Hi Steve, Today Steve Shipway wrote:
> In that case, maybe just call it ROTATE. This would give the maximum > flexibility.. > > x1, x2 .... xn, n, steps, ROTATE > where > n > 0 > 0 < abs(steps) < n > > I'm trying to think of an efficient way to do this that doesn't > involve a malloc (it's easy if you can malloc(n*sizeof(double*)) > ). Will have a go when I'm in the office tomorrow. > > However should we keep ROL and ROR as shorthand for the more > common 3,1,ROTATE and 3,-1,ROTATE ? as the other poster said, it might be a good thing to take inspiration from postscript ... if you think the ROL and ROR variantes make peoples lives easier, I have no problem with adding them as well cheers tobi > Steve > > Steve Shipway > University of Auckland ITS > UNIX Systems Design Lead > [email protected] > Ph: +64 9 373 7599 ext 86487 > > > ________________________________________ > From: Tobias Oetiker [[email protected]] > Sent: Monday, 28 April 2014 6:30 p.m. > To: Steve Shipway > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [rrd-developers] ROL and ROR for RPN > > Hi Steve, > > your function always affects 3 values ... would there be any gain > in makeing this call more generic ? > > a,b,c,d,x,y,ROL rotate the last x values on the stack by y steps to > the left. and maybe have -y role to the right? > > cheers > tobi > > -- Tobi Oetiker, OETIKER+PARTNER AG, Aarweg 15 CH-4600 Olten, Switzerland www.oetiker.ch [email protected] +41 62 775 9902 _______________________________________________ rrd-developers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.oetiker.ch/cgi-bin/listinfo/rrd-developers
