Hello Jürgen,
On 27/01/14 17:50, Jürgen Hestermann wrote:
[...]
>
> I recently had a similar problem and solved it this way:
> With
>
> ---
> type FlagType = (FlagA,
> FlagB,
> FlagC,
> FlagD,
>
Am 2014-01-27 17:41, schrieb waldo kitty:
> well, i can't set any option more than once, anyway... not unless i make a
code error and set or clear the wrong bit but that will be noticed very quickly
during testing ;) for readability, i find setting the bits and then running down
a simple CASE
On 1/27/2014 4:57 AM, Lukasz Sokol wrote:
On 24/01/14 16:20, waldo kitty wrote:
with the above epiphany and some other information i have acquired,
i'm now in the process of rewriting the app... i suspect it will take
me a day or two to get to the point i was at previously with the
operational a
On 24/01/14 16:20, waldo kitty wrote:
> On 1/23/2014 5:01 AM, Lukasz Sokol wrote:
>
>> Maybe Something like: (but this is with type TOptionMinMax =
>> [mmNone, mmMin,mmMinMax, mmMax])
>
> i wanted to thank you, lukasz, for your input... it has made me take
> another look while rewriting to implem
On 1/23/2014 5:01 AM, Lukasz Sokol wrote:
Maybe Something like: (but this is with type TOptionMinMax = [mmNone,
mmMin,mmMinMax, mmMax])
i wanted to thank you, lukasz, for your input... it has made me take another
look while rewriting to implement your ideas...
during this process i had an
On 22/01/14 21:23, waldo kitty wrote:
[...]
>> - associate the procedures (their pointers) to jump to with the
>> valid bit masks in a new data type (- do you REALLY have that many
>> procedures ? Or are they somewhat repeating themselves ?)
>
> it will be only two procedures IF i can do it like
On 1/22/2014 12:12 PM, Lukasz Sokol wrote:
[...]
If you insist on using bits define them:
it isn't that i'm insisting on using them... more the way that my linear mind
sees them... i'm trying to change this if it affords me better code that is
easier to read, understand and modify...
c
On 22/01/14 15:51, waldo kitty wrote:
> On 1/22/2014 3:52 AM, Lukasz Sokol wrote:
> [...]
>> ^and this...
>> looks like a (good?) use for a dynamic array of TMinMaxState = [mmNone,
>> mmMin, mmMinMax, mmMax];
>> (then var Options = array[static or dynamic] of TMinMaxState;)
>>
>> This assumes opti
On 1/22/2014 3:52 AM, Lukasz Sokol wrote:
[...]
^and this...
looks like a (good?) use for a dynamic array of TMinMaxState = [mmNone, mmMin,
mmMinMax, mmMax];
(then var Options = array[static or dynamic] of TMinMaxState;)
This assumes options have a fixed position in the array however... but the
On 21/01/14 18:42, waldo kitty wrote:
> On 1/21/2014 10:21 AM, Mattias Gaertner wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 09:51:38 -0500
>> waldo kitty wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/18/2014 7:40 PM, waldo kitty wrote:
what is the best method of coding a decision tree with options that have
three
sta
On 1/21/2014 10:21 AM, Mattias Gaertner wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 09:51:38 -0500
waldo kitty wrote:
On 1/18/2014 7:40 PM, waldo kitty wrote:
what is the best method of coding a decision tree with options that have three
states and all options are additive?
clarification: i have a situation
On Tue, 21 Jan 2014 09:51:38 -0500
waldo kitty wrote:
> On 1/18/2014 7:40 PM, waldo kitty wrote:
> >
> > what is the best method of coding a decision tree with options that have
> > three
> > states and all options are additive?
> >
> > clarification: i have a situation with 5 (at this time) opt
On 1/18/2014 7:40 PM, waldo kitty wrote:
what is the best method of coding a decision tree with options that have three
states and all options are additive?
clarification: i have a situation with 5 (at this time) options and all 5 are
three state... each option can be paired with all other opti
what is the best method of coding a decision tree with options that have three
states and all options are additive?
clarification: i have a situation with 5 (at this time) options and all 5 are
three state... each option can be paired with all other options' states but may
NOT be paired with
14 matches
Mail list logo
