Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!ukma!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!ncoast!davewt From: davewt@NCoast.ORG (David Wright) Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer Subject: Re: Dumb windows from SAS/C programs on Workbench Message-ID: <1991May22.130118.5123@NCoast.ORG> Date: 22 May 91 13:01:18 GMT References: <1991May20.020743.14630@NCoast.ORG> Organization: North Coast Public Access Un*x (ncoast) Lines: 40 In article chopps@ro-chp.UUCP (Chris Hopps) writes: >I disagree, when debuging, I don't throw all that much info into that little >window, just enough to find the problem. If it is too small, I re-size it. To >have a window that is very large would be in the way, and to not have a window >would take a nice debuging thing out. This is a valid point, and one I hadn't thought about. But if you are using the window for debugging, what do you do during CLI testing? In that case your programs I/O will appear in the same area as your debugging messages, unless you are always opening your own window anyway. I guess I just use CPR enough that I forget about using things like print statements to indicate what the code is doing, since I can set breakpoints and just WATCH what it is doing anywhere I choose. >but it DOES allow them to be run from the workbench, this is not a fix, but an >enhancement. I didn't mean I didn't LIKE the way 2.0 does that, I think it is excellent, since it allows you to run programs that would totally blow up under WB from the WB. What I meant was that even under 2.0 you can't just stick an icon on a file and expect it to work properly from WB if the programmer didn't expect you to do this. What I think would be neat would be a "tool" that would basically do the same thing as the 2.0 WB "execute" option, but allowed you to attach an icon to any program, and put in the icon's tooltypes the flags you wanted to pass to the program as if it was started from the CLI. That way you COULD create icons for any program, and have them executed exactly as if they were started from the CLI without having to use the pull-down menu option. (Another tooltype entry that allowed you to specify the I/O window size for the program would also be nice). Anyone want to program something like this up? >I haven't tried the umain.c stuff, it may be better. If I remember though the >question was what is an easy way to get rid of the "Dumb windows from SAS/C >programs on Workbench" _main is an easy way. Yes it is, and thanks for the suggestion. But for most people it is probably going to cost them more than it gives them. The SAS/C _main does some other work that you would basically have to duplicate if you wanted the same functionality at your "main()", which many beginning programmers might not figure out without looking at umain.c anyway, and for the most part (the CTRL-C stuff at least) it is well enough commented that it is fairly easy to disable both "features" if you choose. Dave