Skeleton Subs are Useless?by OLPC (no login)
One thing I see in the QB code here is Spaghetti code.
If the programs get larger than about 300 - 500 lines, this will make them hard to follow, so for this, skeleton Subs are very useful.
But I do not understand; if you are just porting QB code to C*, why do you need to manually handle memory allocation for Subs?
|Response Title||Author and Date|
|RE: Skeleton Subs are Useless?||on Feb 5|
|* Shouldn't you pass the arrays Byref with pointers instead of duplicating them? ;-)||OLPC on Feb 5|
|*I should, and I do.||on Feb 6|
|Re: *I should, and I do.||LaananFisher on Feb 6|
|QB 7.1 has a BYVAL statement, maybe QB64 could use that||qbguy on Feb 6|
|RE: Actually a feature that I've always wanted is to be able to pass arrays byref or byval||on Feb 6|
|Re: RE: Actually a feature that I've always wanted is to be able to pass arrays byref or byval||LaananFisher on Feb 7|
|Since it is being programmed in C/C++, =>||rpgfan3233 on Feb 7|