Tony Firshman wrote:
Dilwyn Jones wrote, on 6/Apr/11 13:23 | Apr6:
Norman Dunbar wrote:
Afternoon all,
On 06/04/11 10:52, Dilwyn Jones wrote:
Gerard Phelan had the idea of asking a search engine how to
pronounce it (now why didn't I think of that?).
That's what I did too!
Rich Mellor wrote:
On 12/04/2011 22:04, Adrian Ives wrote:
CUT
2) Yes, input; but the USBWiz can't do split baud rates and it isn't
easy to
do split rates on a standard QL without additional hardware and/or
software.
The input limitation is two stops at 9600. The USBWiz only sends one
so it
Lee Privett wrote:
Can anyone tell me what character 181 is in the Sinclair QL character font is?
It is not printed in the QL User manual, not the ones I have anyway
I cannot find the character in the standard window fonts, symbol or wingdings
I cannot find it in the world list of currency
Adrian Ives wrote:
...
- If QDOS decides that it's time to flush a slave block then - that's it -
you WILL flush that slave block! It doesn't matter what your driver is
doing, or whether it needs that block in memory. You WILL flush it - and
just for good measure you are prohibited from
Adrian Ives wrote:
- As a further bonus, if QDOS has decided that you WILL flush a large number
of slave blocks, the driver will exhaust all of the available memory trying
to double buffer the requests.
How can the driver exhaust all of the available memory. when it is not
permitted to
Tony Firshman wrote:
Marcel Kilgus wrote, on 26/Nov/10 17:02 | Nov26:
Marcel Kilgus wrote:
1for i=1to 100
2a$=:if i mod 3=0:a$=FIZZ
3if i mod 5=0:a$=a$BUZZ
4print i,a$:next i
(91 bytes including 4 LF)
Damn, missed something:
1for i=1to 100
2a$=:if i mod 3=0:a$=FIZZ
3if i mod 5=0:a$=a$BUZZ
Marcel Kilgus wrote:
Tony Firshman wrote:
Usnet use inline so why not here?
My 2 cents: I'm fully with Tony on this one but also think that it's a
battle against windmills and thus cannot be won.
Marcel
___
QL-Users Mailing List
Tony Firshman wrote:
I see. I am *very* glad I have disabled these fake smilies (8-)# - I
guess then mine has to be written: (8- )# to avoid a fake one
Neither of those show as a graphic smiley. I'm using Seamonkey. I don't
have any extra smiley packages.
BTW, I discovered the other day
Dilwyn... why can't you use your *dilwynjones.co.uk* domain for
email,
seeing as that's already registered to you? If Fasthosts are being a
pain, just transfer the domain to someone sensible.
Laurence Reeves wrote:
Dilwyn... why can't you use your *dilwynjones.co.uk* domain
Tony Firshman wrote:
Dilwyn Jones wrote:
Laurence Reeves wrote:
Dilwyn... why can't you use your *dilwynjones.co.uk* domain for
email,
seeing as that's already registered to you? If Fasthosts are being a
pain, just transfer the domain to someone sensible.
Eh? I never had
Tony Firshman wrote:
Dilwyn Jones wrote:
I will be closing my Tesco.net email account soon, so please update
your email address book.
Please ensure that all emails to me are sent to:
dilwyn AT uk6 DOT net
with immediate effect. This is a Freeola email address, the company
which has
Dilwyn Jones wrote:
With SBYTES you can do something like SBYTES ram1_test,address,0
which
creates a not very useful zero length file. But if you try to LBYTES
it back with LBYTES ram1_test,address you get the error message 'end
of file'
Seems more like a statement of fact than an
George Gwilt wrote:
On 7 Apr 2007, at 16:04, Laurence Reeves wrote:
(And Tony, I always pronounce it Wi-ki-pe-di-op-hi-li-ac. I invented
the word. I can define the correct way to pronounce it! So there!)
Er - rather hermpty dermptyish.
Naturally! I also spell a thing with fins, gills
Tony Firshman wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Laurence Reeves wrote:
George Gwilt wrote:
On 7 Apr 2007, at 16:04, Laurence Reeves wrote:
(And Tony, I always pronounce it Wi-ki-pe-di-op-hi-li-ac. I invented
the word. I can define the correct way to pronounce it! So
Rich Mellor wrote:
On Sat, 07 Apr 2007 09:50:18 +0100, Tony Firshman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sinclair_QL
Does http://www.rwapadventures.com/ql_wiki/ offer any better features?
Is there any sense
Rich Mellor wrote:
Ah I have found it - it has not been removed - someone has instead created
a Sinclair QDOS entry - it is not easy to find though, as QDOS only
takes you to the PC o/s page - the link is at the very top of this page.
I'm sorry, but I cannot agree with it is not easy to
Marcel Kilgus wrote:
Tony Firshman wrote:
I will get one of these and play:
http://www.ghielectronics.com/details.php?id=5sid=6
I've read the manual. Actually this is a pretty neat device and easy
to program. The problem is the serial link. While it could be easily
used to attach
Tony Firshman wrote:
Incidentally Pipex puts the page in a frame.
No they didn't. 11 did that. I've never worked out exactly why they do
that.
The *real* url is http://www.auni40.dsl.pipex.com/sime.html
No Tony... the *real* URL is as I gave it. When I again move the files,
as I have
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
SNIP
OK. So the random order - quicksort marginally outperforms heapsort. For
the already sorted case, quicksort is rather better than heapsort, but
its margin goes down as the count goes up. However, with the data all
the same...
Dilwyn Jones wrote:
The second one is much faster than the first.
They both use O(n) stack space. The both have O(n*n) worst cases. They
both use the first element as the mean, so will have O(n*n) when the
data is initially sorted. I'd not use either.
Timing checks I did on
it some time ago
Having cured the many bugs in my simple implementations, I now have a
slightly more conventional set of results:
The raw figures are at http://www.bergbland.info/2secs.txt and here.
A spreadsheet... get http://www.bergbland.info/2secs.ods.
The first section is the test code running with calls
P Witte wrote:
Laurence Reeves writes:
P Witte wrote:
Quicksort is so much faster than any stable sort I know
of, even when cheating, that its worth it ;o)
Yeah, yeah. I, of course, agree totally. I cheat /all/ the time.
Cheats I dont easily agree with are those
P Witte wrote:
Quicksort is so much faster than any stable sort I know
of, even when cheating, that its worth it ;o)
Yeah, yeah. I, of course, agree totally. I cheat /all/ the time.
I did get a bit carried away... and perused the current net thinking on
sort algorithms, and it would seem
P Witte wrote:
IIRC the resulting sort is stable allowing for an unambiguous fast binary
search (also included) of the array(s) using the same criteria as for the
sort. (That was at least my programming goal. I'll have to check this,
though.)
Sorry? I don't think I follow your banter. A
Malcolm Lear wrote:
Hi
Is this normal behavior for a 68K processor. I'm doing a word comparison
between a memory location and a data register. It seems that data in the
most significant word of the register is effecting the result. In the
example
below the test ends up at notequal.
George Gwilt wrote:
On 5 Jun 2006, at 16:16, George Gwilt wrote:
On 4 Jun 2006, at 14:24, Laurence Reeves wrote:
George Gwilt wrote:
The IEEE format of signed infinities for the FPU on Q40 and Q60 is
$ (minus infinity)
$7FFF (plus
Tony Firshman wrote:
Surely if there is a plural, then it can be counted?
Argh! See infinity. You can't count the points on a line (finite or
infinite length). They are plural, but not countable.
--
Lau
http://www.bergbland.info callto://LauReeves (see http:www.skype.com)
Get a domain from
David Tubbs wrote:
Just to wind up this one, from way back, Tony Firshman wrote:
Being me, I took TF at his word, that the rule should be countable,
and went onto my infinity theme.
Sorry Lau, I did not take your point correctly, but certainly a nit for the
picking.
Not my nit.
PS. (this is a Pre-script, just for variety). I've always liked:
While marking their work, the teacher noted that John had written had,
whereas Jim had had had had. Had had had had the teacher's approval.
Just to wind up this one, from way back, Tony Firshman wrote:
One very common one now is
Robert Newson wrote:
She is nicer than me and you.
is wrong, it should be:
She is nicer than you and I.
or
She is nicer than I and you.
'Fraid not. Replace nicer with heavier and it becomes obvious that
in the above you almost certainly should have said or not and, and
John Taylor wrote:
I know everyone on here would deplore political correctness.
The last few days have seen an avalanche of grammar corrections.
Correcting other peoples faults is a very satisfying occupation.
And the most beautiful words in the English language are I told you
so.
And...
John Taylor wrote:
Lau
There is no missing apostrophe. The people's, yes, but in this case
peoples is plural.
John.
On 31 May 2006, at 13:01, Laurence Reeves wrote:
John Taylor wrote:
I know everyone on here would deplore political correctness.
The last few days have seen
32 matches
Mail list logo
