GLBasic forum

Main forum => GLBasic - en => Topic started by: MrTAToad on 2009-Aug-07

Title: CALLBACK rename
Post by: MrTAToad on 2009-Aug-07
Would it be possible to get CALLBACK renamed to something like OVERRIDE - The CALLBACK command just overrides a function and thus cant be officially used to handle callbacks.
Title: Re: CALLBACK rename
Post by: MikeHart on 2009-Aug-09
Actually you could argue that it is the correct name. Because from what I understand GLBasic routes and utilities are C/C++ related and there in all the API's you find callback routines.
Title: Re: CALLBACK rename
Post by: MikeHart on 2009-Aug-09
Ok, then it makes sence.
Title: Re: CALLBACK rename
Post by: Kitty Hello on 2009-Aug-09
In amed it so, because the use is to provide a dummy function for something, and provide it as a callback, thus you can inject our own code.
It's bad, I know. Hm..
What would really rock is to extend "CALLBYNAME" to be able to pass arguments or something. But that's a lot owf work and not very BASIC anymore.
Title: Re: CALLBACK rename
Post by: Hatonastick on 2009-Aug-10
Well one problem that may occur, if it isn't already, is as GLB grows in popularity you are going to get more and more programmers at differing levels of capabilities expecting certain things from GLB -- the fun side of 'feature creep'.   ;/

Maybe it's time to start splitting commands up into BASIC and Advanced Command Set (as far as the help file and overall presentation goes).  To have an actual compiler option that you turn on for 'Advanced mode' to access the more advanced commands ala something like GameMaker would be overkill and (even if you could) a right royal pain to add for no or very little gain.  That's why I'd vote for adding more advanced commands to GLB for the folks who need them, but rearranging the Help file (and samples) to split the simpler, more BASIC-like ones into one group and putting the extra, more complex and non-BASIC additions in the Advanced section of the help file.  Stress in the introduction and tutorials that the more 'Advanced' commands aren't necessary to get most of what you need out of GLB and only there for people who need them.  =D

What I'm talking about boils down to semantics really, and it is all about how you present the package rather than any actual changes to the compiler.  I'm just trying to think of how you can keep both groups happy.  Compromise is key.  Depends what you want really as it is your development system.  :good: