Hi Oliver, Can we check your improvements first for the resources used? The experience of the last 20 years on jal shows that biggest improvements can not be used anymore on small pics... The length of the number (in my way of understanding) depends on the output device type. On some is useless to have too many numbers. On a LCD display I do not see any requiring a 9 digit (except perhaps displaying a frequency) . On the other hand, on a serial console it might be useful for something... thx, Vasile
On Tue, Dec 22, 2020 at 1:59 PM 'Oliver Seitz' via jallib < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi all :-) > > It's been nine days and nine years since the original print library was > finally replaced by my version. I remember, I've said then, that I would > also do the format library soon. I feel like it's about time now... > > So, usually when I start thinking about improvement, I'm focused on > mimicking the current behavior as close as possible. Yet... This is what it > currently does: > > format_sdword(output,12345678, 6,0) -> 5678 > format_sdword(output,12345678, 7,0) -> �45678 > format_sdword(output,12345678, 7,1) -> �4567.8 > format_sdword(output,12345678, 8,0) -> C345678 > format_sdword(output,12345678, 8,1) -> C34567.8 > format_sdword(output,12345678, 8,2) -> C3456.78 > format_sdword(output,12345678, 9,0) -> 12345678 > format_sdword(output,12345678, 9,1) -> 1234567.8 > format_sdword(output,12345678, 9,2) -> 123456.78 > format_sdword(output,12345678,10,0) -> 12345678 > format_sdword(output,12345678,10,1) -> 1234567.8 > format_sdword(output,12345678,10,2) -> 123456.78 > format_sdword(output,12345678,11,0) -> 12345678 > format_sdword(output,12345678,11,1) -> 1234567.8 > format_sdword(output,12345678,11,2) -> 123456.78 > format_sdword(output,12345678,12,0) -> 12345678 > format_sdword(output,12345678,12,1) -> 1234567.8 > format_sdword(output,12345678,12,2) -> 123456.78 > format_sdword(output,12345678,13,0) -> 12345678 > format_sdword(output,12345678,13,1) -> 1234567.8 > format_sdword(output,12345678,13,2) -> 123456.78 > > The third parameter, said to give the field length to be used, is quite > limited: > > 1) The actual length differs, depending on the presence of a decimal point > 2) Length greater than 11 is treated as 11 > 3) Too short a field leads to corruption of the number, always reserving > places for sign and decimal point > > 3) probably can't be of any use - here's the question if the number should > be truncated or replaced by error signs to show that something's wrong. > > For 1) and 2), there's a possibility that existing programs rely on this > behavior. But, as those are 'undocumented "features" ', I feel like they > can be replaced by more useful things. Like, fields can be as long as 255 > characters, and the number is truly right-aligned, if it has decimals or > not. > > If the number of decimals is greater than the field lengt-1, it is treated > as zero. Here's another option to fill: what should be done if both numbers > are nearly-equal, equal or the decimals number greater than the field > length? Left-aligned, ignoring the field length? > > Any preferences anyone? > > Greets, > Kiste > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "jallib" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jallib/2110995783.3397177.1608638352475%40mail.yahoo.com > . > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "jallib" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jallib/CAM%2Bj4qv_pVn2XgeJ5cLMSv%2BJY%3Dm-Tn9BvyKfF3%3DfWDRr9FA16Q%40mail.gmail.com.
