Talk:Comet32 - Revision history

SteveA at 15:14, 24 February 2011

2011-02-24T15:14:33Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:14, 24 February 2011
Line 49:		Line 49:
	<p>		<p>
	Barb:We decided to make the Comet32 str() functionality the same as the Comet16 functionality. Version .401 will be out soon and have this change.		Barb:We decided to make the Comet32 str() functionality the same as the Comet16 functionality. Version .401 will be out soon and have this change.
-		+	<p>
	bb		bb
-		+	<p>
-	Let's see four tildes identify the poster	+	Let's see: four tildes identify the poster
		+	<p>
	[[User:SteveA\|SteveA]] 07:13, 24 February 2011 (PST)		[[User:SteveA\|SteveA]] 07:13, 24 February 2011 (PST)

2011-02-24T15:13:16Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:13, 24 February 2011
Line 51:		Line 51:

	bb		bb
		+
		+	Let's see four tildes identify the poster
		+	[[User:SteveA\|SteveA]] 07:13, 24 February 2011 (PST)

2009-06-12T21:55:39Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:55, 12 June 2009
Line 47:		Line 47:
	<p>		<p>
	Still chasing an elusive excp=1. It appears to be when I read my date record.<p> Could an excp=46 be misconstrued as an excp=1 ? say there was the string 1234 where the numeric variable in Jim's example above was supposed to be. <p> Would that give a 46 or a 1 ??		Still chasing an elusive excp=1. It appears to be when I read my date record.<p> Could an excp=46 be misconstrued as an excp=1 ? say there was the string 1234 where the numeric variable in Jim's example above was supposed to be. <p> Would that give a 46 or a 1 ??
-		+	<p>
	Barb:We decided to make the Comet32 str() functionality the same as the Comet16 functionality. Version .401 will be out soon and have this change.		Barb:We decided to make the Comet32 str() functionality the same as the Comet16 functionality. Version .401 will be out soon and have this change.

	bb		bb

2009-06-12T21:54:45Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:54, 12 June 2009
Line 47:		Line 47:
	<p>		<p>
	Still chasing an elusive excp=1. It appears to be when I read my date record.<p> Could an excp=46 be misconstrued as an excp=1 ? say there was the string 1234 where the numeric variable in Jim's example above was supposed to be. <p> Would that give a 46 or a 1 ??		Still chasing an elusive excp=1. It appears to be when I read my date record.<p> Could an excp=46 be misconstrued as an excp=1 ? say there was the string 1234 where the numeric variable in Jim's example above was supposed to be. <p> Would that give a 46 or a 1 ??
		+
		+	Barb:We decided to make the Comet32 str() functionality the same as the Comet16 functionality. Version .401 will be out soon and have this change.
		+
		+	bb

2009-05-19T17:50:15Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:50, 19 May 2009
Line 45:		Line 45:
	<p>		<p>
	next i		next i
		+	<p>
		+	Still chasing an elusive excp=1. It appears to be when I read my date record.<p> Could an excp=46 be misconstrued as an excp=1 ? say there was the string 1234 where the numeric variable in Jim's example above was supposed to be. <p> Would that give a 46 or a 1 ??

2009-05-19T00:36:38Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:36, 19 May 2009
Line 34:		Line 34:
	<p>		<p>
	If my setglobal has been populated in C16 and then I read it in C32 and there is a case of this numeric overflow. Will I get an exception 1 on the getglobal ?		If my setglobal has been populated in C16 and then I read it in C32 and there is a case of this numeric overflow. Will I get an exception 1 on the getglobal ?
-	<p>	+	<p> That is just plain silly, obviously once it is set in C16 it is already truncated.- Scratching around for an unexpalined excp=1.
-	~~Similarly if~~ it ~~were~~ in ~~a file would you get the~~ excp=1 ~~on the read~~.	+
	<p>		<p>
	If it happens as a result of a mathematical calculation, where do you test for the excp=1 ?		If it happens as a result of a mathematical calculation, where do you test for the excp=1 ?

2009-05-17T23:08:18Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:08, 17 May 2009
Line 29:		Line 29:
	Badge		Badge
	<li> Fair enough, I can work around my problem fairly easily.		<li> Fair enough, I can work around my problem fairly easily.
-	<li> I agree that we should take this chance to get rid of old & irrelevant stuff.	+	<p> I agree that we should take this chance to get rid of old & irrelevant stuff.
-	~~<P>~~	+
-	~~This numeric overflow thing~~.	+
	<li>		<li>
		+	This numeric overflow thing.
		+	<p>
	If my setglobal has been populated in C16 and then I read it in C32 and there is a case of this numeric overflow. Will I get an exception 1 on the getglobal ?		If my setglobal has been populated in C16 and then I read it in C32 and there is a case of this numeric overflow. Will I get an exception 1 on the getglobal ?
	<p>		<p>

2009-05-17T23:07:25Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:07, 17 May 2009
Line 30:		Line 30:
	<li> Fair enough, I can work around my problem fairly easily.		<li> Fair enough, I can work around my problem fairly easily.
	<li> I agree that we should take this chance to get rid of old & irrelevant stuff.		<li> I agree that we should take this chance to get rid of old & irrelevant stuff.
		+	<P>
		+	This numeric overflow thing.
		+	<li>
		+	If my setglobal has been populated in C16 and then I read it in C32 and there is a case of this numeric overflow. Will I get an exception 1 on the getglobal ?
		+	<p>
		+	Similarly if it were in a file would you get the excp=1 on the read.
		+	<p>
		+	If it happens as a result of a mathematical calculation, where do you test for the excp=1 ?
		+	<p>
		+	length 1.0 & local I
		+	<p>
		+	for i=0 to 20
		+	<p>
		+	i=i+1 ? excp=test for overflow ?
		+	<p>
		+	next i

2009-05-17T10:55:06Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:55, 17 May 2009
Line 25:		Line 25:
	<p>		<p>
	will produce an excp=1.		will produce an excp=1.
		+
		+	----
		+	Badge
		+	<li> Fair enough, I can work around my problem fairly easily.
		+	<li> I agree that we should take this chance to get rid of old & irrelevant stuff.

2009-05-16T21:47:29Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:47, 16 May 2009
Line 15:		Line 15:
	We could also only strip the string if the argument were an expression. We could also, treat expressions as arguments to the str function as if the accumulator were 16.8.		We could also only strip the string if the argument were an expression. We could also, treat expressions as arguments to the str function as if the accumulator were 16.8.
	<p>		<p>
-		+	<hr>
	Changing from one version of a language to another requires a re-compile. It is really the only opportunity we have to change behavior. I think we should also look at the obsolete fields in fstat() for instance.		Changing from one version of a language to another requires a re-compile. It is really the only opportunity we have to change behavior. I think we should also look at the obsolete fields in fstat() for instance.
-	,p>	+	<p>
	The other big change is the unexpected error 1 if a numeric expression overflows the variable it is assigned to.		The other big change is the unexpected error 1 if a numeric expression overflows the variable it is assigned to.
	<p>		<p>