dunno if this was already mentioned..but why the hell is the text you can type in for a static box caption limited in length?????

i would be very glad if you could remove the limit.. please
thanks in advance,

Posted on 2002-06-15 15:05:37 by NOP-erator
Hi NOP-erator

In My next release the limit will be 191 chars.

Posted on 2002-06-15 16:52:45 by KetilO

you need to show some respect. this is a free IDE supplied by Ketil0. you need to think for a second before blab your mouth off. dont insult Ketil0 with your subtle demand.
Posted on 2002-06-15 22:19:49 by smurf
sorry KetilO for that "why the hell"... you know, i was just coding something and needed a static box with some more text, and it has been really important that this program was finished yesterday evening. so i was in hurry and a little bit angry that something like this happened. .. sorry again...

btw: why do you plan to make 191 char limit? isn't it possible to set the border higher, or even no limit?

Posted on 2002-06-16 03:34:06 by NOP-erator
Hi NOP-erator

The way the dialog editor stores strings makes it difficult to implement unlimitted string lenghts. The 191 char limit is just to be safe as most string buffers in RadASM are 256 bytes. Besides, strings in resources are unicode and takes twice as much space in your exe. :(
Long strings should be put in .data segment and use WM_SETTEXT to set the text to the control.

Posted on 2002-06-16 05:48:42 by KetilO
ok KetilO, thank you..

Posted on 2002-06-16 05:53:11 by NOP-erator
I already mentioned it, the limit is very tight right now... I had to edit strings from the generated RC file directly...

Btw, why Radasm can't save file to .rc standard files ? Wouldn't it be much simpler and compatible?
You would even be able to create a seperate dialog editor program if it used RC files.

Long strings should be put in .data segment and use WM_SETTEXT to set the text to the control.

With all due respect, altough, the editor in itself is very good, that is what I'm starting to dislike with Radasm... it is becoming more Rad than Asm. Imho, programmers should have the choice of what they do... after all, it is why most of us write in assembly, to do exactly what we want, and have full control of our code, and not be bound by third party tools limitations...
Posted on 2002-06-18 07:51:22 by JCP
Hi Readiosys

The dlg format I am using has many adventages over rc format as I can store information the rc format cannot. A rc to dlg converter will be my next big project. Main reason for not releasing my next version of radasm with longer captions, is that dialogs created with this new version will not be backwards compatible.

Posted on 2002-06-18 09:00:59 by KetilO