I vote phobos, its the name of the runtime library why cant other vendors call it that also ?

Also, what is win32 / linux specifc stuff doing in the library ?  Shouldn't phobos just contain platform indepenent functions, like C's ?

I pray that D is not selected, although d gets my vote if we cant have phobos.

C
"Matthew Wilson" <matthew-hat@-stlsoft-dot.-org> wrote in message
news:bn75am$1lou$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Ok. Here's where I see the situation. We have several options
>
> 1. D
> 2. d
> 3. phobos
> 4. std
> 5. stdd
> 6. lang
> 7. some other multi-letter prefix
>
> The primary bifurcation on opinion is whether it is d/D or a multi-letter. Personally I'm still in two minds about this, although I lean towards d/D
>
> Secondary to that, therefore, is whether on for former case we go for d or for D. I lean towards d, and think that in either case it's not
unreasonable
> to reserve the name of the language (in both cases).
>
> For the case of multi-letter prefixes, phobos is ruled out because of its (Digital) Mars specificity, but the other contenders seem reasonable,
albeit
> somewhat prosaic.
>
> It would be useful if everyone could express their opinions on the main question of d/D vs multi-letter, *and* the secondary questions.
>
> Is there a possibility that one of you web-enabled kinda guys could
organise
> a vote? Helmut, what about a place on your wiki stuff?
>
> Anyway, it may well be that Walter's just decided, and that's it, but
until
> he says he is immovable I would like to explore. This is a very important issue that, once fixed, cannot be changed, so it's worth a little of all
our
> consideration.
>
> Cheers
>
>
> -- 
> Matthew Wilson
>
> STLSoft moderator and C++ monomaniac       (http://www.stlsoft.org)
> Contributing editor, C/C++ Users Journal
> (www.synesis.com.au/articles.html#columns)
>
> "If i'm curt with you it's because time is a factor. I think fast, I talk fast, and I need you guys to act fast" -- Mr Wolf
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
> ---
>
>
> "Patrick Down" <Patrick_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:bn73fk$1jfo$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > In article <bn6tgo$1b4d$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Matthew Wilson says...
> > >
> > >
> > >"Patrick Down" <Patrick_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:bn6skf$19si$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > >> In article <bn6sef$19kb$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Matthew Wilson says...
> > >> >
> > >> >I've been thinking about this module naming stuff, and considering
> C++'s
> > >> >approach.
> > >> >
> > >> >Clearly one of the reasons they chose std was because it was at
least
> a
> > >bit
> > >> >unambiguous (three letters!)
> > >>
> > >> HEY!   Why can't we use std?  standard-d?
> > >
> > >Well I guess no reason, other than Walter (and others, me included)
want
> D.
> > >The main contention is that it seems that Walter's the only one (who's publicly expressed, anyway) the preference for D over d, despite the inconsistency. Do you have a preference in that regard?
> >
> > If you held my arm against my back and forced me to make a decision I would say d.   But I really dislike using a one letter name.
> >
> >
> >
>
>

Also could I get your help on something Matthew if you have time ?

Im using the scintilla MFC wrappers found here : http://www.atari-soldiers.com/mfc_scintilla.zip , and Im having trouble getting the caret to show up ready for typing when I create new files, and also when DIDE loses focus, then regains it.  You have to click on the view to be able to edit.

I have tried scintillas methods of :


SetCurrentPos( )
SetSelectionStart( )
GrabFocus()

And also MFC's

SetActiveWindow()
SetFocus()
SetCaretPos()

I have tried these in an overrided CView::OnActivateView( ... ) function , a DisplayErrorFunction, OnInitalUpdate(), OnUpdate() etc... without any luck.


Here is a test program Im using http://www.atari-soldiers.com/ScintillaTest.zip so you can see it in action.

Im stuck on this , dont know what else to try :/.  Thanks for any help!

Charles


"Matthew Wilson" <matthew-hat@-stlsoft-dot.-org> wrote in message news:bn75am$1lou$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> Ok. Here's where I see the situation. We have several options
> 
> 1. D
> 2. d
> 3. phobos
> 4. std
> 5. stdd
> 6. lang
> 7. some other multi-letter prefix
> 
> The primary bifurcation on opinion is whether it is d/D or a multi-letter. Personally I'm still in two minds about this, although I lean towards d/D
> 
> Secondary to that, therefore, is whether on for former case we go for d or for D. I lean towards d, and think that in either case it's not unreasonable to reserve the name of the language (in both cases).
> 
> For the case of multi-letter prefixes, phobos is ruled out because of its (Digital) Mars specificity, but the other contenders seem reasonable, albeit somewhat prosaic.
> 
> It would be useful if everyone could express their opinions on the main question of d/D vs multi-letter, *and* the secondary questions.
> 
> Is there a possibility that one of you web-enabled kinda guys could organise a vote? Helmut, what about a place on your wiki stuff?
> 
> Anyway, it may well be that Walter's just decided, and that's it, but until he says he is immovable I would like to explore. This is a very important issue that, once fixed, cannot be changed, so it's worth a little of all our consideration.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> 
> -- 
> Matthew Wilson
> 
> STLSoft moderator and C++ monomaniac       (http://www.stlsoft.org)
> Contributing editor, C/C++ Users Journal
> (www.synesis.com.au/articles.html#columns)
> 
> "If i'm curt with you it's because time is a factor. I think fast, I talk fast, and I need you guys to act fast" -- Mr Wolf
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ---
> 
> 
> "Patrick Down" <Patrick_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:bn73fk$1jfo$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > In article <bn6tgo$1b4d$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Matthew Wilson says...
> > >
> > >
> > >"Patrick Down" <Patrick_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:bn6skf$19si$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > >> In article <bn6sef$19kb$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Matthew Wilson says...
> > >> >
> > >> >I've been thinking about this module naming stuff, and considering
> C++'s
> > >> >approach.
> > >> >
> > >> >Clearly one of the reasons they chose std was because it was at least
> a
> > >bit
> > >> >unambiguous (three letters!)
> > >>
> > >> HEY!   Why can't we use std?  standard-d?
> > >
> > >Well I guess no reason, other than Walter (and others, me included) want
> D.
> > >The main contention is that it seems that Walter's the only one (who's publicly expressed, anyway) the preference for D over d, despite the inconsistency. Do you have a preference in that regard?
> >
> > If you held my arm against my back and forced me to make a decision I would say d.   But I really dislike using a one letter name.
> >
> >
> >
> 
> 

> I vote phobos, its the name of the runtime library why cant other vendors call it that also ?

I guess it just invites those NIH instincts to rise. I guess the thinking is it's nice how Java's std libraries are under java, so why can't D have the same?

> Also, what is win32 / linux specifc stuff doing in the library ?

Why shouldn't platform specific stuff be in the library? This is a language about usability and efficiency, not some notional purity. If we want everything to be platform/technology independent, we're going to have some very unweidly and inefficient code, like .. erm .. Java.

In any case, why is it only platforms that one should be independent of? One could equally argue that XML stuff shouldn't be in there. Or UDP vs TCP: shouldn't it all be an invisible

Of course no-one's saying that common functionality, like file-handling, should be implemented in a specific fashion, but do you not think there are platform-specific features that we would want in?

Consider the case of COM. Imagine for a moment that COM really had made a successful transition to Linux. In this case, when we implement the platform-independent D COM libraries we're a bit stuck. The Win32 versions of the D.com modules will have to reference some "external" modules, in order to implement their registration functionality.

Now maybe COM is not the best example, because the likelihood of our doing a Linux version is pretty slim (although maybe that's not the case for Mac!?), but I'm sure you can extrapolate to other things. Networking, for example. We'd be idiotic to not support using IO Completion ports on Win32 implementations, but this doesn't work for UNIX.


>  Shouldn't phobos just contain platform indepenent functions, like C's ?

Do you really want to hold up the C runtime library as an example of the best libraries there can be? Surely not.

> I pray that D is not selected, although d gets my vote if we cant have phobos.

Agreed

>
> C
> "Matthew Wilson" <matthew-hat@-stlsoft-dot.-org> wrote in message
> news:bn75am$1lou$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > Ok. Here's where I see the situation. We have several options
> >
> > 1. D
> > 2. d
> > 3. phobos
> > 4. std
> > 5. stdd
> > 6. lang
> > 7. some other multi-letter prefix
> >
> > The primary bifurcation on opinion is whether it is d/D or a
multi-letter.
> > Personally I'm still in two minds about this, although I lean towards
d/D
> >
> > Secondary to that, therefore, is whether on for former case we go for d
or
> > for D. I lean towards d, and think that in either case it's not
> unreasonable
> > to reserve the name of the language (in both cases).
> >
> > For the case of multi-letter prefixes, phobos is ruled out because of
its
> > (Digital) Mars specificity, but the other contenders seem reasonable,
> albeit
> > somewhat prosaic.
> >
> > It would be useful if everyone could express their opinions on the main question of d/D vs multi-letter, *and* the secondary questions.
> >
> > Is there a possibility that one of you web-enabled kinda guys could
> organise
> > a vote? Helmut, what about a place on your wiki stuff?
> >
> > Anyway, it may well be that Walter's just decided, and that's it, but
> until
> > he says he is immovable I would like to explore. This is a very
important
> > issue that, once fixed, cannot be changed, so it's worth a little of all
> our
> > consideration.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> >
> > -- 
> > Matthew Wilson
> >
> > STLSoft moderator and C++ monomaniac       (http://www.stlsoft.org)
> > Contributing editor, C/C++ Users Journal
> > (www.synesis.com.au/articles.html#columns)
> >
> > "If i'm curt with you it's because time is a factor. I think fast, I
talk
> > fast, and I need you guys to act fast" -- Mr Wolf
> >
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> > ---
> >
> >
> > "Patrick Down" <Patrick_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:bn73fk$1jfo$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > > In article <bn6tgo$1b4d$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Matthew Wilson says...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >"Patrick Down" <Patrick_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:bn6skf$19si$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > > >> In article <bn6sef$19kb$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Matthew Wilson
says...
> > > >> >
> > > >> >I've been thinking about this module naming stuff, and considering
> > C++'s
> > > >> >approach.
> > > >> >
> > > >> >Clearly one of the reasons they chose std was because it was at
> least
> > a
> > > >bit
> > > >> >unambiguous (three letters!)
> > > >>
> > > >> HEY!   Why can't we use std?  standard-d?
> > > >
> > > >Well I guess no reason, other than Walter (and others, me included)
> want
> > D.
> > > >The main contention is that it seems that Walter's the only one
(who's
> > > >publicly expressed, anyway) the preference for D over d, despite the inconsistency. Do you have a preference in that regard?
> > >
> > > If you held my arm against my back and forced me to make a decision I would say d.   But I really dislike using a one letter name.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

Charles

I'd be delighted to help, and maybe I will get time at some random point in the next week or so, but it's looking dodgy. I have 90,000 words to research and write, and 9 weeks to do it! The publisher's breathing over my shoulder is misting up my monitor as it is.

Maybe if you can break down the problem and post bits here I (and others) may be able to shed some light, but I can't see me having time to download and mess around. I'm really sorry, as I'd very much like to support your effort - indeed, I was thinking of giving some help once the book's out of the way, maybe we can plug some STLSoft stuff in there ;).

Matthew

  "Charles Sanders" <sanders-consulting@comcast.net> wrote in message news:bn77h5$1omu$1@digitaldaemon.com...
  Also could I get your help on something Matthew if you have time ?

  Im using the scintilla MFC wrappers found here : http://www.atari-soldiers.com/mfc_scintilla.zip , and Im having trouble getting the caret to show up ready for typing when I create new files, and also when DIDE loses focus, then regains it.  You have to click on the view to be able to edit.

  I have tried scintillas methods of :


  SetCurrentPos( )
  SetSelectionStart( )
  GrabFocus()

  And also MFC's

  SetActiveWindow()
  SetFocus()
  SetCaretPos()

  I have tried these in an overrided CView::OnActivateView( ... ) function , a DisplayErrorFunction, OnInitalUpdate(), OnUpdate() etc... without any luck.


  Here is a test program Im using http://www.atari-soldiers.com/ScintillaTest.zip so you can see it in action.

  Im stuck on this , dont know what else to try :/.  Thanks for any help!

  Charles


  "Matthew Wilson" <matthew-hat@-stlsoft-dot.-org> wrote in message news:bn75am$1lou$1@digitaldaemon.com...
  > Ok. Here's where I see the situation. We have several options
  >
  > 1. D
  > 2. d
  > 3. phobos
  > 4. std
  > 5. stdd
  > 6. lang
  > 7. some other multi-letter prefix
  >
  > The primary bifurcation on opinion is whether it is d/D or a multi-letter.
  > Personally I'm still in two minds about this, although I lean towards d/D
  >
  > Secondary to that, therefore, is whether on for former case we go for d or
  > for D. I lean towards d, and think that in either case it's not unreasonable
  > to reserve the name of the language (in both cases).
  >
  > For the case of multi-letter prefixes, phobos is ruled out because of its
  > (Digital) Mars specificity, but the other contenders seem reasonable, albeit
  > somewhat prosaic.
  >
  > It would be useful if everyone could express their opinions on the main
  > question of d/D vs multi-letter, *and* the secondary questions.
  >
  > Is there a possibility that one of you web-enabled kinda guys could organise
  > a vote? Helmut, what about a place on your wiki stuff?
  >
  > Anyway, it may well be that Walter's just decided, and that's it, but until
  > he says he is immovable I would like to explore. This is a very important
  > issue that, once fixed, cannot be changed, so it's worth a little of all our
  > consideration.
  >
  > Cheers
  >
  >
  > --
  > Matthew Wilson
  >
  > STLSoft moderator and C++ monomaniac       (http://www.stlsoft.org)
  > Contributing editor, C/C++ Users Journal
  > (www.synesis.com.au/articles.html#columns)
  >
  > "If i'm curt with you it's because time is a factor. I think fast, I talk
  > fast, and I need you guys to act fast" -- Mr Wolf
  >
  > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  > ---
  >
  >
  > "Patrick Down" <Patrick_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message
  > news:bn73fk$1jfo$1@digitaldaemon.com...
  > > In article <bn6tgo$1b4d$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Matthew Wilson says...
  > > >
  > > >
  > > >"Patrick Down" <Patrick_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message
  > > >news:bn6skf$19si$1@digitaldaemon.com...
  > > >> In article <bn6sef$19kb$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Matthew Wilson says...
  > > >> >
  > > >> >I've been thinking about this module naming stuff, and considering
  > C++'s
  > > >> >approach.
  > > >> >
  > > >> >Clearly one of the reasons they chose std was because it was at least
  > a
  > > >bit
  > > >> >unambiguous (three letters!)
  > > >>
  > > >> HEY!   Why can't we use std?  standard-d?
  > > >
  > > >Well I guess no reason, other than Walter (and others, me included) want
  > D.
  > > >The main contention is that it seems that Walter's the only one (who's
  > > >publicly expressed, anyway) the preference for D over d, despite the
  > > >inconsistency. Do you have a preference in that regard?
  > >
  > > If you held my arm against my back and forced me to make a decision
  > > I would say d.   But I really dislike using a one letter name.
  > >
  > >
  > >
  >
  >

"Matthew Wilson" <matthew-hat@-stlsoft-dot.-org> wrote in message news:bn6sef$19kb$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> btw, can you explain what a C module is? Is this a c library with function declarations only in D?

I see it as the thinnest veneer possible over standard C functions, such as C.stdio, C.stdlib, etc. C modules would follow C conventions, would make no attempt to convert errno to exceptions, would not attempt to 'clean it up', etc.

One example of this I ran into with zlib. Zlib has a lot of C style functionality and behavior. It's not really the D way. So I am putting together a C.zlib with all that, and then building a D.zlib with it redone with an easy to use D look and feel.

"Matthew Wilson" <matthew-hat@-stlsoft-dot.-org> wrote in message news:bn6sef$19kb$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> I've been thinking about this module naming stuff, and considering C++'s approach.
>
> Clearly one of the reasons they chose std was because it was at least a
bit
> unambiguous (three letters!)
>
> I'm starting to wonder whether Helmut's notion of the standard library's having something longer than D (or d) makes sense.
>
> Separately, I still don't see any difference between D and d, other than D is less consistent, which will be a permanent flaw on the language. Having people not be able to write d in a language called D doesn't seen a great hardship. It's not exactly difficult to do a global whole-word search and replace to change all d or D into d_ and D_ (or whatever).
>
> I know I'm wandering a bit, but *please* let us have d.win32.etc.

It isn't cast in stone. All I've really done so far is name D.win32.registry for your registry package. Let's wait and see a bit and the smoke may clear on the best solution.

> I guess it just invites those NIH instincts to rise
NIH ?


> In any case, why is it only platforms that one should be independent of?
One
> could equally argue that XML stuff shouldn't be in there.

I totally agree XML stuff should'nt be in there!

> Do you really want to hold up the C runtime library as an example of the best libraries there can be? Surely not.

Whats wrong with C library ?

But my main argument is not that we shouldn't have the functionality you mentioned, I think we defeintly need that but I don't think it should be in the one library that MUST be linked in.  C's lib is small and effecient, thats where I was going with the C refrence.  All those other libs can be implemeneted apart from phobos, so we can choose wether or not we want to link them in ( and make our end executable larger) .

We can make them 'official' in some other respect ?  ( If thats a problem
? )

C

"Matthew Wilson" <matthew-hat@-stlsoft-dot.-org> wrote in message news:bn781a$1pal$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > I vote phobos, its the name of the runtime library why cant other
vendors
> > call it that also ?
>
> I guess it just invites those NIH instincts to rise. I guess the thinking
is
> it's nice how Java's std libraries are under java, so why can't D have the same?
>
> > Also, what is win32 / linux specifc stuff doing in the library ?
>
> Why shouldn't platform specific stuff be in the library? This is a
language
> about usability and efficiency, not some notional purity. If we want everything to be platform/technology independent, we're going to have some very unweidly and inefficient code, like .. erm .. Java.
>
> In any case, why is it only platforms that one should be independent of?
One
> could equally argue that XML stuff shouldn't be in there. Or UDP vs TCP: shouldn't it all be an invisible
>
> Of course no-one's saying that common functionality, like file-handling, should be implemented in a specific fashion, but do you not think there
are
> platform-specific features that we would want in?
>
> Consider the case of COM. Imagine for a moment that COM really had made a successful transition to Linux. In this case, when we implement the platform-independent D COM libraries we're a bit stuck. The Win32 versions of the D.com modules will have to reference some "external" modules, in order to implement their registration functionality.
>
> Now maybe COM is not the best example, because the likelihood of our doing
a
> Linux version is pretty slim (although maybe that's not the case for
Mac!?),
> but I'm sure you can extrapolate to other things. Networking, for example. We'd be idiotic to not support using IO Completion ports on Win32 implementations, but this doesn't work for UNIX.
>
>
> >  Shouldn't phobos just contain platform indepenent functions, like C's ?
>
> Do you really want to hold up the C runtime library as an example of the best libraries there can be? Surely not.
>
> > I pray that D is not selected, although d gets my vote if we cant have phobos.
>
> Agreed
>
> >
> > C
> > "Matthew Wilson" <matthew-hat@-stlsoft-dot.-org> wrote in message
> > news:bn75am$1lou$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > > Ok. Here's where I see the situation. We have several options
> > >
> > > 1. D
> > > 2. d
> > > 3. phobos
> > > 4. std
> > > 5. stdd
> > > 6. lang
> > > 7. some other multi-letter prefix
> > >
> > > The primary bifurcation on opinion is whether it is d/D or a
> multi-letter.
> > > Personally I'm still in two minds about this, although I lean towards
> d/D
> > >
> > > Secondary to that, therefore, is whether on for former case we go for
d
> or
> > > for D. I lean towards d, and think that in either case it's not
> > unreasonable
> > > to reserve the name of the language (in both cases).
> > >
> > > For the case of multi-letter prefixes, phobos is ruled out because of
> its
> > > (Digital) Mars specificity, but the other contenders seem reasonable,
> > albeit
> > > somewhat prosaic.
> > >
> > > It would be useful if everyone could express their opinions on the
main
> > > question of d/D vs multi-letter, *and* the secondary questions.
> > >
> > > Is there a possibility that one of you web-enabled kinda guys could
> > organise
> > > a vote? Helmut, what about a place on your wiki stuff?
> > >
> > > Anyway, it may well be that Walter's just decided, and that's it, but
> > until
> > > he says he is immovable I would like to explore. This is a very
> important
> > > issue that, once fixed, cannot be changed, so it's worth a little of
all
> > our
> > > consideration.
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > >
> > >
> > > -- 
> > > Matthew Wilson
> > >
> > > STLSoft moderator and C++ monomaniac       (http://www.stlsoft.org)
> > > Contributing editor, C/C++ Users Journal
> > > (www.synesis.com.au/articles.html#columns)
> > >
> > > "If i'm curt with you it's because time is a factor. I think fast, I
> talk
> > > fast, and I need you guys to act fast" -- Mr Wolf
> > >
> >
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --
> > > ---
> > >
> > >
> > > "Patrick Down" <Patrick_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:bn73fk$1jfo$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > > > In article <bn6tgo$1b4d$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Matthew Wilson says...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >"Patrick Down" <Patrick_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message news:bn6skf$19si$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > > > >> In article <bn6sef$19kb$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Matthew Wilson
> says...
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >I've been thinking about this module naming stuff, and
considering
> > > C++'s
> > > > >> >approach.
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> >Clearly one of the reasons they chose std was because it was at
> > least
> > > a
> > > > >bit
> > > > >> >unambiguous (three letters!)
> > > > >>
> > > > >> HEY!   Why can't we use std?  standard-d?
> > > > >
> > > > >Well I guess no reason, other than Walter (and others, me included)
> > want
> > > D.
> > > > >The main contention is that it seems that Walter's the only one
> (who's
> > > > >publicly expressed, anyway) the preference for D over d, despite
the
> > > > >inconsistency. Do you have a preference in that regard?
> > > >
> > > > If you held my arm against my back and forced me to make a decision I would say d.   But I really dislike using a one letter name.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

> The publisher's breathing over my shoulder is misting up my monitor as it is.

Ahh finnaly found the title 'Imperfect C++' in this month's CUJ :)

> maybe we can plug some STLSoft stuff in there ;).

Defintly I keep meaning to but time is so scarce :/.  Ill try to post snippets as I go along

Thx,
C
  "Matthew Wilson" <matthew-hat@-stlsoft-dot.-org> wrote in message news:bn7893$1pid$1@digitaldaemon.com...
  Charles

  I'd be delighted to help, and maybe I will get time at some random point in the next week or so, but it's looking dodgy. I have 90,000 words to research and write, and 9 weeks to do it! The publisher's breathing over my shoulder is misting up my monitor as it is.

  Maybe if you can break down the problem and post bits here I (and others) may be able to shed some light, but I can't see me having time to download and mess around. I'm really sorry, as I'd very much like to support your effort - indeed, I was thinking of giving some help once the book's out of the way, maybe we can plug some STLSoft stuff in there ;).

  Matthew

    "Charles Sanders" <sanders-consulting@comcast.net> wrote in message news:bn77h5$1omu$1@digitaldaemon.com...
    Also could I get your help on something Matthew if you have time ?

    Im using the scintilla MFC wrappers found here : http://www.atari-soldiers.com/mfc_scintilla.zip , and Im having trouble getting the caret to show up ready for typing when I create new files, and also when DIDE loses focus, then regains it.  You have to click on the view to be able to edit.

    I have tried scintillas methods of :


    SetCurrentPos( )
    SetSelectionStart( )
    GrabFocus()

    And also MFC's

    SetActiveWindow()
    SetFocus()
    SetCaretPos()

    I have tried these in an overrided CView::OnActivateView( ... ) function , a DisplayErrorFunction, OnInitalUpdate(), OnUpdate() etc... without any luck.


    Here is a test program Im using http://www.atari-soldiers.com/ScintillaTest.zip so you can see it in action.

    Im stuck on this , dont know what else to try :/.  Thanks for any help!

    Charles


    "Matthew Wilson" <matthew-hat@-stlsoft-dot.-org> wrote in message news:bn75am$1lou$1@digitaldaemon.com...
    > Ok. Here's where I see the situation. We have several options
    >
    > 1. D
    > 2. d
    > 3. phobos
    > 4. std
    > 5. stdd
    > 6. lang
    > 7. some other multi-letter prefix
    >
    > The primary bifurcation on opinion is whether it is d/D or a multi-letter.
    > Personally I'm still in two minds about this, although I lean towards d/D
    >
    > Secondary to that, therefore, is whether on for former case we go for d or
    > for D. I lean towards d, and think that in either case it's not unreasonable
    > to reserve the name of the language (in both cases).
    >
    > For the case of multi-letter prefixes, phobos is ruled out because of its
    > (Digital) Mars specificity, but the other contenders seem reasonable, albeit
    > somewhat prosaic.
    >
    > It would be useful if everyone could express their opinions on the main
    > question of d/D vs multi-letter, *and* the secondary questions.
    >
    > Is there a possibility that one of you web-enabled kinda guys could organise
    > a vote? Helmut, what about a place on your wiki stuff?
    >
    > Anyway, it may well be that Walter's just decided, and that's it, but until
    > he says he is immovable I would like to explore. This is a very important
    > issue that, once fixed, cannot be changed, so it's worth a little of all our
    > consideration.
    >
    > Cheers
    >
    >
    > --
    > Matthew Wilson
    >
    > STLSoft moderator and C++ monomaniac       (http://www.stlsoft.org)
    > Contributing editor, C/C++ Users Journal
    > (www.synesis.com.au/articles.html#columns)
    >
    > "If i'm curt with you it's because time is a factor. I think fast, I talk
    > fast, and I need you guys to act fast" -- Mr Wolf
    >
    > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    > ---
    >
    >
    > "Patrick Down" <Patrick_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message
    > news:bn73fk$1jfo$1@digitaldaemon.com...
    > > In article <bn6tgo$1b4d$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Matthew Wilson says...
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >"Patrick Down" <Patrick_member@pathlink.com> wrote in message
    > > >news:bn6skf$19si$1@digitaldaemon.com...
    > > >> In article <bn6sef$19kb$1@digitaldaemon.com>, Matthew Wilson says...
    > > >> >
    > > >> >I've been thinking about this module naming stuff, and considering
    > C++'s
    > > >> >approach.
    > > >> >
    > > >> >Clearly one of the reasons they chose std was because it was at least
    > a
    > > >bit
    > > >> >unambiguous (three letters!)
    > > >>
    > > >> HEY!   Why can't we use std?  standard-d?
    > > >
    > > >Well I guess no reason, other than Walter (and others, me included) want
    > D.
    > > >The main contention is that it seems that Walter's the only one (who's
    > > >publicly expressed, anyway) the preference for D over d, despite the
    > > >inconsistency. Do you have a preference in that regard?
    > >
    > > If you held my arm against my back and forced me to make a decision
    > > I would say d.   But I really dislike using a one letter name.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    >
    >

Matthew Wilson wrote:
> Ok. Here's where I see the situation. We have several options
> 
> 1. D
> 2. d
> 3. phobos
> 4. std
> 5. stdd
> 6. lang

7. dee
8. drt (D RunTime)
9. dlib

> [10]. some other multi-letter prefix


D/d:
I don't think it's to anyone's benefit to turn all the individual letters into potential minefields (hey, we could also rename "if" to "i" and "for" to "f").  If we have to go this route, I prefer using "d" for the module prefix for the sake of having a consistent module naming convention.

> 
> The primary bifurcation on opinion is whether it is d/D or a multi-letter.
> Personally I'm still in two minds about this, although I lean towards d/D
> 
> Secondary to that, therefore, is whether on for former case we go for d or
> for D. I lean towards d, and think that in either case it's not unreasonable
> to reserve the name of the language (in both cases).
> 
> For the case of multi-letter prefixes, phobos is ruled out because of its
> (Digital) Mars specificity, but the other contenders seem reasonable, albeit
> somewhat prosaic.
> 

I think phobos is an interesting, distinctive name.  Don't we want it to be an interesting, distinctive library?

> It would be useful if everyone could express their opinions on the main
> question of d/D vs multi-letter, *and* the secondary questions.
> 
> Is there a possibility that one of you web-enabled kinda guys could organise
> a vote? Helmut, what about a place on your wiki stuff?
> 
> Anyway, it may well be that Walter's just decided, and that's it, but until
> he says he is immovable I would like to explore. This is a very important
> issue that, once fixed, cannot be changed, so it's worth a little of all our
> consideration.
> 
> Cheers

Justin

So we could do the same with recls?

:)

"Walter" <walter@digitalmars.com> wrote in message news:bn79f8$1r4i$1@digitaldaemon.com...
>
> "Matthew Wilson" <matthew-hat@-stlsoft-dot.-org> wrote in message news:bn6sef$19kb$1@digitaldaemon.com...
> > btw, can you explain what a C module is? Is this a c library with
function
> > declarations only in D?
>
> I see it as the thinnest veneer possible over standard C functions, such
as
> C.stdio, C.stdlib, etc. C modules would follow C conventions, would make
no
> attempt to convert errno to exceptions, would not attempt to 'clean it
up',
> etc.
>
> One example of this I ran into with zlib. Zlib has a lot of C style functionality and behavior. It's not really the D way. So I am putting together a C.zlib with all that, and then building a D.zlib with it redone with an easy to use D look and feel.
>
>