* Andy Ross -- Monday 25 April 2005 16:01:
> setprop(name, setbit(getprop(name), 2));
>
> Look more elegant than bit twiddling to my eyes...
I found a better solution already. Thanks.
> > The problem is that in joystick files I don't have the
> > possibility to initialize bit fields or defin
I wrote:
> Write a function to [...]. Compose them appropriately to set bits
> in numbers. Probably four lines of code,
Turns out it's three lines of code:
n2s = func(n) { var s = buf(6); setfld(s, 0, 48, n); return s; }
getbit = func(n, b) { getfld(var s = n2s(n), b, 1) }
setbit = func(n
Melchior FRANZ wrote:
> Wouldn't work in my case. Would only make it even less
> elegant. Then I better stick with this:
Only if you don't want to write your own functions (in which case
every feature I don't want to support is going to be inelegant
and you'll never win until I turn Nasal into ano
* Melchior FRANZ -- Monday 25 April 2005 08:47:
> The problem is that in joystick files I don't have the possibility to
> initialize bit fields or define bit operations. Bindings in joystick
> files are executed in "random" order. None is guaranteed to be triggered
> at the very beginning. (Althou
* Andy Ross -- Monday 25 April 2005 04:20:
> Melchior FRANZ wrote:
> > I'm still hoping for binary ops [...]
> What I'm thinking about instead is a "bits" package with functions
> like:
>
>bits.fld(string, startbit, len)
[...]
>bits.buf(len)
>Creates a new, mutable string filled
Melchior FRANZ wrote:
> I was thinking |A| (value of A), but I'm still hoping for binary
> ops, so this isn't a good idea. Function sounds good.
Bit operations as syntax aren't coming. All numbers in Nasal are
floating point, and don't mix nicely with bit twiddling. What
I'm thinking about inste
Melchior FRANZ
> * Vivian Meazza -- Sunday 24 April 2005 20:41:
> > Andy Ross wrote
> > >`A` @A $A %A &A @"A" $"A" %"A" &"A" c"A"
> >
> > Anything but `A` - I'm bound to misread that in the future sometime. I
> > favour a function.
>
> Hmm ... and I changed my mind and wou
Melchior FRANZ wrote:
Alternatively, take TeX's syntax: `\A ... for extra geek points. ;-)
If you are really seeking for ggek points:
$eq1 = "2 * $val";
$eq2 = "-7 + $val";
test_val = (1 < (3 + #"-3 * ${want_eq1 ? $eq1 : $eq2}");
:-)
Erik
___
Flightgea
* Vivian Meazza -- Sunday 24 April 2005 20:41:
> Andy Ross wrote
> >`A` @A $A %A &A @"A" $"A" %"A" &"A" c"A"
>
> Anything but `A` - I'm bound to misread that in the future sometime. I
> favour a function.
Hmm ... and I changed my mind and would now find `A` a reasonable choi
* Erik Hofman -- Sunday 24 April 2005 19:53:
> At first I was thinking using #'A' since # represents a number already
> in most cases, but then again; how about just using a new function?
I was thinking |A| (value of A), but I'm still hoping for binary ops, so
this isn't a good idea. Function sou
10 matches
Mail list logo
