slebetman says:
But Tk is only really ugly on Unixen because it defaults to a Motif theme (modern Tk is/should be replaced by TTk which is themeable).
Given two Tk apps which I still use occasionally, namely Gitk and ptkdb, how do I change their look and feel so that it matches the rest of the desktop environment (KDE 4)?
See: http://wiki.tcl.tk/gtklook.tcl for a quick way to make default Tk look less painfully ugly. I often use it in my own programs to hide the fact that it's actually written in tcl/tk.
The code given is tcl but you can easily use the options in an Xresources or Xdefaults file which I think should work in other languages as well. Or, it that doesn't work I believe there is an equivalent option method in Perl/Tk*.
Yes, the changes are not much. Basically just reducing pixel widths of things like borders and scrollbars. But it does look much nicer.
*note: I only mention Perl/Tk because you mentioned it in another post. As for modifying gitk, it is written in tcl so you can easily copy-paste the code somewhere.
Check out the TkDocs website, everything I know about modern Tk I learnt from there! Well and experience too of course ;-)
It will not be simple to retrofit it onto a substantial legacy application, but you could probably get surprisingly far by just prefixing the widgets with ttk::.
Related
First off I've searched my hind end off for hours now trying to find an answer, but I can't seem to find anything remotely useful. What I am trying to do is to find a way to add in code-folding to the built in batch language. Basically I love using batch, but when I have tons of code, I want to be able to hide the code I do not need to edit which will make it easier to find the code I DO need to edit. What I want is to be able to make it so if I typed "::{" (without quotes) and have finished code in the middle and end with "::}" (also without quotes).
First question, is it possible? Can I add something like this (that one could normally add in the "user defined language") to the built-in batch language?
Next question, if not, where could I figure out how to basically re-create the batch language (and add my own twists) into a new "user defined language"?
Last question, if neither of those are possible, what are my other options?
Like I said, I've researched for hours. I'm not one to ask for help on forums, but I'm desperate at this point. All I want is to use the batch language and have code folding. Doesn't seem like too much to ask, but it might be!
Thanks!
In Notepad++ you can define a language by going to the Language menu --> Define your language (at least in version 6.6.9 anyway). On the Folder & Default tab, under Folding in code 1 style, input a ( into the "Open" box. Input a ) into the "Close" box. Save this as "Windows Batch" (or at least something that doesn't conflict with the in-built language named "batch".
Until you define styles, it'll be ugly and unusable, but it should allow you to collapse / expand parenthetical code blocks as a proof of concept and see whether this project is worthy of further effort. Your next steps will be to copypaste batch keywords from %PROGRAMFILES(x86)%\Notepad++\langs.model.xml, and use the "batch" language styles from your favorite theme in Notepad++\themes\. If I were doing it, I'd input a few basic things using the GUI (like keywords, folding characters, etc.), then export to an XML file on the Desktop and copypaste the rest from a theme, search-&-replacing stuff as needed to massage the theme into your user-defined language. At the end, import your massaged XML into the Define your language dialog. It was going to be more effort than I felt like exerting, but your mileage may vary. If you decide to undertake this journey and you complete it, I hope you'll consider sharing your efforts.
This similar question has a few answers that suggest some workarounds you might find worthwhile -- in particular, hiding, rather than collapsing.
I'm currently creating a code named "SET". The code's name is an acronym, which has been defined for many (non programming) reasons, and therefore cannot be changed.
Problem: The easiest, and I believe the less painful way for the end-user to use my code would be naming the package "set".
But of course this is a problem since this conflicts with the built-in set function.
Question: What are the possible solutions? Some may be (there is probably more):
change the package name (eg. setb).
import setb
I would really really prefer not to, because then it will be different from the real name
make the package's name upper-case (SET)
import SET
It would be a straight forward solution, but I'm wondering: is this a pythonic proper naming for a package? Also, I find this a bit painful since all modules defined in the code will have something like "import SET.x.y..." (ie. upper-case, written a lot of times). But this is not a really big deal if this is a pythonic way.
keep the name "set"
import set
Well this is obviously not fine. But it would be a problem only if the user is using "import set", would not it be? This should not happen in "normal usage conditions", since the code will provides some scripts to use it, rather use it as a standard python module. But we never know, and it could be imported as it, and there may be even some problems I'm not seeing (with the built-in set).
I'm considering the solution 2., but I'm really not sure. Maybe this is not proper, or maybe you guys have a better solution.
PS: I've found some similar topics on the web and on stackoverflow, but it usually deals with names inside a script or module inside a package. The problem here is really related to the code's name (which is meaningful only written this way), and therefore related to the proper naming of the package's name.
EDIT
Selected solution: I've choosen to use "SET" as the package name. Although many good suggestions have been proposed here: pyset, semt, setool... or the more explicit "starexoplanettool" (expliciting the acronym). Thanks to you all.
EDIT #2
I like the "funny" solution of having a package named S, and a subpackage, E... to get finally:
import S.E.T
Thanks Don Question.
Why not spell out the meaning behind the acronym, and if the user is desperate for a shorter name, they can do import someetymologyterm as SET or whatever they prefer. Python gives them the choice, so it's not the end of the world either way.
Is this a pythonic proper naming for a package?
Under the circumstances, it doesn't matter.
Leading upper case is rare (ConfigParser, HTMLParser). Camel-case is rare (cStringIO).
But that doesn't make all upper-case wrong.
It just means you should pick a better acronym next time.
"set" is the English word with the largest number of definitions. It is the single poorest choice of acronym possible.
The point is not to conform to a community "standard" of more-or-less acceptable behavior.
The point is to write something that works.
(ie. upper-case, written a lot of times).
Hardly a concern. People actually run software more often than they write it.
People read and tweak more often than writing, also.
If you're worried about misspelling, there's copy and paste.
Also, even a cheap IDE like Komodo Edit can figure out how to code-complete an installed module with a long name.
If you have to choose such a misfortunate name, you could make the pain in the ass an ironic anathema! Just create a main-package "S" with a subpackage "E" and therein a subpackage "T".
Then you could do an:
import S.E.T
or
from s.e.t import xyz
or
import s.e.t as set_
you could even do some vodoo in the __init__.py file of the main-pacakge ;-)
Just my 2 cents!
Maybe I'm not getting it but this looks simply like a namespace problem.
Here is one way out. Prepend the path to the set.py onto the sys.path Before the import takes place. You can wrap this in a function which backs out the change after the import.
I'm in train so can't test this but that is what I would try.
I'd like to write an application, which would imitate a player in an online game.
About the game: it is a strategy, where you can:
train your army (you have to have enough resources, then click on a unit, click train)
build buildings (mines, armories, houses,...)
attack enemies (select a unit, select an enemy, click attack)
transport resources between buildings
make researches (economics, military, technologic,...)
This is a simplified list and is just an example. Main thing is, that you have to do a lot of clicking, if you want to advance...
I allready have the 'navigational' part of the application (I used Watin library - http://watin.sourceforge.net/). That means, that I can use high level objects and manipulate them, for example:
Soldiers soldiers = Navigator.GetAllSoldiers();
soldiers.Move(someLocation);
Now I'd like to take the next step - write a kind of AI, which would simulate my gaming style. For this I have two ideas (and I don't like either of them):
login to the game and then follow a bunch of if statements in a loop (check if someone is attacking me, check if I can build something, check if I can attack somebody, loop)
design a kind of scripting language and write a compiler for it. This way I could write simple scripts and run them (Login(); CheckForAnAttack(); BuildSomething(); ...)
Any other ideas?
PS: some might take this as cheating and it probably is, but I look on this as a learning project and it will never be published or reselled.
A bunch of if statements is the best option if the strategy is not too complicated. However, this solution does not scale very well.
Making a scripting language (or, domain specific language as one would call that nowadays) does not buy you much. You are not going to have other people create AI agents are you? You can better use your programming language for that.
If the strategy gets more involved, you may want to look at Bayesian Belief Networks or Decision Graphs. These are good at looking for the best action in an uncertain environment in a structured and explicit way. If you google on these terms you'll find plenty of information and libraries to use.
Sounds like you want a finite state machine. I've used them to various degrees of success in coding bots. Depending on the game you're botting you could be better off coding an AI that learns, but it sounds like yours is simple enough not to need that complexity.
Don't make a new language, just make a library of functions you can call from your state machine.
Most strategy game AIs use a "hierarchical" approach, much in the same way you've already described: define relatively separate domains of action (i.e. deciding what to research is mostly independent from pathfinding), and then create an AI layer to handle just that domain. Then have a "top-level" AI layer that directs the intermediate layers to perform tasks.
How each of those intermediate layers work (and how your "general" layer works) can each determined separately. You might come up with something rather rigid and straightforward for the "What To Research" layer (based on your preferences), but you may need a more complicated approach for the "General" layer (which is likely directing and responding to inputs of the other layers).
Do you have the sourcecode behind the game? If not, it's going to be kind of hard tracing the positions of each CPU you're (your computer in your case) is battling against. You'll have to develop some sort of plugin that can do it because from the sound of it, you're dealing with some sort of RTS of some sort; That requires the evaluation of a lot of different position scenarios between a lot of different CPUs.
If you want to simulate your movements, you could trace your mouse using some WinAPI quite easily. You can also record your screen as you play (which probably won't help much, but might be of assistance if you're determined enough.).
To be brutally honest, what you're trying to do is damn near impossible for the type of game you're playing with. You didn't seem to think this through yet. Programming is a useful skill, but it's not magic.
Check out some stuff (if you can find any) on MIT Battlecode. It might be up your alley in terms of programming for this sort of thing.
First of all I must point out that this project(which only serves educational purposes), is too large for a single person to complete within a reasonable amount of time. But if you want the AI to imitate your personal playing style, another alternative that comes to mind are neural networks: You play the game a lot(really a lot) and record all moves you make and feed that data to such a network, and if all goes well, the AI should play roughly the same as you do. But I'm afraid this is just a third idea you won't like, because it would take a tremendeous amount of time to get it perfect.
Say I come up with some super-duper way of representing some data that I think would be useful for other people to know about and use. Assume I have a 'spec' in some form, even if it might not be a completely formal one: ie, I know how this file format will work already.
How would I then go about releasing this spec to get comments and feedback based on it? How would I get it 'standardised' in some form?
Specifying file formats is difficult. If the data you want to store is trivial, it tends to be trivial. In general however, this is hardly the case. You can use the RFC structure and keywords, but I always found specifying a fileformat in prose a slow, difficult and boring task, also because reading it is likewise difficult.
My suggestion, if you want to follow this way, is to focus on blocks of information. Most of the difficuly is for entities that are optional, and present only if another condition happens, so try to exploit this when partitioning your data.
The best spec, IMHO, is real code with an uberperfect testsuite.
As for standardization, if enough people use it, it becomes a de-facto standard. you don't need an official stamp for it, although when the format is used enough, you could benefit from an official mime type.
To talk about it, well, it depends. I found useful to talk in terms of "object oriented" entities, and also in terms of relationships. Database-like diagrams are very useful on this respect.
Finally, try to find a decent already standard alternative first, or at least try not to deal with the raw bits. There are a lot of perfect container formats out there that free you of many annoying tasks. The choice of the container depends on the actual type of file format (e.g. if you need encryption, interleaving, transactions, etc).
There are a couple of ways I'd go about it, I think.
First, determine if there's a standards body (like W3C, or IEEE) that might be related to your file format. If there is, pitch it to them. I have no idea how receptive they'd be though.
Second, a standard is useless if nobody is using it. Get some momentum behind it. Write a blog post, twitter and make a website about it. Link on programming.reddit.com, and slashdot. Describe it to your friends and colleagues. Post it here on SO, and ask for feedback.
HTH.
I would like to know if there are any tools that can help me model C applications i.e. Functional programming.
E.g. I'm currently building a shared library.
But to communicate my design visually, I need something like UML. I would like to do this so that the person reviewing my design need not read through 100s of pages of functions, variables and so on.
I have read about UML for C, which I'm considering.
If there is anything better out there, please let me know.
The bottom line is to visualize the design of C applications and modules without reading through 100s of pages of text, because it takes time and is difficult for the reviewers.
Any help in this area from the experts here would be much appreciated.
Thanks.
A well written text documentation brings you a far. Much further than any UML diagram could ever achieve.
You should split this in two parts:
What do you want to say?
What's the best way to saying it?
Whatever formalism you use to answer the second part, you should be sure it's not ambigous.
The good of UML is that a lot of semantic is already defined by the language so you don't have to include a definition of what those boxes, lines and arrows mean in a collaboration diagram.
But most importantly, documenting something means create a path for others to understand the subject you are documenting. A very precise description that offers no clue on how to read it is as good as none. So, use UML, Finite state machines, ER diagrams, plain English, whatever you want but be sure to include a logical path that your "readers" can follow to understand what's going on.
I had a friend that was a fan of "preciseness at all cost" and it would ask us to go through all the details before some sort of meaning would emerge.
I once ask him to do this experiment: on his next trip to an unknown city, he would have to carry the most precise map he could get. Much better, he would have to carry a 1:1 map of the city with every single detail exactly reported in scale. That way he couldn't get lost!
He declined but I would love to see him trying to use that map. Just even folding it! :)
Whatever you like. It's not a standard but many devs use it and understand it. If it does help you to communicate with other people and document your work -> its for you. If it just takes too much time and you think it's not effective, drop it. Also, don't bother with all details, as long as it resembles UML and your team can work with it, it's fine.
It's meant to help you, not waste you time.