[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software
Confronta i prezzi di migliaia di prodotti.
Asp Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.aspnet.caching

my request code for autocad 2006 is YLH3 5QUW K3U8 8YX9 5DWL

Sri

7/12/2010 8:49:00 AM

my request code for autocad 2006 is YLH3 5QUW K3U8 8YX9 5DWL
Please send me activation code. urgent.
22 Answers

Mark Bluemel

10/22/2009 12:20:00 PM

0

On 22 Oct, 12:26, r...@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) wrote:

>   For signum,
>
> ( x > 0 )-( x < 0 )
>
>   might be efficient, because it can often be compiles to
>   three instructions and does not contain branches.
>
>   Unlike solutions involving "x >> 31" it does not depend on
>   details of the representation and is also quite readable.

For some values of "readable", I guess. I quite like it, but I'm not
convinced that this sort of variation on Perl Golf is helpful for real-
world code. I've debugged other people's code at 3am after spending
the evening trying to get a baby to go to sleep, and frankly I'd curse
them if their code wasn't transparent. I'm with Spinoza here - be
explicit.

Richard Heathfield

10/22/2009 12:37:00 PM

0

In
<e9b179a7-38c1-4e3a-87c9-0097d9c9e5a8@p20g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
Mark Bluemel wrote:

> On 22 Oct, 12:26, r...@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) wrote:
>
>> For signum,
>>
>> ( x > 0 )-( x < 0 )
>>
>> might be efficient, because it can often be compiles to
>> three instructions and does not contain branches.
>>
>> Unlike solutions involving "x >> 31" it does not depend on
>> details of the representation and is also quite readable.
>
> For some values of "readable", I guess.

It is a most readable expression, once you get used to the notion that
relational expressions have values in their own right. (It is not
unreasonable to assume a certain level of "literacy" in the reader
when assessing readability.)

> I quite like it, but I'm not
> convinced that this sort of variation on Perl Golf is helpful for
> real- world code.

I regularly use the same idiom in real-world code, in comparison
functions, and I don't see why you would think it to be unsuitable
for the real world.

> I've debugged other people's code at 3am after
> spending the evening trying to get a baby to go to sleep, and
> frankly I'd curse them if their code wasn't transparent. I'm with
> Spinoza here

That's not absolute proof that you're wrong, but it's not a hopeful
sign.

> - be explicit.

The expression /is/ explicit.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax....
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line vacant - apply within

Bartc

10/22/2009 12:56:00 PM

0


"Richard Heathfield" <rjh@see.sig.invalid> wrote in message
news:5Oqdnf0U3OL2zX3XnZ2dnUVZ8hydnZ2d@bt.com...
> In
> <e9b179a7-38c1-4e3a-87c9-0097d9c9e5a8@p20g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
> Mark Bluemel wrote:
>
>> On 22 Oct, 12:26, r...@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) wrote:
>>
>>> For signum,
>>>
>>> ( x > 0 )-( x < 0 )

>> - be explicit.
>
> The expression /is/ explicit.

Not as explicit as, say:

intsign(x)

The original expression requires some analysis as to what it's trying to
achieve.

And if the variable name was longer, and the expression appears many times
then it requires more analysis to make sure no mistake has been made, such
as one or both of the > or < being the right way around, and the same name
was used in each half. (And if there is a discrepancy, was it a mistake, or
is it actually something unrelated.)

--
bartc

(Edward G. Nilges)

10/22/2009 1:04:00 PM

0

On Oct 22, 8:36 pm, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
> In
> <e9b179a7-38c1-4e3a-87c9-0097d9c9e...@p20g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Mark Bluemel wrote:
> > On 22 Oct, 12:26, r...@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) wrote:
>
> >> For signum,
>
> >> ( x > 0 )-( x < 0 )
>
> >> might be efficient, because it can often be compiles to
> >> three instructions and does not contain branches.
>
> >> Unlike solutions involving "x >> 31" it does not depend on
> >> details of the representation and is also quite readable.
>
> > For some values of "readable", I guess.
>
> It is a most readable expression, once you get used to the notion that
> relational expressions have values in their own right. (It is not
> unreasonable to assume a certain level of "literacy" in the reader
> when assessing readability.)
>

Nobody has yet conceded the main problem, that the OP is trying to
implement signum and failing by giving a **wrong answer** when x is
zero but the above solution seems to address this problem.

It's amazing that so few people here seem to know signum. Disturbing,
as well.

> > I quite like it, but I'm not
> > convinced that this sort of variation on Perl Golf is helpful for
> > real- world code.
>
> I regularly use the same idiom in real-world code, in comparison
> functions, and I don't see why you would think it to be unsuitable
> for the real world.
>
> > I've debugged other people's code at 3am after
> > spending the evening trying to get a baby to go to sleep, and
> > frankly I'd curse them if their code wasn't transparent. I'm with
> > Spinoza here
>
> That's not absolute proof that you're wrong, but it's not a hopeful
> sign.

Personality based comments are childish and have no place here. I'm
real tired of how you consistently transform technical issues into
personal icons. You have two registers: uncritical worship of some
personality (such as Ada Augusta) whose status impresses you, and
uncritical trashing when you think the target is a safe place to shit
on.

It's lower middle class and Fascistic. Cease and desist or leave on a
holiday in Spain.


>
> > - be explicit.
>
> The expression /is/ explicit.
>
> --
> Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax....
> Email: -http://www. +rjh@
> "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
> Sig line vacant - apply within

gwowen

10/22/2009 1:11:00 PM

0

On Oct 22, 1:36 pm, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
> >> ( x > 0 )-( x < 0 )
>
> It is a most readable expression, once you get used to the notion that
> relational expressions have values in their own right. (It is not
> unreasonable to assume a certain level of "literacy" in the reader
> when assessing readability.)

We must have wildly different ideas about readability. To me readable
code is code that expresses intent clearly. "Programs are meant to be
read by humans and only incidentally for computers to execute".

x -= (x>0)-(x<0);

does not express intent clearly. One can work out what it does quite
easily, but that's still work. It's all about "how" and not about
"why".

/* ... or a macro, obviously ... */
static inline int signum (int x){
return (x>0)-(x<0);
}
/* ... */
x -= signum(x);

is the best of both worlds.

David Resnick

10/22/2009 1:22:00 PM

0

On Oct 22, 9:04 am, spinoza1111 <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Personality based comments are childish and have no place here.
<snip>
> It's lower middle class and Fascistic. Cease and desist or leave on a
> holiday in Spain.

Pot, kettle, etc.

-David

(Edward G. Nilges)

10/22/2009 3:29:00 PM

0

On Oct 22, 9:22 pm, David Resnick <lndresn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 22, 9:04 am,spinoza1111<spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Personality based comments are childish and have no place here.
> <snip>
> > It's lower middle class and Fascistic. Cease and desist or leave on a
> > holiday in Spain.
>
> Pot, kettle, etc.
>
> -David

No, it is not pot and kettle. If you sequence the posts, it is
consistently Richard Heathfield who starts the campaign of personality
destruction. I finish it and will continue to do so because "this
animal is dangerous, it defends itself when attacked."

Tim Streater

10/22/2009 3:46:00 PM

0

In article
<d84fff93-0748-48a7-a7ad-03c353e32642@g22g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
spinoza1111 <spinoza1111@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Oct 22, 9:22 pm, David Resnick <lndresn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 22, 9:04 am,spinoza1111<spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Personality based comments are childish and have no place here.
> > <snip>
> > > It's lower middle class and Fascistic. Cease and desist or leave on a
> > > holiday in Spain.
> >
> > Pot, kettle, etc.
> >
> > -David
>
> No, it is not pot and kettle. If you sequence the posts, it is
> consistently Richard Heathfield who starts the campaign of personality
> destruction. I finish it and will continue to do so because "this
> animal is dangerous, it defends itself when attacked."

So you agree you are childish, then, and that you have no place here? As
in:

On Oct 22, 9:04 am,spinoza1111<spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Personality based comments are childish and have no place here.

--
Tim

"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -- Bill of Rights 1689

Mark Bluemel

10/22/2009 3:48:00 PM

0

On 22 Oct, 14:10, gwowen <gwo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 22, 1:36 pm, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
>
> > >> ( x > 0 )-( x < 0 )
>
> > It is a most readable expression, once you get used to the notion that
> > relational expressions have values in their own right. (It is not
> > unreasonable to assume a certain level of "literacy" in the reader
> > when assessing readability.)
>
> We must have wildly different ideas about readability. To me readable
> code is code that expresses intent clearly. "Programs are meant to be
> read by humans and only incidentally for computers to execute".

Thank you. That's pretty much what I feel. I'd kind of like to see a
book published on "expressive coding".

>
> x -= (x>0)-(x<0);
>
> does not express intent clearly.  One can work out what it does quite
> easily, but that's still work. It's all about "how" and not about
> "why".

Indeed

>
> /* ... or a macro, obviously ... */
> static inline int signum (int x){
>   return (x>0)-(x<0);}
>
> /* ... */
> x -= signum(x);
>
> is the best of both worlds.

(Edward G. Nilges)

10/22/2009 3:50:00 PM

0

On Oct 22, 11:46 pm, Tim Streater <timstrea...@waitrose.com> wrote:
> In article
> <d84fff93-0748-48a7-a7ad-03c353e32...@g22g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
>  spinoza1111 <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 22, 9:22 pm, David Resnick <lndresn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Oct 22, 9:04 am,spinoza1111<spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Personality based comments are childish and have no place here.
> > > <snip>
> > > > It's lower middle class and Fascistic. Cease and desist or leave on a
> > > > holiday in Spain.
>
> > > Pot, kettle, etc.
>
> > > -David
>
> > No, it is not pot and kettle. If you sequence the posts, it is
> > consistently Richard Heathfield who starts the campaign of personality
> > destruction. I finish it and will continue to do so because "this
> > animal is dangerous, it defends itself when attacked."
>
> So you agree you are childish, then, and that you have no place here? As
> in:

No. This is because people have a right to defend themselves like men,
something which boys will never learn.
>
> On Oct 22, 9:04 am,spinoza1111<spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Personality based comments are childish and have no place here.
>
> --
> Tim
>
> "That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
> nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"  --  Bill of Rights 1689- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -