| DocScrutinizer05 | larsc: wpwrak: pcercuei: I wouldn't know how T F to read this. The comment about code obfuscation contest was pretty much to the point | 01:18 |
|---|---|---|
| pcercuei | DocScrutinizer05: you program better when you understand things, that's why I asked | 01:19 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | you program best when you avoid by all means that stuff that nobody understands | 01:19 |
| pcercuei | I disagree | 01:20 |
| pcercuei | you program best when you avoid that sort of stuff, but you should understand why | 01:20 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | maybe because it's ambiguous nonsensical syntax? | 01:20 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | I don't need to know what E' FC- means to avoid it | 01:23 |
| pcercuei | that's your opinion | 01:23 |
| pcercuei | the thing in question was ((-1) >> 1) | 01:23 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | no, the ting in question been >>= | 01:25 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | which might make a decent parser segfault | 01:26 |
| pcercuei | well that's the same | 01:27 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | I doubt '>>=' has any reasonable meaning in any language other than c, and even there it's extremely obfuscated | 01:28 |
| pcercuei | why would it be? | 01:29 |
| pcercuei | it's not more obfuscated than x += 1 | 01:29 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | uhuh | 01:29 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | aaah, well then blame it to my poor C skills, you're right | 01:30 |
| pcercuei | and as long as the Linux kernel's patch reviewing tool accepts it, I'll use it | 01:30 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | anyway, the syntactical shortcut <var1> <operator>= <var2>, for <var1> = <var1> <operator> <var2> tends to look ill-formed for operators that don't consist of a single char | 01:36 |
| wpwrak | pcercuei: maybe C needs a unary >> and << as well ? like x = x+1; -> x += 1; -> x++; with shift x = x >> 1; -> x >>= 1; -> x>>; /* or similar */ | 01:36 |
| pcercuei | I don't think that one exists | 01:37 |
| wpwrak | DocScrutinizer05: it's just a question of what you're used to. >>= and <<= are indeed relatively uncommon since incremental shifts often aren't expressed as such | 01:38 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | x>>> then | 01:38 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | or x>>>> | 01:38 |
| wpwrak | pcercuei: i just made it up :) | 01:38 |
| wpwrak | DocScrutinizer05: yeah, more consistent but a lot of >s | 01:38 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | hmm, x»» then | 01:40 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | makes for a nice x»=1 too | 01:41 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | x»=7 ;-D | 01:42 |
| wpwrak | yeah. use a non-ascii character :) | 01:42 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | well, iirc in some language *) been a transscription of } | 01:44 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | pascal maybe? | 01:44 |
| wpwrak | yup | 01:45 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | maybe /* is a transscription of italic-* | 01:45 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | who knows, maybe >> is a transscription of » | 01:46 |
| wpwrak | to work around some ASCII-based character sets using { } [ ] etc. for umlauts or accented characters | 01:46 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | ;-P | 01:46 |
| wpwrak | this is in fact a common transcription | 01:46 |
| wpwrak | btw, C also has something like this. it's called "trigraph" and it's really pretty | 01:47 |
| Action: DocScrutinizer05 gasps | 01:47 | |
| wpwrak | (-:C | 01:49 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | I guess you learnt about that in your compiler building times? | 01:50 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trigraph#Programmiersprache_C shudder | 01:53 |
| wpwrak | naw, i heard of it before. and quickly decided to ignore it :) | 01:53 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | a ??!??! b | 01:53 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | I honestly prefer begin; / end; instead of { / } over the concept that results in a ??!??! b | 01:55 |
| wpwrak | naw, nobody uses trigraphs | 01:56 |
| wpwrak | and begin/end is just too much typing | 01:56 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | and x = x >> 7 is also too much typing. well, not for me | 01:57 |
| wpwrak | well, it may have started as an optimization help. when compilers were really dumb. | 01:59 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | otoh you frequently see fools typing stuff like bool b; if (b == true) | 01:59 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | when i'd get a penny for each "== true", "== false", "!= true", "!= false" my eyes had to read, I'd be rich | 02:01 |
| wpwrak | or if (foo != 0) ... | 02:03 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | basically the same, but has at least a tiny bit of implicit documentation | 02:04 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | if C wasn't so broken by design, you'd actually need that. Only the friggin loose typing of C allows using an integer as a boolean | 02:06 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | it has it's advantages, sure | 02:08 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | its | 02:08 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | particularly all function returns which mean error if <0 and some different type if >0 or >=0 | 02:09 |
| DocScrutinizer05 | otoh this is a botch of its own, a decent language would throw an error instead of return(E_FOO) | 02:11 |
| whitequark | c is a fancy macroassembler :) | 02:28 |
| whitequark | btw, there are languages which allow all of >=, >>= and >>>=, the latter standing for arithmetic shift right. | 02:30 |
| GunTheJury | I sure hope someone with a brain is here tonight... | 05:27 |
| kristianpaul | 1000$ !!! | 14:43 |
| kristianpaul | :-| | 14:43 |
| kristianpaul | (piksi) | 14:50 |
| wpwrak | kristianpaul: is the new printer working well ? :) | 17:27 |
| kristianpaul | wpwrak: hah | 19:36 |
| kristianpaul | a | 19:36 |
| wolfspraul | kristianpaul: what's interesting about that piski board? | 22:10 |
| wolfspraul | piksi | 22:10 |
| wolfspraul | 1000 USD? | 22:10 |
| wpwrak | this one ? http://swift-nav.com/piksi.html | 22:22 |
| wolfspraul | yes | 22:24 |
| wolfspraul | I was wondering what is special about that board | 22:24 |
| wpwrak | the samling rate seems unusually high | 22:25 |
| wpwrak | s/samling/sampling | 22:26 |
| wpwrak | at least for GPS | 22:26 |
| LunaVorax | Hi | 22:43 |
| kristianpaul | not sure, i tought they opensourced their correlator but is to closed to dated | 23:27 |
| kristianpaul | wpwrak: thats an usual sample rate for a IF ic that do not have separate phase and quadrature sampling | 23:29 |
| kristianpaul | wpwrak: i guess you meant high that 3-bit, 16.368 MS/s ? | 23:29 |
| kristianpaul | and 3 bits may be a plus for indoors aplications | 23:29 |
| kristianpaul | wolfspraul: pehaps their libs but i dont find any else | 23:30 |
| MistahDarcy | Is there still active development going on with the Ben Nanonote? | 23:39 |
| wolfspraul | MistahDarcy: depends on how you define 'active'? :-) | 23:42 |
| wolfspraul | what do you mean? | 23:42 |
| wolfspraul | the software is definitely being maintained and we try to improve it | 23:42 |
| MistahDarcy | That's what I mean... in a nutshell. lol | 23:42 |
| MistahDarcy | Thanks | 23:42 |
| wolfspraul | but there is no big new target/goal that I'm aware of, at the moment | 23:42 |
| wolfspraul | all the main stuff works, music player, video player, etc. | 23:43 |
| MistahDarcy | Nice. I'm considering getting one for the open hardware concept | 23:43 |
| MistahDarcy | Between the nanonote or the Pandora, but I'm not entirely sure the pandora is open hardware? | 23:44 |
| wolfspraul | openpandora didn't go as far as the nanonote in terms of trying to open up the whole thing | 23:45 |
| MistahDarcy | I see. Is the SPECTEC SDIO still the best option for Wifi? | 23:47 |
| wolfspraul | if you need wifi, get the openpandora :-) | 23:51 |
| wolfspraul | (if you can, the op team is still working on their 4-year old list of prepaid preorders...) | 23:52 |
| MistahDarcy | Yeah... their business model seems kind of sketch | 23:53 |
| wolfspraul | we tried wifi on the nanonote and got it to work to a certain degree, but I cannot recommend that | 23:53 |
| wolfspraul | well they try | 23:53 |
| --- Mon Dec 3 2012 | 00:00 | |
Generated by irclog2html.py 2.9.2 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!