Hi Vasile, What do you mean with "The experience of the last 20 years on jal shows that biggest improvements can not be used anymore on small pics..."
If improvements cannot be used then that it may be caused by an increase in what you want to do with the smaller PIC's but not by the improvements made by JAL itself, at least that is my opinion. I often use smaller PICs and even the recently updated large array library can be used on a 12F617 if for example you want to create an array of e.g. 90 bytes while it only has 128 bytes on board. Even better, the newest large array used for this example uses even 1 byte less than the previous large array version! Maybe there are more opportunities for lowering code and data space but then it would help if you could give an example of what you want to achieve what is no longer possible. Thanks. Kind regards, Rob ________________________________ Van: [email protected] <[email protected]> namens vsurducan <[email protected]> Verzonden: dinsdag 22 december 2020 18:40 Aan: [email protected] <[email protected]> Onderwerp: Re: [jallib] format library 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]<mailto:[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]<mailto:jallib%[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]<mailto:[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<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/jallib/CAM%2Bj4qv_pVn2XgeJ5cLMSv%2BJY%3Dm-Tn9BvyKfF3%3DfWDRr9FA16Q%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- 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/AM0PR07MB6241B8C8D44F220A3D41384FE6DF0%40AM0PR07MB6241.eurprd07.prod.outlook.com.
