|
Just remember: getting old may be a pain, but ... it's better than the alternative! 
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Never throw anything away, Griff
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: When in Rome, don't get mad
|
|
|
|
|
You could at least take a stab at it.
|
|
|
|
|
Et Tu Piebald? 
Socialism is the Axe Body Spray of political ideologies: It never does what it claims to do, but people too young to know better keep buying it anyway. (Glenn Reynolds)
|
|
|
|
|
You brute!
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Never throw anything away, Griff
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
All right! All right!
Socialism is the Axe Body Spray of political ideologies: It never does what it claims to do, but people too young to know better keep buying it anyway. (Glenn Reynolds)
|
|
|
|
|
Shoutout IV the crazy ones!
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Not to nitpick, but using the rules for forming Roman numbers, shouldn't these be 999, 54, and 499?
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: Not to nitpick,
Yeah, right...  
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Not to nitpick (in exactly the same way as you!) but 999 = CMXCIX, 499 = CDXCIX.
There are a limited number of subtraction rules (smaller number in front of larger) in Roman Numerals.
Socialism is the Axe Body Spray of political ideologies: It never does what it claims to do, but people too young to know better keep buying it anyway. (Glenn Reynolds)
|
|
|
|
|
I have been working on and off (at home) on that single algorithm for almost 2 and half years, I think.
I am now very close to completion with an elegantly simple algorithm 
Except.. it doesn't work...
After days of staring at my screen I came up with a test that shows an internal data inconsistency that will predict failure.
But... basically the validation is a loop doing some calculation at each step.. .
It came literally right after the same loop applying the calculation result.. yet it has different value than expected?!
Why, ho why? And how? 
I think the forces that be are preventing me from finding the truth! 
That's the only logical explanation I can come up with!
Need exorcism ASAP!    
|
|
|
|
|
Use the debugger? The VS one can break when a variable is modified, so if a value is changing and you don't expect that it may give you an idea where it is being changed from?
Or fill your PC with Pea Soup[^] and have a ball!
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Never throw anything away, Griff
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is still the Pea Soup option! 
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Never throw anything away, Griff
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
That's the only solution! I fear!
|
|
|
|
|
333 is half of the mark of the beast. there's your problem right there. Your code is summoning demons.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
OMG! it is so obvious now that you say it!
|
|
|
|
|
Super Lloyd wrote: it describe 2 potatoes intersection
That explains it.
Your computer's got the wrong chips.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Ha! Forget 586!
Sour cream and chilly is the way of the future! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
haha, help us potato man! you are our only hope!
|
|
|
|
|
just wave a dead chicken over it. it works for me.
of course YMMV my computer is just an old head in a jar that i put a hex on - linux will run on anything these days.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
Lots of good tips in here! 
|
|
|
|
|
in all seriousness, I just got done with tackling a similar debugging issue.
Sometimes the debugger just isn't enough. As another commenter pointed out, the algorithm doesn't usually make much sense to people once it's at the point where it breaks.
So you should write more code. I dumped intermediary LALR tables to CSV for example so i could visualize them. I also made symbols and grammar rules print out string representations of themselves to the debugger to help.
In the end, write MOAR CODE until the problem reveals itself.
Sometimes using graphviz can help, in extreme cases.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah I made (some tiny bit) of progress lately.. because I wrote plenty of tools and visualisation to make the issue more understandable...
I am getting close.. When it fails I got 3 intersection between 2 shapes (best understanding, so far, about the problem) now I just have to find out why!
That can't be.. I guess I misdiagnosed a touch for an intersection.... That's a tricky one, since intersection are approximation though...
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
