Date: Thu, 13 Jun 1996 17:25:10 +0800 (GMT) From: Orlando Andico Reply-To: Orlando Andico To: Tom Wheeley cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com Subject: Re: Beginners srand error In-Reply-To: <834616135snz@tsys.demon.co.uk> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Wed, 12 Jun 1996, Tom Wheeley wrote: > > Undefined behaviour can result in absolutely anything, including what you > expect. > IME, it results in nonzero exit codes.. upsetting when your shell scripts expect an ERRORLEVEL or exit code of 0 if everything's OK. > > Either of my Dos text editor, edit or e, will not seemingly store > > the tab character that is needed at the beginning of a make file > > command line. I had to resort to using a windows app. Is there > > a way to configure either of these editors so I can write make files > > with them. > > I don't think so: I corrected lines with edlin! > I used Edit.. until I knew better.. if I'm not mistaken, e has an option to use tabs instead of embedded spaces. > > Another question is to everyone: what is the best way to view > > and edit all of your program files and still have access to dos > > for the command line to make or run (aside from Rhide). What I've been doing > > is opening files from windows with notepad and then editing them, but > > the limitation of this is I can't save the changes easily. What is > > the best editor or editor of your choice to do this? (Also is there a djgpp > > command line option to make and run at the same time?) > > I use doskey and Edit. Edit is a very poor editor for C programming, but I > would think notepad is even worse! Unfortunately I have to exit to compile, > but with doskey I can open them up easily. Also Alt-f,x ensures every file > is saved. Why can't Edit have Shell to DOS! :-( > > Doskey makes typing those gcc command lines very easy for small programs, > when you don't want to make a Makefile. Well, if you've got nothing better.. ;) But the BEST solution IMO is to get one of 'em Super-Editors which allow you to shell out of the editor to compile, then grab GCC's stdout/stderr so that the error messages (who doesn't have 'em) are displayed in another window and you have almost-Borland-IDE interactivity.. if your CPU is fast enough. I'm sure Eli (and many others..) would frantically yell, "Emacs! Emacs!" (no offense intended) and yes, I agree, Emacs is the Ultimate Super Editor for this job, and Emacs-19.31 can be compiled OOB with DJGPP v2 making it sort-of the Approved Editor for the Job. But: Emacs is HUGE (protestations to the effect that it'll run in 4MB notwithstanding). Yes, GNU Emacs will run in 4 MB, but just wait till you shell out to run GCC (which also BTW requires 4 MB).. massive amounts of disk thrashing. I would humbly submit: use JED. Available at http://space.mit.edu/~davis It doesn't have all the GNU Emacs features (mostly the TeX-related stuff) but for editing C programs, it fills my needs most admirably. It also has an Info-reader (like Emacs). I just haven't figured out how to read the DJGPP Info files with it.. should be straightforward. There you have it -- Info/documentation reader, primitive sort-of debugger support, editor, shell to compiler. All in one. Sure beats Edit (*&%#%@#). Not to mention TAB works. Welcome Makefiles! NB: All this applies to Emacs as well! anything JED can do, Emacs can do (probably) better, with something like a 300% increase in core memory consumption. Personally, I use JED on PC's, and Emacs on memory-rich, X Windows machines (SGI, Sun) where Emacs really shines: it can detect X and morph itself into a GUI-type editor with nice buttons and stuff.