On 27 Jul 2011, at 23:30, Stuart Buchanan wrote:
Within the patch is the code below. The (*j)- just looks ugly. Surely
there's a better way?
I'm sure those of you who write C++ more regularly than me will
immediately be able to tell me where I'm going wrong!
As noted elsewhere, you can't
TreeBin* treebin;
SGTreeBinList::iterator j;
bool found = false;
for (j = randomForest.begin(); (j != randomForest.end()) (!found);
j++) {
if (((*j)-texture == mat-get_tree_texture() )
((*j)-texture_varieties == mat-get_tree_varieties())
((*j)-range ==
On Thu, 28 Jul 2011, Stefan Seifert wrote:
On Thursday 28 July 2011 01:00:10 Hal V. Engel wrote:
But there is one minor and very common issue with the code that should be
fixed. In the for loop
for (..; ..; j++)
should be
for (..; ..; ++j)
if you use j++ the compiler has to make a
On 2011-07-28 14.33, Gene Buckle wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jul 2011, Stefan Seifert wrote:
On Thursday 28 July 2011 01:00:10 Hal V. Engel wrote:
But there is one minor and very common issue with the code that should be
fixed. In the for loop
for (..; ..; j++)
should be
for (..; ..; ++j)
if
On Thu, 28 Jul 2011, Jari Häkkinen wrote:
Are you sure about that? I just tried it with a little example and at least
gcc compiles both variants to the exact same assembly code. Tried it with and
without -O2.
That would freak me out. Doesn't ++j mean increment j, then test
whereas j++ means
On 2011-07-28 15.22, Gene Buckle wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jul 2011, Jari Häkkinen wrote:
Are you sure about that? I just tried it with a little example and
at least
gcc compiles both variants to the exact same assembly code. Tried it
with and
without -O2.
That would freak me out. Doesn't ++j
On Thursday 28 July 2011 06:22:10 Gene Buckle wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jul 2011, Jari Häkkinen wrote:
Are you sure about that? I just tried it with a little example and
at least gcc compiles both variants to the exact same assembly
code. Tried it with and without -O2.
That would freak me out.
On 2011-07-28 14.52, Jari Häkkinen wrote:
That would freak me out. Doesn't ++j mean increment j, then test
whereas j++ means test j, then increment?
No, for a for loop
for ( [1]; [2]; [3] )
where [3] is ++j will increment j before use. However, in an
if-statement the complete statement
Slavutinsky Victor wrote:
It's a dead end time when someone who had asked for changes leaves
before that changes comes [...]
People have left the FlightGear project for various reasons I'm not
going to explain here and now. _But_ leaving the project entirely just
for the simple reason that
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 8:33 AM, Gene Buckle ge...@deltasoft.com wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jul 2011, Stefan Seifert wrote:
On Thursday 28 July 2011 01:00:10 Hal V. Engel wrote:
But there is one minor and very common issue with the code that should be
fixed. In the for loop
for (..; ..; j++)
People have left the FlightGear project for various reasons I'm not
going to explain here and now. _But_ leaving the project entirely just
for the simple reason that _other_ project members don't perform at the
rate as _you_ expect them to do is certainly not one of the most
honourable
Hi All,
Well my subject header pretty much tells it all: On my linux triple monitor
setup, I find that one of the 3 screens is completely blank. I have configured
the screens using an xml configuration copied below: Note that I can change
which screen becomes blank by changing the section
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 4:20 PM, Slavutinsky Victor wrote:
Occasional dropouts and slowing to 1fps and things as that. More and
more bugs with every change what's harder and harder to eliminate, not
linearly, squarely harder. Dramatical lowering of common development
rate, coming to very outdated
Hi Geos
Can someone explain me why we use
lat=N37 42.807
lon=W122 12.963
in parking.xml and groundnet.xml
and not lat/lon formats like we use it for runways and it is used in
apt.dat and other data files ?
Thanks, Yves
14 matches
Mail list logo
