Talk About Network

Google


Register and Login
Nick
Password
Register create new account Sign up is FREE and you can post replies, new topics, bookmark posts and more!
Recover lost password


Programming > Basic Misc > Re: Chipmunk Ba...
Latest [ Topics | Posts ] Archive Post A New Topic Post a Reply
<< Topic < Post Post 1 of 2 Topic 1296 of 1584
Post > Topic >>

Re: Chipmunk Basic arrays (Attn: Ron Nicholson)

by david.williams@[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Williams) Sep 5, 2007 at 01:36 PM

-> However, I disagree that there's no reason to have dimension sizes less 
-> than 2. :-)  I don't know about Chipmunk BASIC, but some BASICs 
-> allow specified dimension ranges, like DIM X(1200 to 1500), meaning
that 
-> a subscript of 1200 to 1500 is valid. I can easily visualize such an
array 
-> being declared dynamically based on runtime data requirements (e.g. 
-> calculating totals on a user specified range of account numbers) where
the 
-> lower and upper ranges might be the same. Even without the dimension 
-> ranges, if the programmer calculated the actual subscript offsets, you 
-> would have the same situation, ie. a subscript range of 1. 
  
Okay. So there can be a *possibility* of a range of only 1. But there 
would be no point in defining a dimension if there were not also a 
possibility of its range being more than 1. So, in order to accommodate 
possible ranges of 255 dimensions, at least 2^255 elements must be 
capable of being accommodated. 
  
                                  dow
 




 2 Posts in Topic:
Re: Chipmunk Basic arrays (Attn: Ron Nicholson)
david.williams@[EMAIL PRO  2007-09-05 13:36:39 
Re: Chipmunk Basic arrays (Attn: Ron Nicholson)
"news@[EMAIL PROTECT  2007-09-05 12:44:47 

Post A Reply:
  Go here to Signup

AddThis Feed Button


About - Advertising - Contact - Frequently Asked Questions - Privacy Policy - Terms of Use - Signup

Contact
tan12V112 Tue Oct 14 8:23:40 CDT 2008.