IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New I'll bet debugging your code is a real joy...
;-)
jb4
shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT

New Nope
The joy comes when you read your standard, forget your common sence and assume that same things work the same way everywhere.
--

"...was poorly, lugubrious and intoxicated."

-- Patrick O'Brian, "Master and Commander"
New And so tell me, O Oracle of Common Sence [sic]
What exactly is it that is so nonsensical about defining a hex value and assuming it is treated as a signed value? We supplicate ourselves breathlessly at your feet awaiting such pearls (or is that perls) of wisdom as you may deign to proffer.
jb4
shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT

New offensive foul, ball to Ark
You violated the "be kind to non-native English speakers" (who do extremely well in a totally different language and make us look stupid by comparison) rule.

Just point out that it's "sense".

BTW Ark - "licence" and "license" are both right. One is British. Likewise "offence" and "offense", "defence" and "defense". But "electric fense" is always wrong.
-drl
New Rest assured,
I'd be making the same mistakes in Russian as well.

Por syntax checus in Cium - Deo Gratie.
--

"...was poorly, lugubrious and intoxicated."

-- Patrick O'Brian, "Master and Commander"
New :) ok
-drl
New OK, OK...
I'll take my yellow card and give up an indirect free kick....




;-)
jb4
shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT

Expand Edited by jb4 Aug. 31, 2004, 11:26:59 AM EDT
New Well, while the tone is disagreable, the question is
(almost) legit

\n#include <stdio.h>\n\n\nint main(int argc, char**argv) {\n    int c = -0xFF;\n    printf("signed: %d, hex: %X\\n", c, c);\n    return 0;\n}\n


\n$ gcc -o test test.c; ./test\nsigned: -255, hex: FFFFFF01\n


And the answer is <drrrrum rrrroll>: The hex constants are treated as positive because they lack the "minus" in front. Tada!



--

"...was poorly, lugubrious and intoxicated."

-- Patrick O'Brian, "Master and Commander"
New Point missed.
The point is not that I can generate a negative number using hex values, its that I can generate a specific bit pattern directly that is interpreted correctly using two's compliment arithmetic. In my example, I want the bit pattern 0x80000000. Interpreted as an int. Which is what I should expect, given that incomplete pile of verbage that passes as the C(99) standard in section 6.4.4.1, paragraph 5. Your example doesn't match, as you explicitly change the value of your bit pattern by applying an operator to it (the unary minus).
jb4
shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT

New If C were sane, TRUE = -1 and problem vanishes
-drl
New Ermm...say What?
You got me on that one, Ross. How does the value of a boolean have anything to do with how a constant token is interpreted?
jb4
shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT

New Re: Ermm...say What?
It forces strict attention to signed vs. unsigned, because TRUE is signed.

IOW we don't need no steenkin Booleans.
-drl
New Much like Jewish law
Forces strict attention to matters divine because it's so easy to transgress. Any takers?

You recommend a practice because it's easy to violate? Ouch.
--

"...was poorly, lugubrious and intoxicated."

-- Patrick O'Brian, "Master and Commander"
New So you prefer how VB does it??
To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act
- [link|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20|Nebraska Supreme Court]
New Point: Ben...
jb4
shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT

New How it used to do it.
VB.Net had to play a little nicer with the other languages, so they switched to the way it's represented in C#.
New Hehee!
VB was "embraced and extended" by C! Oh, the irony!
jb4
shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT

New Why do you expect hex to be treated differently from decimal
?

When you see a decimal constant 4294967294, do you expect it to mean -2?
--

"...was poorly, lugubrious and intoxicated."

-- Patrick O'Brian, "Master and Commander"
Expand Edited by Arkadiy Aug. 31, 2004, 11:32:44 AM EDT
New Re: Why do you expect hex to be treated differently
In FORTH this issue never arises. An integer is what it is in relation to base 2 and the number of available bits in it. Signed vs. unsigned is a stupid, needless complication.

So: TRUE is 111111...1 and FALSE is 000000...0. There is only one TRUE and one FALSE and NOT TRUE is FALSE. Something like 1101001..1 has no logical value.

The programmatic representation is immaterial.
-drl
New Man, that's a good question!
I suppose because I can specify a bit pattern directly, and I expected that bit pattern to be interpreted by the underlying hardware directly. But I must say, I now see your point, and it is a good one.

Thanx!
jb4
shrub\ufffdbish (Am., from shrub + rubbish, after the derisive name for America's 43 president; 2003) n. 1. a form of nonsensical political doubletalk wherein the speaker attempts to defend the indefensible by lying, obfuscation, or otherwise misstating the facts; GIBBERISH. 2. any of a collection of utterances from America's putative 43rd president. cf. BULLSHIT

New Now that's clarity!
Alex

"If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words." -- Philip K. Dick, US science fiction writer
New Nope, it's bad math
A 32 bit integer has 4...mumble possible values. If you really want integers and not whole numbers, then implicitly these are signed, which requires a bit. So there are 2...mumble positive values, 2...mumble-1 negative values, and zero.

If you want 4...mumble integers you need more bits.
-drl
New But, counters of real things don't need negative values.
Alex

"If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words." -- Philip K. Dick, US science fiction writer
New I'd like to add a negative number of votes for Bush. ;-)
To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act
- [link|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20|Nebraska Supreme Court]
New That only works on Diebold machines. :)
Alex

"If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words." -- Philip K. Dick, US science fiction writer
New Certainly
But then, Ark's comment loses its pithiness (\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd)
-drl
New "Expressive", not "pithy" :)
"pithy" I guess would be better translated as poisonous, ядовитый - it's an idiomatic usage.
--

"...was poorly, lugubrious and intoxicated."

-- Patrick O'Brian, "Master and Commander"
New Re: "Expressive", not "pithy" :)
Why can I see your Cyrillic but not mine? Some encoding mojo?
-drl
New Dunno.
I see yours fine in Mozilla on Win 2000 after I select the proper code page - Cyrillic Windows-1251
--

"...was poorly, lugubrious and intoxicated."

-- Patrick O'Brian, "Master and Commander"
     What is with gcc, anyway?!? - (jb4) - (52)
         What is typeof(0x80000000)? - (ChrisR) - (7)
             right, add an L -NT - (deSitter) - (6)
                 Ain't that a UL - (ChrisR) - (5)
                     This is why C is sometimes called "high-level assembler." - (static) - (1)
                         Re: This is why C is sometimes called "high-level assembler. - (jb4)
                     Actually, that would be a U (or u) - (jb4) - (2)
                         What about casting the values? - (ChrisR) - (1)
                             Yes, that was the solution I used - (jb4)
         Re: What is with gcc, anyway?!? - (lordbeatnik) - (3)
             I guess... - (jb4) - (2)
                 If there was no ambiguity... - (lordbeatnik) - (1)
                     For the next set of standards? - (jb4)
         Hex constants are assumed to be positive - (Arkadiy) - (36)
             Re: Hex constants are assumed to be positive - (jb4) - (35)
                 Setting the high bit is processor dependent. - (hnick) - (34)
                     OK, then the standard should be saying - (Arkadiy) - (33)
                         No I actually write code based on them - (jb4) - (30)
                             Ignore them and use my common sence -NT - (Arkadiy) - (29)
                                 I'll bet debugging your code is a real joy... - (jb4) - (28)
                                     Nope - (Arkadiy) - (27)
                                         And so tell me, O Oracle of Common Sence [sic] - (jb4) - (26)
                                             offensive foul, ball to Ark - (deSitter) - (3)
                                                 Rest assured, - (Arkadiy) - (1)
                                                     :) ok -NT - (deSitter)
                                                 OK, OK... - (jb4)
                                             Well, while the tone is disagreable, the question is - (Arkadiy) - (21)
                                                 Point missed. - (jb4) - (20)
                                                     If C were sane, TRUE = -1 and problem vanishes -NT - (deSitter) - (7)
                                                         Ermm...say What? - (jb4) - (2)
                                                             Re: Ermm...say What? - (deSitter) - (1)
                                                                 Much like Jewish law - (Arkadiy)
                                                         So you prefer how VB does it?? -NT - (ben_tilly) - (3)
                                                             Point: Ben... -NT - (jb4)
                                                             How it used to do it. - (ChrisR) - (1)
                                                                 Hehee! - (jb4)
                                                     Why do you expect hex to be treated differently from decimal - (Arkadiy) - (11)
                                                         Re: Why do you expect hex to be treated differently - (deSitter)
                                                         Man, that's a good question! - (jb4)
                                                         Now that's clarity! -NT - (a6l6e6x) - (8)
                                                             Nope, it's bad math - (deSitter) - (7)
                                                                 But, counters of real things don't need negative values. -NT - (a6l6e6x) - (6)
                                                                     I'd like to add a negative number of votes for Bush. ;-) -NT - (ben_tilly) - (1)
                                                                         That only works on Diebold machines. :) -NT - (a6l6e6x)
                                                                     Certainly - (deSitter) - (3)
                                                                         "Expressive", not "pithy" :) - (Arkadiy) - (2)
                                                                             Re: "Expressive", not "pithy" :) - (deSitter) - (1)
                                                                                 Dunno. - (Arkadiy)
                         Wasn't trying to piss you off... - (hnick) - (1)
                             Interesting assumption: - (jb4)
         Hmm...while the datatype will be first reached, - (Simon_Jester) - (1)
             True, but... - (jb4)
         Re: What is with gcc, anyway?!? - (gdaustin)

We have some experienced flamelords who can take care of them.
196 ms