HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Gabriel Landini <g.landini@uk.ac.bham>
Subject: Re: QuickBasic editor question
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 16:47:14 GMT
Organization: The University of Birmingham, United Kingdom

>Is there any way to temporarily disable features of the QuickBasic 4.5
>editor?  There are a number of minor annoyances but the biggest problem
>I have is related to making subroutines.
>
>Often when writing a program I'll decide "hmm, that block of code
>would be better as a subroutine".  But when I try to put a SUB
>statement before an already-existing section of code,
>the editor takes me out of the original routine and creates a new,
>empty subroutine.
>
>(IMPORTANT:  Notice I'm **NOT** talking about developing a really new
>             subroutine from scratch, but extracting already-present
>             code to make a SUB .  Typically this would be starting from old
>             "spaghetti" code and converting it to a more structured form.)
>
>I can avoid this by saving the program as ASCII, getting out of QB,
>using a text editor to insert the "SUB ... END SUB" statements around the
>appropriate lines of code, moving the new SUB to the bottom of the
>file, then getting back into QB.  But something tells me there's got to
>be an easier way ....
>
>Thanks for any help.  Apologies if this is a dumb/RTFM question but
>I haven't been able to find anything in the docs.
>________________________________________________________________________
>Raymond W. Arritt                     |  Dept. of Physics and Astronomy
>Assistant Professor                   |  University of Kansas
>arritt@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu             |  Lawrence, KS  66045
>Apr  1 12:29:21 timed[92]: THIS MACHINE IS A SLAVE
>Apr  1 12:29:27 timed[92]: THIS MACHINE IS A CANDIDATE
>Apr  1 12:29:31 timed[92]: This machine is master
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You could: first decide your subroutine name and create that empty
SUB, then with the block copy, copy the part of the main code into
the empty SUB and after delete the selected block from the main.
It works, but of course you have to DEFINE SUB at the begining.
Hope it helps :-)

Gabriel
From: ecn215z@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au
Newsgroups: alt.lang.basic
Subject: Floating point number in BDIRasic & C
Date: 19 Nov 92 10:27:06 +1100
Organization: Computer Centre, Monash University, Australia


Does Basic use the same physical format as C when a 
Single(float) or Double(double) number is stored onto a file?

Thanks for any info.

C.L. Chang
Newsgroups: alt.lang.basic
From: shaltbj2@sage.cc.purdue.edu (DJ)
Subject: VB and database
Organization: Purdue University Computing Center
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 14:30:34 GMT

I just recently got hooked onto VB and have decided to use it as my
choice for programming in Windows.  I would like to do database applications.

Are there any good DLL's and sources for database (dbase)??  I remember
reading that Professional VB has the database engines.  Are there any 
sharewares out there, or do I have to resort to getting the pro copy?

Thanx for the input,
Brandon


From: galenr@hpgrla.gr.hp.com (Galen Raben)
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 17:09:49 GMT
Subject: Re: VB and Linking to DLLs...
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Greeley, CO
Newsgroups: alt.lang.basic

In alt.lang.basic, kenneth@ponder.csci.unt.edu (Kenneth W. Rich) writes:

>I am about to go crazy.  A few months ago I was able to declare
>API fuctions and use them in Visual Basic.  Recently, however, I
>can't seem to get it to work.  The error I am getting when I try
>to call a defined function from API is "Bad DLL Calling Convention"
>It shows up during runtime when VB calls the external function.
>I have checked and double checked everything about four times
>and everything seems to be correct.

>Thanks for any insights provided.

>Ken.

Did you check to see if you are truly calling a "function" or a "procedure"?
If you declared a function as a procedure or vice-versa you can get this
error...

Did you try giving the full pathname to the dll?  (this one sometimes bites,
especially if your dll is not in the DOS path...)  

- Galen -
From: brownson@srd.bt.co.uk (George Brownson)
Newsgroups: alt.lang.basic
Subject: Visual Basic
Date: 17 Nov 92 18:06:12 GMT
Reply-To: brownson@srd.bt.co.uk
Organization: British Telecom


   Visual Basic Question
Does anyone know of a server which contains Visual Basic Freeware/Shareware
that can be ftp ied.
Newsgroups: alt.lang.basic
From: boutell@isis.cshl.org (Tom Boutell)
Subject: Re: Calling QuickC from QuickBasic
Organization: Cold Spring Harbor Labs
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 18:55:45 GMT

My mailer didn't know you. Here we go again:


Interesting situation. Your problem is making sure that C and Quickbasic
both "know" what mode you're in so they'll execute the right code for
the mode. A cheap nasty solution:

At the beginning, when you set the graphics mode, do it in both:

SCREEN N   (in Quickbasic; clears the screen and sets graphics mode
						so your code will know about it)
call croutine()


void croutine() {
	_setupvideo(...same mode for Quick C...);
}

So the screen gets cleared twice, which is a waste but not noticeable if it
only happens when the program first starts up, and now both libraries
think they're in the same mode.

-T

-- 
Tom Boutell, boutell@cshl.org

Clausthaler is the best non - alcoholic beer in the known universe.
From: hutch@bellman.lanl.gov (John Hutchinson)
Newsgroups: alt.lang.basic
Subject: Re: VAX Basic-like Basic for PC?
Date: 18 Nov 92 22:50:23 GMT
Reply-To: hutch@bellman.lanl.gov
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory

In article 722111275@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu, cos@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Ofer Inbar) writes:
>roth@csoadm.enet.dec.com (Lee Roth) writes:
>>Any suggestions as to which PC Basic would fill the following requirements?
>>
>>1) Compiler to produce standalone runnable programs (no interpreter baggage,
>
>What is "interpreter baggage"?  That aside, there are a variety of
>BASIC compilers for the PC that will produce standalone executables.
>The only ones I'm aware of that *don't* do this are the interpreters
>that come bundled with DOS (BASICA, GWBASIC, QBASIC).

Uh, unless I'm mistaken, Visual Basic, The Realizer, and even GFA Basic do not
(at least, not currently) provide support for compilation of source code into
standalone EXE files.  I'm sure what Lee was referring to is the run-time
library that has to accompany "compiled" BASIC programs such as these Windows
versions.  I'm not sure if Visual Basic for DOS has a "true" compiler or not.

Of the Windows Basics, only GFA has promised a true compiler RSN.  :)
Hopefully one will be made available for VB 2.0 but the MS folks I spoke with
said no comment.  Maybe that's a good sign?  :)
---

___________________________ John "HUTCH" Hutchinson _________________________
_________________ Fair Dinkum Technologies     Member - IAAD  _______________
________________ "No worries, mate... it's from Fair Dinkum!" _______________
____________ email: hutch@bellman.lanl.gov   GEnie: FAIR-DINKUM _____________
Newsgroups: alt.lang.basic
From: martin@patricia.verfahrenstechnik.uni-stuttgart.de (Martin Hepperle)
Subject: Re: First Impressions: VB for DOS
Organization: Institute A for Mechanics, University of Stuttgart, Germany
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 10:43:14 GMT

I too have a question concerning VB-DOS. I would like to know, whether
it is possible to run a VB-DOS application in graphics mode, so that
I can have text, listboxes, buttons etc. as well as a picture control
where I can draw lines. -- I have heard thet it supports full screen
graphics only (switch from text to graphics and back), but I hope that
this is not true...
________________________________________________________

      Martin J. Hepperle          MMMMMMMMMMMMH   HHH
     Universitaet Stuttgart       M   MMM   MMH   HHH
       Pfaffenwaldring 9          M   MMM   MMHHHHHHH
     D-7000 Stuttgart 80          M   MMM   MMH   HHH
 Germany, Europe, World, Universe M   MMM   MMH   HHH
     PLEASE USE THIS RETURN ADDRESS ONLY:
    martin@mecha2.verfahrenstechnik.uni-stuttgart.de
________________________________________________________
Newsgroups: alt.lang.basic
From: rhca80@melton.sps.mot.com (Henry Melton)
Subject: Helping the Kids
Organization: SPS
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 20:42:56 GMT


The school my kids attend has a very low computer budget, certainly
not enough for languages or much in the way of machines.  They do have
some Apple II's with BASIC, so at least some of the kids, my son
included, are having some fun.  

My former home computer did have a BASIC, but the one I have now, a
Sun3/60 doesn't.   I would love to have something close enough to the
old Apple Basic to let him create his monstrosities at home and then
type them in at school.

I pulled the BWBASIC sources and tried those, but it seems very
flakey--didn't compile cleanly.  Are there other PD type BASIC's I
should go looking for?
From: tcscs!zeta@src.honeywell.com (Gregory Youngblood)
Newsgroups: alt.lang.basic
Subject: Re: VAX Basic-like Basic for PC?
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 92 19:17:23 CST
Reply-To: tcscs!zeta@idss.nwa.com (Gregory Youngblood)
Organization: TCS Consulting Services

hutch@bellman.lanl.gov (John Hutchinson) writes:

> In article 722111275@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu, cos@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Ofer I
> >roth@csoadm.enet.dec.com (Lee Roth) writes:
> >>Any suggestions as to which PC Basic would fill the following requirements?
> >>
> >>1) Compiler to produce standalone runnable programs (no interpreter baggage
> >
> >What is "interpreter baggage"?  That aside, there are a variety of
> >BASIC compilers for the PC that will produce standalone executables.
> >The only ones I'm aware of that *don't* do this are the interpreters
> >that come bundled with DOS (BASICA, GWBASIC, QBASIC).
> 
> Uh, unless I'm mistaken, Visual Basic, The Realizer, and even GFA Basic do no
> (at least, not currently) provide support for compilation of source code into
> standalone EXE files.  I'm sure what Lee was referring to is the run-time
> library that has to accompany "compiled" BASIC programs such as these Windows
> versions.  I'm not sure if Visual Basic for DOS has a "true" compiler or not.
> 
> Of the Windows Basics, only GFA has promised a true compiler RSN.  :)
> Hopefully one will be made available for VB 2.0 but the MS folks I spoke with
> said no comment.  Maybe that's a good sign?  :)

Qbasic has an option to compile stand alone or to require the run time 
library to be present.  

Greg

.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.
.   TCS Consulting Services   P.O. Box 600008   St. Paul, MN  55106-0008    .
.   ..!srcsip!tcscs!zeta                 ..!src.honeywell.com!tcscs!zeta    .
.   zeta%tcscs@idss.nwa.com                      tcscs!zeta@idss.nwa.com    .
.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.-=-.
Newsgroups: alt.lang.basic
From: cos@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Ofer Inbar)
Subject: Re: VAX Basic-like Basic for PC?
Organization: Brandeis University
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 18:27:55 GMT

roth@csoadm.enet.dec.com (Lee Roth) writes:
>Any suggestions as to which PC Basic would fill the following requirements?
>
>1) Compiler to produce standalone runnable programs (no interpreter baggage,

What is "interpreter baggage"?  That aside, there are a variety of
BASIC compilers for the PC that will produce standalone executables.
The only ones I'm aware of that *don't* do this are the interpreters
that come bundled with DOS (BASICA, GWBASIC, QBASIC).

>2) Program lines without numbers
>
>3) Can label sections of code and use GOTO or GOSUB label instead of
>   line numbers

This is also commonplace.  Microsoft's QBASIC, QuickBASIC, PDS, VB,
and VB/DOS all allow you to label any line with either a number or an
alphanumeric label, or leave the line unlabeled.  Line numbers and
alphanumeric labels can be used interchangeably.

Additionally, most modern PC BASICs (including the Microsoft products
mentioned above) have 'real' procedures (usually called SUBs) and
functions, like C and Pascal.  I don't find myself using GOSUB very
much these days.

>4) Variable names of at least 12 characters (so you can understand them)

Most modern PC BASICs allow variable names longer than 12 characters.

>5) 'Option explicit' so you can force declaration of variables when coding

This is a new one in VB/DOS, I don't know of any other products that
have this feature.  Does anyone else know?

>6) Decent ON ERROR handling

Depends on your definition of decent.  What are you looking for?

>7) Select/case statements, VAX Basic-ish, e.g.

Microsoft's SELECT CASE (which has been copied in some competitors) is
one of the most flexible case structures I have seen, and is much
better than what is found in C and Pascal.  I don't think you'll be
dissapointed.

>8) ISAM file support

Microsoft BASIC PDS has this, and so does VB/DOS Professional.

>Also, don't need any windows support- just plain vanilla ASCII character
>terminal I/O type stuff. 

Most of these don't have Windows support.  There are three Windows
BASICs that I know of, of which Visual BASIC is the only one I know
anything about.

>My experience with Basic in the PC arena is zilch as you can tell.

You should consult the FAQ for more information on what is available
in some of the current PC BASIC products.  More products will be
included when I find out the information (i.e. when people post it or
email it to me).

  --  Cos (Ofer Inbar)  --  cos@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu
  --  WBRS (BRiS)  --  WBRS@binah.cc.brandeis.edu  WBRS@brandeis.bitnet
 FidoNet: Ofer Inbar on 1:101/310  --  Ofer.Inbar@f310.n101.z1.fidonet.org
 The Boston Computer Society IBM PC User Group TBBS, (617) 332-5584
Newsgroups: alt.lang.basic
From: bright@sctc.com (David A. Bright)
Subject: Visual Basic info wanted
Keywords: basic, visual basic
Organization: SCTC
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 14:46:43 GMT

I would like information on Visual Basic (the Windows variety).  Can anyone
give me pointers to books, magazine articles, or ftp-able documents that
describe VB?  Since version 2.0 is due out soon (available now?), I am
especially interested in information pertaining to that version.  What am
I looking for?  I would like to do some programming under Windows but am
short on time (this is a spare time project and my spare time has dwindled
to almost nothing).  From what I've heard so far, VB is supposed to handle
a lot of the tedium for you.  For those of you bemoaning the constant BASIC
bashing, I'll admit to programming in C at work; however, I am not averse to
using "off-beat" languages (I've been known to dabble in ICON, Forth, and
other lesser-known languages).

Thanks.

-- 
David A. Bright			dab@Bright.MN.ORG	(home)
Secure Computing		bright@SCTC.COM		(work)
Newsgroups: alt.lang.basic
From: white@mineng.dmpe.csiro.au (robert white)
Subject: Expression Evaluator
Organization: CSIRO. Div of Mineral and Process Engineering.
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 01:55:52 GMT

I have seen a function in the BASWIZ library that returns the value of
a string like "2+3-1", it is apparently known as an expression
evaluator.

I would like to have one that would work with "a+b-c" type stuff, where
the variables are defined elsewhere in the program.

Can someone help me out with a QB source listing for this?

I am trying to contact Thomas HanlinIII, the guy who wrote BASWIZ
library.

Thanks in advance

Rob

-- 
Robert White  CSIRO Division of Mineral and Process Engineering
Bayview Avenue, Clayton  3168, Victoria AUSTRALIA  03 541 1222
DISCLAIMER:  I have no authority to speak on behalf of the CSIRO.
I am responsible for what I say, not them.
From: millard@acsu.buffalo.edu (Peter G. Millard)
Newsgroups: alt.lang.basic
Subject: Easy way to get table view of ISAM database in VB/DOS
Keywords: ISAM, database
Date: 23 Nov 92 02:13:57 GMT
Organization: UB

Well yet another request in my quest to unravel the secrets of VB/DOS :)

I took a look at the example of using the ISAM stuff which comes with the
program. The example only shows the use of single record displays, which
is fine...(use a normal form), but I am wondering how I can easily show
a table view of the database. So far, I have come up with two solutions.

1) Create a normal list with each item consisting of all the fields
	combined into one string. This presents a problem in that the 
	construction of a list would take a significant amount of time.
	Nice thing is the easy manipulation of the list once it is
	constructed (using the scroll bars, etc...)

2) Create a list for each field then link the lists. Something like
	as the user uses the scroll bars or a key to change the position
	of one of the lists, all of the lists change. Problem with this 
	method is that I can not easily change the horizontal position of the 
	lists if I need to show more fields then the screen can show.

I'm sure someone else has tackled this problem with either VB/DOS or
VB/Windows. Any insight would be appreciated.

P.S. I guess I could create some type of custom control???? I have not
really looked into this prospect since I not yet delved into this
realm :).
Thanx.

-- 
******************************************************************************
	Peter G. Millard  *  INTERNET: v057n5um@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu           
 	SUNY @ Buffalo    *          : millard@acsu.buffalo.edu
*****************************************************************************
Newsgroups: alt.lang.basic
From: boutell@isis.cshl.org (Tom Boutell)
Subject: Re: Something tells me comp.lang.basic wouldn't fly
Organization: Cold Spring Harbor Labs
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 19:03:42 GMT

In article <1992Nov13.145125.11147@julian.uwo.ca> wlsmith@valve.heart.rri.uwo.ca (Wayne Smith) writes:
>I have gotten a fair amount of e-mail asking "So why don't you start a
>RFD or RFV for comp.lang.basic.

Yes, why don't you?

>Sure, a lot of people (me included) get enough out of alt.lang.basic, but
>some places don't get alt groups, and there's also a principle involved here
>(that a major programming language is kept out of the comp.lang hierarchy).

There's no principle involved. It hasn't been proposed, so what do you
know, there isn't one.

>
>With some of the negative comments about basic a few posts back, something
>tells me that a lot of basic trashers would come out of the woodwork and
>vote down comp.sys.basic.

Maybe. Maybe not. But you *GUARANTEED* a good hundred or two "no" votes
by harassing comp.lang.pop, a newsgroup which never bothered us before.

>
>Surely a vote has been tried before?  Does anyone know the results?

I don't believe so. But the odds just went down drastically. Guess
who's responsible.

-T

-- 
Tom Boutell, boutell@cshl.org

Clausthaler is the best non - alcoholic beer in the known universe.
Newsgroups: alt.lang.basic
From: philco@microsoft.com (Phillip Cooper)
Subject: Re: VAX Basic-like Basic for PC?
Date: 19 Nov 92 16:51:15 GMT
Organization: Microsoft Corporation

In article <cos.722111275@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu> cos@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Ofer Inbar) writes:
>roth@csoadm.enet.dec.com (Lee Roth) writes:
>>Any suggestions as to which PC Basic would fill the following requirements?
>>
>>5) 'Option explicit' so you can force declaration of variables when coding
>
>This is a new one in VB/DOS, I don't know of any other products that
>have this feature.  Does anyone else know?
>

VB for Windows 2.0 also has this...

Phil Cooper
From: arritt@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
Newsgroups: alt.lang.basic
Subject: QuickBasic editor question
Date: 20 Nov 92 07:25:51 CST
Organization: University of Kansas Academic Computing Services

Is there any way to temporarily disable features of the QuickBasic 4.5
editor?  There are a number of minor annoyances but the biggest problem
I have is related to making subroutines.  

Often when writing a program I'll decide "hmm, that block of code
would be better as a subroutine".  But when I try to put a SUB 
statement before an already-existing section of code,
the editor takes me out of the original routine and creates a new,
empty subroutine.

(IMPORTANT:  Notice I'm **NOT** talking about developing a really new
             subroutine from scratch, but extracting already-present
             code to make a SUB .  Typically this would be starting from old 
             "spaghetti" code and converting it to a more structured form.)

I can avoid this by saving the program as ASCII, getting out of QB,
using a text editor to insert the "SUB ... END SUB" statements around the
appropriate lines of code, moving the new SUB to the bottom of the
file, then getting back into QB.  But something tells me there's got to
be an easier way ....

Thanks for any help.  Apologies if this is a dumb/RTFM question but
I haven't been able to find anything in the docs.
________________________________________________________________________
Raymond W. Arritt                     |  Dept. of Physics and Astronomy  
Assistant Professor                   |  University of Kansas 
arritt@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu             |  Lawrence, KS  66045  
Apr  1 12:29:21 timed[92]: THIS MACHINE IS A SLAVE
Apr  1 12:29:27 timed[92]: THIS MACHINE IS A CANDIDATE
Apr  1 12:29:31 timed[92]: This machine is master

Newsgroups: alt.lang.basic
From: cos@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Ofer Inbar)
Subject: Re: VAX Basic-like Basic for PC?
Organization: Brandeis University
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 18:19:38 GMT

tcscs!zeta@src.honeywell.com (Gregory Youngblood) writes:
>>cos@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Ofer Inbar) writes:
>>>roth@csoadm.enet.dec.com (Lee Roth) writes:
>>>>
>>>>1) Compiler to produce standalone runnable programs (no interpreter baggage
>>>
>>>What is "interpreter baggage"?  That aside, there are a variety of
>>>BASIC compilers for the PC that will produce standalone executables.
>>>The only ones I'm aware of that *don't* do this are the interpreters
>>>that come bundled with DOS (BASICA, GWBASIC, QBASIC).
>
>Qbasic has an option to compile stand alone or to require the run time 
>library to be present.  

No.  You're talking about QuickBASIC, not QBASIC.  The two are very
different.  As I implied in the above paragraph, QBASIC is "an
interpreted that comes bundled with DOS".  It is the replacement for
GWBASIC, and comes with DOS 5.0 or later.  The major differences
between QBASIC and QuickBASIC are that QBASIC doesn't create
standalone .EXEs (with or without the runtime library requirement),
and it doesn't allow multiple modules per program.  All of this
information is in the FAQ, incidentally :-)

QuickBASIC does indeed allow two different flavors of compiled .EXE
files.  You can either produce files that stand on their own, or ones
that require access to the runtime library (BRUNxx.EXE) to run.
Obviously, for programs intended for the outside world, you should
compile without the runtime library requirement.

But, one of the nicest things about BASIC is how easy it is to write
quick simple programs to do simple things.  I find myself writing lots
of tiny utilities.  By using the runtime library option, I avoid
having the same code included in all of these files, which saves
considerable disk space.  The runtime library only has to exist once
on the disk.  This is a similar concept to DLLs in Windows, and shared
libraries in some newer Unixes.  I wish all PC BASIC compilers had
this feature.  When I looked at it, Turbo BASIC did not.  Does anyone
know which PC BASICs have this?

  --  Cos (Ofer Inbar)  --  cos@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu
  --  WBRS (BRiS)  --  WBRS@binah.cc.brandeis.edu  WBRS@brandeis.bitnet
"GUIs normally make it simple to accomplish simple actions and impossible to
 accomplish complex actions."  --Doug Gwyn  (22/Jun/91 in comp.unix.wizards)