Reply to Re: Before...
If you don't have an account, just leave the password field blank.
@toof:
I just spent a day or so working on the last few bugs (they were boundary related errors) in the DinkC code for this "way to store a surprising amount of data (up to 31 true/false flags) in one integer in DinkC", which I call checkbit.c. I'll keep testing it a bit more to make certain I've coded to trap all the errors that snuck in; but for now it certainly seems to be working.
Once I'm a bit more confident that it works 100% reliably in DinkC, I'll upload it, a readme.txt about how to use it and a key-67.c module (press [C] to test checkbit.c) as checkbit.zip for others to criticize and/or enhance.
So, how are you coming with your DinkC "simple do-while loop" passing in an argument that tells us "how many times you're gonna divide it by two", etc.? I'd certainly be willing to use anything that works better than my code which I know is rather crude and computationally intensive.
I just spent a day or so working on the last few bugs (they were boundary related errors) in the DinkC code for this "way to store a surprising amount of data (up to 31 true/false flags) in one integer in DinkC", which I call checkbit.c. I'll keep testing it a bit more to make certain I've coded to trap all the errors that snuck in; but for now it certainly seems to be working.
Once I'm a bit more confident that it works 100% reliably in DinkC, I'll upload it, a readme.txt about how to use it and a key-67.c module (press [C] to test checkbit.c) as checkbit.zip for others to criticize and/or enhance.
So, how are you coming with your DinkC "simple do-while loop" passing in an argument that tells us "how many times you're gonna divide it by two", etc.? I'd certainly be willing to use anything that works better than my code which I know is rather crude and computationally intensive.
