles that) has no way of knowing which function you mean.

Concievably you could specify by library, but no linker supports that. So, it best just to use unique identifiers for your procedures.

If you have the source to the lib, then yes, you can rename it, since you can assemble/compile it.