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
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:
> 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 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
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
