Mc128k

There are multiple reasons for that. You don't need a font, this simplifies the deployment It works on iOS It works on FMS and WebDirect I don't know exactly, but I believe that the font is unable to calculate the checksum It works on containers, so it's more flexible and it can be scaled easily It works on all layouts, it doesn't need a specific layout object, like a custom text field, just a container It's cooler this way

Hey all, this time I created two functions that generate a BMP file with a code-128 barcode. It's more complicated, despite being shorter than the previous (EAN13), and it also has to generate a variable-length BMP file. There are some hacks, like the generation of a little-endian number for the BMP header, but overall it seems stable. I tried uploading it to Brian Dunning's website but it didn't give me the link. I'll post it here, and if there are problems, please PM me. /** * ===================================== * BarcodeCode128B_BMP_380px ( string ) * * PURPOSE: * Ge

As Lee asked, I'm posting here the functions. Also I updated the docs. /** * ===================================== * BarcodeEAN13_BMP_380px ( number ) * * PURPOSE: * Generate a binary BMP file containing an EAN-13 barcode * * NOTE: * Embed the contents in a container to see it * * RETURNS: * Binary BMP. * * PARAMETERS: * number: The number to encode in EAN-13 * * DEPENDENCIES: * BarcodeEAN13_Raw * * RELEASE: * 2017-06-11 * * VERSION: 1.0 * * AUTHOR: © 2017 Mc128k * ===================================== */ Let ( [ ~pad="000000000000"; ~toEncode=SerialI

That confirms my hypothesis.. Thanks

Just what are they for exactly, the docs don't say how they work and if they are exploitable in some way by custom functions.

Kinda figured it out that already, custom functions do not fully exploit the language. What about the square brackets?

I often see that FileMaker native functions use square brackets to define lists, like let ( [ ~var1 = 1 ; ~var2 = 2 ] ~var1 + ~var2 ) Or JSON functions, that actually seem to be "variadic" in the sense that they take a variable number of arguments: JSONSetElement ( "{}" ; [ "id" ; "FB4" ; JSONString ] ; [ "name" ; "Vanilla Cake" ; JSONString ] ; [ "price" ; 17.5 ; JSONNumber ] ; [ "stock" ; 12 ; JSONNumber ] ; [ "category" ; "Cakes" ; JSONString ] ; [ "special" ; true ; JSONBoolean ] ) ] Now, I've been searching for a way to do custom variadic functions,

If you are too much generic, yeah, it's meaningless. Still there is a distinction. Otherwise all languages would be exactly the same. Would you like to program in Assembly or brainf*ck? Perl? Ruby? C? They are all turing-complete, so they are all the same. That sounds wrong to me. Working with filemaker scripts is like being able to only speak using concrete words. You cannot make abstractions or generalise concepts. The dictionary is poor. Macros are like the mouse/keyboard recording programs, they tell what to do with the UI, and if you see the command palette, that's exactly it. "

Except that this isn't actually a "programming language", it's more a scripting system, or like I said a "macro" system. But there's no problem after all, as long as it's possible to build everything with it. Still, it's hard to create maintainable and reusable code. You're right of course, I'm not expecting execution speed for JS either (even if it's way faster in theory compared to other high-level languages), but at least that scripting steps do not take forever to execute. It's like an automation system, where every step uses an incredibly high processing power to be parsed, checke

One last thing. If we call them "Macros" instead of "Scripts" it makes more sense. They are a bunch of macros for writing UI operations.

Sorry about the upcoming rant, you are free to ignore it. I've been working for years with filemaker and other languages, despite its easy-to-use interface I think scripts are one of the worst thing of this platform. Correct me if I'm wrong on any of this. For starters, I need a text editor. Or source files I can version with git and edit with sublime. Not a fancy drag-and-drop (now it's better) script editor. This really looks like a toy, and scripts are slow too (execution). Can't I just write functions and parameters with code completion? Nope, I have to mix writing and clicking w

Thanks for the insight! Actually I'm looking to use the web viewer just to "execute decent code" and then get data from it, maybe a base64 encoded image. I read somewhere that it's possible to communicate bidirectionally. Too bad you say that js code for qr is bad. And no server support. I'll try researching... ******* filemaker scripts. They are close to true code, but not enough. [Edit] Wow, I didn't know da-mn was a censored word.

Such a shame this isn't included in FM itself, reminds me how unprofessional this solution is. Anyway I plan to support QR too in the future, and probably I'll post it here when it's done. A good hack I think would be to use a "complex" javascript inside a web viewer to generate the binary, anybody had some experiences with it?

Use this, I created it myself. It's available for free. http://www.mc128k.info/2015/12/codici-a-barre-su-filemaker-con-una-funzione/ It generates a BMP for a container field, I believe paid solutions use the same technique.

Well, excellent work with Barcode creator, I see that Code 128 looks pretty much a hassle to implement. My solution doesn't have specific needs, so I chose the most common just to be compatible with all readers. And just to inform everybody, I am going to post online the functions, when the appropriate website will work, now it looks offline.