On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 9:27 AM, Ben Coman wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 1:47 AM, Aliaksei Syrel
> wrote:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> At some point I got a feeling that actual Delay time is longer than
>> expected. It is especially visible on small delays less than 100ms
>> (otherwise difference is < 1
On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 1:47 AM, Aliaksei Syrel
wrote:
> Hi
>
> At some point I got a feeling that actual Delay time is longer than
> expected. It is especially visible on small delays less than 100ms
> (otherwise difference is < 1%).
>
> [image: Inline image 1]
> Documentation says that *Delay w
Sent from my iPhone
On 12 mars 2016, at 21:01, Aliaksei Syrel wrote:
>> I get a BoxedFloat64(61.5)
>
> Very strange...
>
> For some unexpected reason you get integers in delay test. But all values
> should be floats. I double checked the script..
>
> There is a difference in arithmetic beh
-dev] Comparison of actual and expected Delay length on
small durations
I get a BoxedFloat64(61.5)
Very strange...
For some unexpected reason you get integers in delay test. But all values
should be floats. I double checked the script..
There is a difference in arithmetic behaviour between mac
>
> I get a BoxedFloat64(61.5)
Very strange...
For some unexpected reason you get integers in delay test. But all values
should be floats. I double checked the script..
There is a difference in arithmetic behaviour between mac and windows!
Cheers,
Alex
On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 8:48 PM, Cyril F
Le 12/03/2016 20:44, Aliaksei Syrel a écrit :
> I think we just found a serious bug!
>
> Cyrill, could you perform a division in the same image you used for
> delay test and post result here?
>
> 123 / 2.0
>
I get a BoxedFloat64(61.5)
--
Cyril Ferlicot
http://www.synectique.eu
165 Aven
I think we just found a serious bug!
Cyrill, could you perform a division in the same image you used for delay
test and post result here?
> 123 / 2.0
On mac I get a float 61.5
Cheers,
Alex
On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 8:33 PM, Cyril Ferlicot D. wrote:
> Le 12/03/2016 18:47, Aliaksei Syrel a écr
Le 12/03/2016 18:47, Aliaksei Syrel a écrit :
> Hi
>
> At some point I got a feeling that actual Delay time is longer than
> expected. It is especially visible on small delays less than 100ms
> (otherwise difference is < 1%).
>
> Inline image 1
> Documentation says that _Delay waits approximately
*Difference is in milliseconds*, sorry :)
On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 6:47 PM, Aliaksei Syrel
wrote:
> Hi
>
> At some point I got a feeling that actual Delay time is longer than
> expected. It is especially visible on small delays less than 100ms
> (otherwise difference is < 1%).
>
> [image: Inline
Hi
At some point I got a feeling that actual Delay time is longer than
expected. It is especially visible on small delays less than 100ms
(otherwise difference is < 1%).
[image: Inline image 1]
Documentation says that *Delay waits approximately* for specified amount of
time. However, according to
10 matches
Mail list logo