|
Post by gsteemso on Jun 20, 2015 17:06:01 GMT
Hydrophilic, I’m having trouble following your reasoning. I can see how a skim-read of the original question might lead you to erroneously think there were only four shares, but Tokra’s explanation of why there are six is so simple, clear and straightforward that I do not understand why you are saying there are other ways to solve the problem. Could you give us some examples of how else you might reach an answer?
|
|
|
Post by gsteemso on Jun 19, 2015 21:24:26 GMT
I said “30 & 110, totalling 140.” You said “30 & 110” too, but claimed to disagree with me. I’m not even going to ask.
Regarding the original question, I fully agree with the solution presented a couple of posts ago. (I don’t know who wrote the post because the cellphone interface to this forum does not reveal older posts during composition.) First you have to work out how many shares there are, which the post that lays out the solution does correctly based on the information supplied in the original word problem. Just because you need to perform two stages of calculation before you reach the answer does not mean extraneous information is somehow introduced. Everything you need to solve it is there from the start.
|
|
|
Post by gsteemso on Jun 17, 2015 18:35:30 GMT
30 & 110
Edit: Oh, “in all.” 140.
|
|
|
Post by gsteemso on Jun 1, 2015 2:04:42 GMT
*cough* Uh, yeah. That’s what happens when I only read the post I’m replying to instead of going back over the whole thread. Obviously, that was gibberish. My apologies. Basically, what I should have written was something like this:
So, Hydrophilic, you agree that when starting a new program, which I must point out is the normal use of (D)LOAD from direct mode, erasing the variables from the last one is the correct action. Program chaining as you describe it works fine when you LOAD one program from within another, in program mode. Where then is the problem you have with it? It sounds like you’re expecting BASIC 7 to magically read your mind and determine that “this DLOAD is different, please pretend we’re in program mode so I can chain these programs by hand instead of doing what I usually want this command to do.”
In other words, you have not so much found a bug as found a feature you wish Commodore had added—an extra parameter to the DLOAD command to tell it you don’t want a clean slate. I have to say, that is an amazingly specialized requirement. How does everyone else feel, have any of you ever encountered a situation where that functionality would be useful? I tend not to spend as much time programming as I would like, so have no relevant experiences to draw on in evaluating the proposed feature.
|
|
|
Post by gsteemso on Jun 1, 2015 1:22:41 GMT
B is in fact the only one that makes any sense. A and C join the two clauses with “but” and “however”—connectives that imply the second part in some way contrasts with or contradicts the first part, which is obviously not the case. D is logically absurd, and I hope no one seriously considered it. You can trace the legends to the sixth century because of Arthur’s having been called the Once and Future King? Ridiculous!
|
|
|
Post by gsteemso on May 24, 2015 10:21:13 GMT
Ah, I get you now. That you cannot call (D)LOAD from within a running program could indeed be called a bug, but (I have not tried it, so please correct me if I’m wrong) doesn’t BLOAD fulfill the requirement?
|
|
|
Post by gsteemso on May 2, 2015 15:32:28 GMT
Um, that’s not a bug. Consider the normal user who finishes using one program and decides to start another. Can you imagine the bad press back in the 80s if the user was required to enter explicit commands (or outright reset the machine) to clean up after every program he ran? Commodore would have been laughed out of business.
|
|
|
Post by gsteemso on Apr 20, 2015 13:12:24 GMT
Personally, I think something lightweight such as Markdown would be more suited to processing by a 1-2 MHz 8-bitter. Most features of HTML are either too complex for such a machine to render in real time, or are much more compactly representable in Markdown… and, since the design goal of Markdown is to be human-readable with no processing at all, it can be displayed by a simple SEQ file viewer.
|
|
|
Post by gsteemso on Apr 17, 2015 20:22:34 GMT
any more progress on this? Not really, no. I’ve been short of time, not that that really excuses anything. I think part of the trouble is that I keep thinking of new features that would be nifty but are not actually necessary. I still think of this project fairly often, I just haven’t pulled together any thoughts coherent enough to share just yet. All in good time, eh?
|
|
|
Post by gsteemso on Mar 21, 2015 17:11:20 GMT
The 128’s Z80 runs at 4MHz during the unmodified part of the clock cycle. Averaging that with the part at 1 or 2 (don’t recall which at the moment) MHz is where the 2.5 MHz figure comes from. I have no idea what process technology it was made with, though. The 8502 is made with HMOS-II.
|
|