Richard,
Good point...
I'll be putting in more of the "obsolete...use this instead" compiler errors so
that developers don't have as hard a time as you've had.
I'll also try and get a readme going to list out all the changes.
Thanks,
--vivek
Richard Bram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 07/27/99 11:11:56 PM
Please respond to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent by: Richard Bram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
cc: (Vivek Magotra/HQ/3Com)
Subject: Re: Finding strings in JapaneseOS
Just lack of time; to tweak settings,fix up outdated calls, etc.
It took me only 20 minutes to track down all of the stuff needed
to get TxtPrepFindString to work under release 1 of Codewarrier
for Pilots. (And it was a little more complicated than usual, because
of the funny international trapjump thingee)
To compare, I tried seeing if I could convert
the OS 3.0 ToDo example to OS3.1 in 20 minutes or less.
I couldn't. Multiple compiler errors complaining about ...
ChrIsHardKey() -- obsolete
IsPrint() --
sizeofchar
GetCharAttr
IsAlpha
IsSpace
charAttrP = GetCharAttr();
IsAlNum
All complaints about undefined calls, or something like that.
And no obvious explanation of where to find the equivalent
replacements, or what the missing header might be. (except
for the useful compiler error about ChrIsHardKey being
replace by a Txt routine.
I know you have to be free to change old calls to make way
for the new. For me, though, it's not worth the time to
go through and try to find out how to change old working
code to jump through the hoops of the new stuff.
If you are asking for recommendations for future releases of CW,
I think that many of us that have substantial amounts of working
code based heavily on your example projects would benefit from
an idiot-level summary of things to change to accomodate the
new definitions. Basically, a prominent document titled "How
to change the old Example projects to compile without errors
under this version of CW". (I know there is usually somthing
similar in the final releases, but it isn't usually geared
to the old projects, per se)
Rick Bram
>Rick, is there a reason that you're not actually *using* the headers to
>compile with, and thus have to search through them to find the definition
>of a #define? Seems to me like you're going through a bunch of extra work
>which the compiler is happy to do for you.
>
>Or perhaps you're just waiting for a newer release of the headers. Feel
>free to use the posted 3.1 ones; you can simply replace your 3.0 includes
>with 3.1 includes and if you don't get compilation errors, you're all set.
>
>-David Fedor
>Palm Developer Support
