• Features Wishlist 5 1
Currently:  

Author Topic: Features Wishlist  (Read 253518 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Ashbad

  • Guest
Re: Features Wishlist
« Reply #2520 on: August 09, 2011, 06:25:02 pm »
0-127 is no more confusing than -32768-32767 or 0-65535.

Good point.  It's also no less confusing to someone who doesn't get the importance of those particular numbers (*ahem* the people this system was made for to make things less confusing, yet makes things more confusing)

Offline calc84maniac

  • eZ80 Guru
  • Coder Of Tomorrow
  • LV11 Super Veteran (Next: 3000)
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2896
  • Rating: +467/-17
    • View Profile
    • TI-Boy CE
Re: Features Wishlist
« Reply #2521 on: August 09, 2011, 06:26:36 pm »
0-127 is no more confusing than -32768-32767 or 0-65535.

Good point.  It's also no less confusing to someone who doesn't get the importance of those particular numbers (*ahem* the people this system was made for to make things less confusing, yet makes things more confusing)
It wasn't to make it less confusing, it was for convenience. It can be really annoying to convert decimal to EXXXX format manually.
"Most people ask, 'What does a thing do?' Hackers ask, 'What can I make it do?'" - Pablos Holman

Ashbad

  • Guest
Re: Features Wishlist
« Reply #2522 on: August 09, 2011, 06:30:59 pm »
0-127 is no more confusing than -32768-32767 or 0-65535.

Good point.  It's also no less confusing to someone who doesn't get the importance of those particular numbers (*ahem* the people this system was made for to make things less confusing, yet makes things more confusing)
It wasn't to make it less confusing, it was for convenience. It can be really annoying to convert decimal to EXXXX format manually.

Then don't use decimal!  There are usually a million and one ways around using decimal, since with this notation doesn't do anything like convert from hex back to decimal, just a notation for decimal to hex; hence, it really isn't highly useful anyways.

Since it seems as though the drawbacks to the fpart of the XXX.XXX system will be documented in the future, I'm fine with that; though, that ipart looks really, REALLY ugly even in comparison.  I promote a XX.XXX system where 99.000 == 0xFF00.

Offline calcdude84se

  • Needs Motivation
  • LV11 Super Veteran (Next: 3000)
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2272
  • Rating: +78/-13
  • Wondering where their free time went...
    • View Profile
Re: Features Wishlist
« Reply #2523 on: August 09, 2011, 08:07:22 pm »
That will screw with all your math. That would make 0.500**1.000>>1.000 true, for instance. And don't suggest changing the ** operator, either, because then all it would make it almost twice as slow because of the necessary extra multiply. ;)
« Last Edit: August 09, 2011, 08:08:02 pm by calcdude84se »
"People think computers will keep them from making mistakes. They're wrong. With computers you make mistakes faster."
-Adam Osborne
Spoiler For "PartesOS links":
I'll put it online when it does something.

Ashbad

  • Guest
Re: Features Wishlist
« Reply #2524 on: August 09, 2011, 08:48:30 pm »
That will screw with all your math. That would make 0.500**1.000>>1.000 true, for instance. And don't suggest changing the ** operator, either, because then all it would make it almost twice as slow because of the necessary extra multiply. ;)

I fail to see how changing how the top translates from decimal to true value, rather than just the top staying in true form, changes *anything* of that sort.  99.000 * .500 (proposed translation) ==  255.000 (current translation) would return true.  I fail to see any of your point whatsoever.  How things translate to the same form doesn't affect any math at all.  If 1.000 ** .500 returned true before, it will return true after the change as well.

Offline calcdude84se

  • Needs Motivation
  • LV11 Super Veteran (Next: 3000)
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2272
  • Rating: +78/-13
  • Wondering where their free time went...
    • View Profile
Re: Features Wishlist
« Reply #2525 on: August 09, 2011, 09:46:31 pm »
I'm just having problems with the fact that you're trying to convert 99 into 255. Assuming you want this done by multiplying by 255/99, let me restate the point I was trying to make with the evaluation of a statement. (I'm using unsigned fixed point here.)
1.000**1.000=1.000
This looks obviously true.
Let's convert this to hex-represented fixed point by multiplying by 255/95:
E02AF**E02AF=E02AF
E0733=E02AF
So, I see two views to take: 1) Math is completely screwed over for multiplication. 2) Math is now non-intuitive.
« Last Edit: August 09, 2011, 09:46:52 pm by calcdude84se »
"People think computers will keep them from making mistakes. They're wrong. With computers you make mistakes faster."
-Adam Osborne
Spoiler For "PartesOS links":
I'll put it online when it does something.

Ashbad

  • Guest
Re: Features Wishlist
« Reply #2526 on: August 09, 2011, 10:00:43 pm »
Or, we go back to my original point of keeping things constant: why is it that it's not something like 255.255 then, or 99.99 (the slower speed is fine by me, floating points are expected to be slower anyways -- life isn't about a dozen or so cycles, it's about ease of use).  The different notations for the different parts is just stupid.  No FP notation should ever do this.  Ever.  Keep it consistent, at the very very very very very least.

Offline calcdude84se

  • Needs Motivation
  • LV11 Super Veteran (Next: 3000)
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2272
  • Rating: +78/-13
  • Wondering where their free time went...
    • View Profile
Re: Features Wishlist
« Reply #2527 on: August 09, 2011, 10:05:00 pm »
There's only one notation: decimal notation. Is the part that's throwing you off the fact that the number is bounded between two powers of two and not two powers of ten?
Edit: It doesn't seem very hard to understand a statement such as "The number must meet the condition that -128<=#<128."
« Last Edit: August 09, 2011, 10:06:20 pm by calcdude84se »
"People think computers will keep them from making mistakes. They're wrong. With computers you make mistakes faster."
-Adam Osborne
Spoiler For "PartesOS links":
I'll put it online when it does something.

Ashbad

  • Guest
Re: Features Wishlist
« Reply #2528 on: August 09, 2011, 10:15:59 pm »
There's only one notation: decimal notation. Is the part that's throwing you off the fact that the number is bounded between two powers of two and not two powers of ten?
Edit: It doesn't seem very hard to understand a statement such as "The number must meet the condition that -128<=#<128."

Why do you think I'm an idiot?  Any moron can understand those limits compared to the other ones.  It still doesn't mean they're a good idea.  Much like how expressing the S&P500 as a line graph, and then the DOW Jones as a donut graph wouldn't be a good idea.  Being consistent is key.

Offline AngelFish

  • Is this my custom title?
  • Administrator
  • LV12 Extreme Poster (Next: 5000)
  • ************
  • Posts: 3242
  • Rating: +270/-27
  • I'm a Fishbot
    • View Profile
Re: Features Wishlist
« Reply #2529 on: August 09, 2011, 10:19:51 pm »
Let's keep this civil, people. No need to start a fight over fixed point math, when arbitrary precision is clearly the way to go :P
∂²Ψ    -(2m(V(x)-E)Ψ
---  = -------------
∂x²        ℏ²Ψ

Offline calcdude84se

  • Needs Motivation
  • LV11 Super Veteran (Next: 3000)
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2272
  • Rating: +78/-13
  • Wondering where their free time went...
    • View Profile
Re: Features Wishlist
« Reply #2530 on: August 09, 2011, 10:21:30 pm »
Why do you think I'm an idiot?  Any moron can understand those limits compared to the other ones.  It still doesn't mean they're a good idea.  Much like how expressing the S&P500 as a line graph, and then the DOW Jones as a donut graph wouldn't be a good idea.  Being consistent is key.
Ashbad, I do not think that you are an idiot. I'm sorry if I made it seem like that. I just do not see how the notation is inconsistent. ???
« Last Edit: August 09, 2011, 10:22:16 pm by calcdude84se »
"People think computers will keep them from making mistakes. They're wrong. With computers you make mistakes faster."
-Adam Osborne
Spoiler For "PartesOS links":
I'll put it online when it does something.

Offline calc84maniac

  • eZ80 Guru
  • Coder Of Tomorrow
  • LV11 Super Veteran (Next: 3000)
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2896
  • Rating: +467/-17
    • View Profile
    • TI-Boy CE
Re: Features Wishlist
« Reply #2531 on: August 22, 2011, 02:12:04 pm »
I've wanted this feature for a while: ability to insert constant values into Asm() code.

Example of possible syntax, if I wanted to generate ld bc,GDB1 \ ld de,(axv_A) I would do:
Asm(01(GDB1)rED5B(°A)r)
"Most people ask, 'What does a thing do?' Hackers ask, 'What can I make it do?'" - Pablos Holman

Offline ztrumpet

  • The Rarely Active One
  • CoT Emeritus
  • LV13 Extreme Addict (Next: 9001)
  • *
  • Posts: 5712
  • Rating: +364/-4
  • If you see this, send me a PM. Just for fun.
    • View Profile
Re: Features Wishlist
« Reply #2532 on: August 22, 2011, 02:25:33 pm »
I've wanted this feature for a while: ability to insert constant values into Asm() code.

Example of possible syntax, if I wanted to generate ld bc,GDB1 \ ld de,(axv_A) I would do:
Asm(01(GDB1)rED5B(°A)r)
I like this idea.  However, what if { and } were used instead of ( and )?  This would lead to a more standard syntax, even if it breaks up the flow of the Asm code.

Offline calc84maniac

  • eZ80 Guru
  • Coder Of Tomorrow
  • LV11 Super Veteran (Next: 3000)
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2896
  • Rating: +467/-17
    • View Profile
    • TI-Boy CE
Re: Features Wishlist
« Reply #2533 on: August 22, 2011, 02:54:55 pm »
I've wanted this feature for a while: ability to insert constant values into Asm() code.

Example of possible syntax, if I wanted to generate ld bc,GDB1 \ ld de,(axv_A) I would do:
Asm(01(GDB1)rED5B(°A)r)
I like this idea.  However, what if { and } were used instead of ( and )?  This would lead to a more standard syntax, even if it breaks up the flow of the Asm code.
Yeah, or maybe [] so it doesn't imply a memory read
"Most people ask, 'What does a thing do?' Hackers ask, 'What can I make it do?'" - Pablos Holman

Offline AngelFish

  • Is this my custom title?
  • Administrator
  • LV12 Extreme Poster (Next: 5000)
  • ************
  • Posts: 3242
  • Rating: +270/-27
  • I'm a Fishbot
    • View Profile
Re: Features Wishlist
« Reply #2534 on: August 27, 2011, 04:18:19 pm »
Feature request: A method of using #Realloc() that is local to the file being parsed.

Basically, if someone were to use #Realloc() in a source file currently, the #Realloc() would change the memory mapping for all other files to be parsed. It would be very convenient for utilities programmers to have a method of specifying a location for the variables buffer that didn't impact any other files. i.e. As soon as a file is done being parsed, the variable buffer is returned to the location of the previous buffer.

For example:

Code: [Select]
:.TEST
:#Realloc(<Pointer>)
:prgmUTIL
:<more code>
:Return

Inside prgmUTIL
:.UTILS
:#Realloc(<Different pointer>)ʳ
:<more code>
:Return

The #Realloc()ʳ in prgmUTIL shouldn't change the location of the buffer in prgmTEST

∂²Ψ    -(2m(V(x)-E)Ψ
---  = -------------
∂x²        ℏ²Ψ