| ??? 06/07/07 14:47 Read: times |
#140374 - Thank you, sir! Responding to: ???'s previous message |
I don't know about 'more obvious', but it's certainly cleaner, quicker, and smaller, so it's probably a fair trade. For explaining things, I suppose I could just keep the old version commented out in the source code.
Some discussion, though: division and modulus operations take a nice chunk of code, even with precompiled libraries and unsigned integers. On the other hand, said libraries will execute in constant time(O(k)), whereas looping is O(n), where n is the index given. Horses for courses, I suppose. Again, you have my gratitude. -Bob |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| Software design problem | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Something like this, maybe? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Well, yes, actually... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Duhr and a question | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Which ones did you look at ? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Duhr and an answer | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Is it not possible to | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Horses for courses | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| have fun | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| A Queue? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I used what I called a \'cache\' | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Gah, code repost | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| you need to read it all, THEN process | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Your approach is much more general... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Prioritizing? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Some suggestions Bob | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Thank you, sir! | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Division / modulus not always slow | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Are we making this too difficult? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
I don't think so, it seems to work pretty well... | 01/01/70 00:00 |