Possible metacommand for QBASIC users

by (no login)

I've been considering adding a new metacommand to QB64 which would allow a line of code to be treated as a line of code in QB64 but ignored in QBASIC/QB4.5/etc

Consider the following program. In QBASIC it would simply print hello, but in QB64 it would say hello too.

'qb64:_sndplayfile "hello.mp3"
print "hello"

Now consider a drawing program (such as TheBoB's Animax). It might be able to load .BMP files in QBASIC, but with a few 'qb64' metacommands if it was run in QB64 it'd load jpg, png, gif, etc as well.

Your thoughts on this are most welcome,
Galleon

Posted on Aug 15, 2009, 4:26 AM

Respond to this message   

Return to Index


Response TitleAuthor and Date
It sure would make adding QB64 code easier in the QB IDE on Aug 15
Personally, I don't think it'd be worth it. on Aug 15
 WHAT? It sounds like a switch to use the NEW QB64 functions to me! on Aug 15
  *The differences are the same as the differences between FB and QB. on Aug 15
   * It is not the same as FB! You NEED a switch to even USE QB code in FB! on Aug 16
 The metacommand would allow hybrid programming... on Aug 16
  * Why not set the environmental variable QB64_VERSIONAnon on Aug 16
   * Because that would only be skipped at runtime, not at compile timeymous on Aug 16
   * The main point is that the QB IDE will ignore the 'QB64 code as a comment! on Aug 17
Genius...Captain Picard on Aug 23
 Applying that patch now Captain... on Aug 24
  *I understand it, I just don't like the idea of comment coding. on Aug 26
   * Then don't use INCLUDE or DYNAMIC either! on Aug 27
    There's a big difference on Aug 28
     It's only a way to use one program file instead of 2 really on Aug 28
      * Then use an existing macro system such as m4Anon on Aug 28
     Re: There's a big differenceCyperium on Oct 4
Good idea to say the least.RpgFan on Aug 24
 You could exclude QB code with another QB64 command on Aug 27
But it would break QB compatibility! on Nov 11
 * That $ could be a plus too!Clippy on Nov 11
 The underscore is under appreciated in the QB IDE...Pete on Nov 11
  It becomes this......Clippy on Nov 11