New Commands for Turing

[Token]

see the thing i just realized is that there is no question of legality with adding to the turing predefs, but once we start unpacking the main .EXE for the entire program... i'm no lawyer but that may be a little risky.

[MysticVegeta]

I think as long as we can unpack exe and keep it to ourself and not distribute then it may be legal but i think i will need more research on the laws of Holtsoft.

Ontopic: I was thinking maybe of making a command that factors a quadratic equation. Math.quadraticFactor(1, 2, 3)
that is - 1x^2 + 2x + 3
eh?

[Cervantes]

Frankly, I think a lot of these functions are quite useless, or very near to it. Really, look at that Ruby page and find something to code that is useful. No offense meant, Mystic.

[MysticVegeta]

oh lol i am really into it. lol.
I think the quadratic is useless but the logrithmic functions are quite usefull.

[[Gandalf]]

Yeah, once you think about it, when you make functions like CircleArea (as an example from me) you're not making anything easier. Your just taking away from the fact that the programmer actually had to think while programming. Still, I guess we'll keep it for now.

As for unpacking the .exe, well, you can look at it from a hex editor - that could allow you to change some basic stuff. You could also resource hack it, but again, that doesn't allow you to change the actual C++ code. What I looked at yesterday was a file called: Turing.pdb in the support/bin folder. I know that .pdb files are Microsoft C/C++ program database 2.00. What I found out you can do is extract this database. This is some of what I got:

Maybe someone with more knowledge on the matter can tell us more?

If there are any implications of this that I should be warned about, feel free to .

[wtd]

The only C++ aspect to this is that structs live in the main namespace. In other words, you can write:

code:

Foo* bar;

Rather than:

code:

struct Foo* bar;

The rest is pure C, taking no advantage of C++'s advantages. And with types like DWORD, it's no wonder Turing isn't portable.

[StarGateSG-1]

For the record, we don't have to stop at just adding new commands, we could come out with our version completely, we can use hex editor and reshacker to do work on it. This is becasue Holt won't include our idea's becasue they want to keep everything thmeselves, including credit!!! So now i

[[Gandalf]]

Have you contacted them or something? Or is this just what you think will happen? Besides, hex editing it won't really change anything, only some basic messages that it gives. Resource hacking it will allow us to change the icon and some of the menus and forms, maybe some messages too. Doing that could also cause legal problems which you would have to look into.

Also, why is your message cut off?

[StarGateSG-1]

I didn;t cut off my message, and there are some programs that can open up more than a basic hex editor, the reshacker well it can do what you said, and we can aviod legal issue's of we give them full credits for everything they did and keep it non porfit, and we can't distribed it unless they get something for i.e The 80 $ or so it costs, so you have to own turing to use nayhting we make that is all. I am going to double check that know, I am going to read the user agreements.
TO answer your first question, that is thier non-Offical answer, that doesn't mean it can;t happen that is there support answer, I am still waiting for a return from Tom West whoc an override. I am trying to keep the updates coming.

[[Gandalf]]

I see, well, at least wait for some official answer. If we start editing their client and everything then they might not want to support us anymore. Like I said before, we can try dumping all the contents of the .pdb file, edit it, and make a new one somehow. The only other thing I can think of is actually decompiling the .exe and then editing the assembly (I think it is, not sure though) or else converting it to something else, like C/C++.

The problem is though that even then we would need knowledge of C/C++ or Assembly. I think we should continue as we were and wait a bit. Start simple, then if it turns out good, improve the ideas and go more complex.

[wtd]

If you try to reverse engineer the existing interpreter, you'll likely get into legal trouble. If you were to create your own implementation from the ground up, with no knowledge of how exactly Holtsoft built the current Turing interpreter, you probably wouldn't have too much trouble.

Of course, the other option is to kick the habit and embrace something non-proprietary that doesn't require you to jump through so many hoops.

[Jorbalax]

I'm inclined to agree with wtd...so long Turing, hello C++!

Someone else can take up where I left off if they want.

[Bacchus]

Ok, I don't know about hacking Turing or making a new language or switching to C++, but before there was talk abot making an Ellipse. Here's my shot at it, kind of works kind of not, lol

code:

View.Set ("graphics:200;200,offscreenonly,position:center,middle,nobuttonbar") proc ellipse (x, y, xh, yh, angle, c : int)     for i : 1 .. 360         Draw.Dot (x + round ((cosd (i - angle) * xh)), y + round ((sind (i) * yh)), c)     end for end ellipse for i : 1 .. 360     cls     ellipse (100, 100, 70, 50, i, 2)     put "Angle:",i     View.Update     delay (10) end for

Have Fun

[Delos]

Just dropping by for a bit...

[Gandalf] wrote:

How about something like Pic.Fade or Pic.Opacity. Then you could have the syntax like this:

code:

Pic.Opacity(picID, opacity) %or maybe Pic.Opacity(picID,opacity,backgroundcolour)

3d box thing is really good.

Opacity can be achieved through my PicMerge[/shameless plug] programme. PM if you're interested in incorporating it into the existing Pic. module, I'll reconstruct the source (optimize etc) and release it.

MysticVegeta wrote:

on topic : hey, you know i think alikhan made a base converter, maybe we can make commands for logrithmic functions.

Base converter: quick method to switch between bases is to use intstr()! Check it out under F10.
Logs: well, we have ln() so we can always do something like 'ln(3)/ln(10)' to get to log.

[jamonathin]

I have an idea for a new Command. Some of you probabily already know this, but may have forgotten about it. Have you ever got the error mesage?:

Turing text at the Bottom XD wrote:

Complex multi-dimensioned flexible array reallocation not implemented yet - sorry.

I'm not entirely sure if we can even do this without making an entirely new variable, but, just an idea .

Turing:

var error : flexible array 1 .. 7, 1 .. 7 of int new error, 2, 1

It doesn't make sense to me why they would go about telling you how to change a multi-dimensioned flexible array, without the program being able to do it.