Fantasm list Jan/Feb

Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 21:40:16 -0500
From: Stuart Ball <100625.720@compuserve.com>
To: Multiple recipients of <list-fantasm@mail.tau.it>
Subject: PF416 released.

PowerFantasm V4.1.6. has been released.

An updater from version 4.1.5. is available on the WWW pages as of 0200GMT 070197 as a Stuffit(tm) file.

An update for Fantasm 4.1.5. will be available within a few days.

Details of the changes are available from the downloads and update page.

Beta testers for the 416 release might like to upgrade to this version as some work was done to Eddie after the last beta, specifically:

Multifile searches can be prematurely ended with the "escape" key if BG searches are enabled.

A bug fixed, whereby the cursor would sometimes fly off into unknown territory after an internal paste operation - i.e. find and replace.

-----------------------------------------
http://www.tau.it/lightsoft
lightsoft@zedworld.demon.co.uk
lightsoft@compuserve.com
-----------------------------------------
The truth is out there... (Maybe, but unfortunately not always in I.M.)

Date: Wed, 8 Jan 1997 21:23:28 +0000

From: Rob Probin <rob@zedworld.demon.co.uk>
To: Multiple recipients of <list-fantasm@mail.tau.it>
Subject: 68000 and assembly on TI-92

>Date: Sun, 06 Oct 1996 17:15:29 +0200
>From: bansart <cbansart@sigichallenge.netsource.fr>
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>To: pdcont@zedworld.demon.co.uk
>Subject: 68000 and assembly on TI-92
>
>I'm french and I have TI-92 graphing calculator, this calculator
>contains a 68000 Motorola at 10MHz and some studients and ingeniers find
>How programming into assembly (FARGO) on TI-92 for make faster programs.
>
>But They only have a PC compilateur named A68K.exe, it create a .O
>extension and then a utility translate them for the calculator.
>I try to make the same .O with PowerFantasm but I cannot make them.
>If anyone is interesting in my problem please answer me, because lot of
>people on Mac are stopped by this problem, and cannot make assembly
>programms on TI-92 with a MAC.
>I wonder if anyone can help me to create a simple program which allows
>to make assembly specific programs for TI-92.
>You can find a lot of informations at this adress :
>http://members.aol.com/jwardell/JWardell.html at FARGO
>
>
>I hope to have an answer.
>Thanks you.
>Christophe Bansart.
>
>My web site : http://www.ac-amiens.fr/limoges/calculatriceTI/ti92.html

Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 14:29:41 -0500 (EST)
From: Tim Humphrey <humphret@lurch.winthrop.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of <list-fantasm@mail.tau.it>
Subject: Re: Name

On Fri, 10 Jan 1997, Stuart Ball wrote:

> We're open to suggestions as to what to name the new project manager as
> used in Fantasm 5 and Fanta_C.
>
> The last thing we want is something like "Lightsoft Project Manager".
>
> Please post any suggestions you may have to this list (with an explanation
> if at all possible).
>
> If we us the name you suggest, we'll send you the full Fant V5 abs. free!
>
> Stu.

How about "Sourceress". A sorceror, and hence a sorceress, practices sorcery which is magic. You can think of an editor, a project manager, as being magical since it lets you create your program; it lets you create something from nothing. Creating something from nothing is like magic to me, so its sorcery...sorta. Also, Fantasm's name brings to mind fantasy and magic.

If you want to go the masculine route then you can call it "Sourceror", but I like "Sourceress". One reason for using the feminine is the Librarian's name. You usually think of librarians as being females, so we can use the feminine. If you really want to go over the deep end you can say that sense females bring life into the world, and making a program is like bringing in a new life, that the feminine should be used.

..._Tim_...
--=[You experience as you believe]=--
http://www.winthrop.edu/~humphret

Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 03:02:28 -0500 (EST)
From: Tim Humphrey <humphret@lurch.winthrop.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of <list-fantasm@mail.tau.it>
Subject: Re: Hiding Zoom box

On Sun, 19 Jan 1997, Stuart Ball wrote:
> A good place to start might be the windowrecord control list handle (offset
> 140 in the window record). Sounds like a case of finding the zoom box and
> hiding it. The control list handle when dereffed points to a single linked
> list of ControlRecords

> This is 100% hypothesis I'm afraid (having never done it), but it's where
> I'd look first. Pse let us know if/if not purely for curiosity's sake.

Thanks, I'll try looking in the control list. Incidently, I meant the size box and not the zoom box, I just caught the error as I was reading your reply!

..._Tim_...
--=[You experience as you believe]=--
http://www.winthrop.edu/~humphret

From: Tim Humphrey <humphret@lurch.winthrop.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of <list-fantasm@mail.tau.it>
Subject: Re: Hiding Zoom box

On Sun, 19 Jan 1997, Tim Humphrey wrote:

> On Sun, 19 Jan 1997, Stuart Ball wrote:
>
> > A good place to start might be the windowrecord control list handle (offset
> > 140 in the window record). Sounds like a case of finding the zoom box and
> > hiding it. The control list handle when dereffed points to a single linked
> > list of ControlRecords
>
> > This is 100% hypothesis I'm afraid (having never done it), but it's where
> > I'd look first. Pse let us know if/if not purely for curiosity's sake.
>
> Thanks, I'll try looking in the control list. Incidently, I meant the
> size box and not the zoom box, I just caught the error as I was reading
> your reply!

As I said above I meant the size box and not the zoom box.

Anyway, I checked the window's contorl list and it didn't list the size box there, in face it was empty, so I guess window controls like the size box, zoom box, and close box aren't controls in the strictest since.

Despite this I did figure out a way to hide the size box.

Once drawn, the size box is a part of the content region and the visible region of the window. Being a part of the content region isn't so much of a problem but being part of the visible region is. Actually it isn't a part of the visible region which is why you can't erase the size box; when you call DrawGrowIcon it subtracts the size box from the visible region, so that even if you set the clipping region to the entire window the size box won't get erased.

The solution is simply to change the visible region to include the size box, then you can erase it even though it's still there. I say it's still there because if the user clicks in the area where the size box should be the window will respond and it will be sizable. My workaround to this is to remember whether the size box is visible or not, if it isn't simply ignore requests to size the window!

An interesting note: the rounded corners at the bottom of the screen are made possible by the visible region. If you set the visible region to a rectangle that covers the bottom of the screen you'll be able to draw in the corners. The corners themselves are a rounded rectangle with a horizontal and vertical width of 16 units.

..._Tim_...
--=[You experience as you believe]=--
http://www.winthrop.edu/~humphret

Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 21:49:17 -0500 (EST)
|From: Tim Humphrey <humphret@lurch.winthrop.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of <list-fantasm@mail.tau.it>
Subject: Re: PowerPC Loveliness

On Thu, 30 Jan 1997, Stuart Ball wrote:

> PPC programming is definately a "mindset swap" from the more historical
> CISC ethos.
> Understanding the Instruction Queue and the execution units is a must.
>
> Having said that, advanced CISC processors, such as an 040 are also
> pipelined, so good results can be achieved by following the same sort of
> rules, but to a limited extent because you don't have those many context
> flags that PPC has. And don't forget that most 68k code these days is
> actually translated to PPC before being run :-)
>
> Having programmed both, I find:
> 68k to be old fashioned, but lovely :-)
> PPC to be incredibly powerful and in some respects a lot easier than 68k.
>
> With both, an inate understanding of the processor architecture is a must -
> one of the biggest mistakes I see a lot in 68k is unnecessary tst and
> compare instructions.

> Most moves set the flags so a move followed by a compare followed by a
> conditional branch is a waste of one instruction - the compare.
>
> Stu.

In the docs that come with PowerFantasm does it point out some of the differences between PowerPC and 68K? For instance, in the previous message, I didn't repost it here, you pointed out that register d0 is equivalent to register r3; do the docs list other similarities? I might just break down and buy PowerFantasm even if it doesn't have my beloved local lables. (I'm actually beginning to get used to not having them though, whenever I begin a code block I make the label for it as descriptive as possible, then for any other labels inside that code block I prefix them with acronyms from the beginning label):

MenuBar:
doCode
doCodeAgain
andAgain ;don't ya' love my macros'!
MBEnd: cleanUp

BTW, does anybody else program in 68K anymore, just curious. I think it's still useful given the long life most Macs have--I still see people using LCIIs, heck one of our science labs on campus still has AppleIIs!

..._Tim_...
--=[You experience as you believe]=--
http://www.winthrop.edu/~humphret

Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 14:37:08 -0500 (EST)
From: Tim Humphrey <humphret@lurch.winthrop.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of <list-fantasm@mail.tau.it>
Subject: Re: PowerPC Loveliness

On Fri, 31 Jan 1997, Stuart Ball wrote:

> The last assembler I bought (about 8 or 9 years ago) cost 65 UKP, came with
> a quick reference card and an a3 (small) manual, most of which was
> appendicies. We reported bugs to the manufacturers and got no reply
> whatsoever. What support?
>
> To sum up, I'd say the best way to learn is to make your own mistakes, slap
> yourself round the head when you do, and remember it :-) - this is true of
> any language.
>
> Finally, WRT Tims monthly moan about local labels :-)

Hey, at least I'm consistent!

Before I go to the bank though, about how far along is Fantasm 5? I figure I can wait awhile longer if it's just around the corner.

..._Tim_...
--=[You experience as you believe]=--
http://www.winthrop.edu/~humphret

Date: 31 Jan 97 22:17:23 +0200
From: "Mephisto" <mwehner@lander.es>
To: Multiple recipients of <list-fantasm@mail.tau.it>
Subject: Disassembler

Hi!

I'm relatively new to this mailing-list....
I'm programming on a Performa 630 - that's a good old 68k Mac! :)
Mostly in C++, but assembly is great....
Actually I wanted to design my own disassembler right now, but couldn't find any useful information (of course).

So I thought I could ask you.... Does anyone have ANY information about that?

I don't need source-code right now, just a basic information on how to begin.... I would appreciate any help!

Thanks

Mephisto

********************************************************
4. If there is a possibility of several things going wrong, the
one that will cause the most damage will be the one to go wrong.
********************************************************
Mephisto
<mwehner@lander.es>
<http://www.lander.es/~mwehner>

Date: Fri, 31 Jan 1997 16:40:41 -0500 (EST)
From: Tim Humphrey <humphret@lurch.winthrop.edu>
To: Multiple recipients of <list-fantasm@mail.tau.it>
Subject: Re: Disassembler

On 31 Jan 1997, Mephisto wrote:
> Actually I wanted to design my own disassembler right now, but couldn't
> find any useful information (of course).
> So I thought I could ask you.... Does anyone have ANY information about
> that?

First off, I don't know where to get info on a disassembler so you can't
delete this message now if you want.

Mainly, why would you want to write a disassembler, MacsBug is great, at least for me. Oh well, for whatever reasons you want to write a disassembler, good luck.

..._Tim_...
--=[You experience as you believe]=--
http://www.winthrop.edu/~humphret

Date: Sun, 2 Feb 1997 04:17:19 +0000
From: brollo@cableol.co.uk
To: Multiple recipients of <list-fantasm@mail.tau.it>
Subject: Re: PowerPC Loveliness

>On another topic: Does anyone have any insight or comments into the
>persistent "Apple is gonna switch to Pentiums" rumor? It's starting to
>irk me.

Bollocks!

Date: 4 Feb 97 13:52:08 +0200
From: "Mephisto" <mwehner@lander.es>
To: Multiple recipients of <list-fantasm@mail.tau.it>
Subject: Re: Disassembler

Hi!

Re Kev: That is my question! Do I have to write endless switch-case-statements (that would only compare two values) or is there a formula with which one could "calculate" assembly-text instructions from a CODE-Resource? (which would be highly unlikely)

However I thin I've found the answer in one of these neat little header files:

there seems to be a function that allows you to pass a text string (the code-resource) and that returns plain-text assembly....

I'll have a look whether it works or not!

Martin

********************************************************
Build a system that even a fool can useand only a fool will want to use it.
********************************************************
Mephisto
<mwehner@lander.es>
<http://www.lander.es/~mwehner>

BACK