Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.forth > #55835 > unrolled thread
| Started by | krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-03-15 18:06 -0700 |
| Last post | 2017-03-27 18:10 -0400 |
| Articles | 5 on this page of 25 — 6 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.forth
microsecond resolution delay and time krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2017-03-15 18:06 -0700
Re: microsecond resolution delay and time hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-15 21:48 -0700
Re: microsecond resolution delay and time krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2017-03-16 07:42 -0700
Re: microsecond resolution delay and time stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2017-03-16 10:29 +0000
Re: microsecond resolution delay and time krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2017-03-16 07:57 -0700
Re: microsecond resolution delay and time krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2017-03-16 08:04 -0700
Re: microsecond resolution delay and time stephen@mpeforth.com (Stephen Pelc) - 2017-03-16 16:14 +0000
Re: microsecond resolution delay and time krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2017-03-16 10:00 -0700
Re: microsecond resolution delay and time Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2017-03-21 11:59 -0700
Re: microsecond resolution delay and time krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2017-03-25 10:57 -0700
Re: microsecond resolution delay and time rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-25 21:42 -0400
Re: microsecond resolution delay and time krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2017-03-25 19:08 -0700
Re: microsecond resolution delay and time rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-26 00:09 -0400
Re: microsecond resolution delay and time Paul Rubin <no.email@nospam.invalid> - 2017-03-25 22:18 -0700
Re: microsecond resolution delay and time rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-26 02:48 -0400
Re: microsecond resolution delay and time krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2017-03-26 05:21 -0700
Re: microsecond resolution delay and time hughaguilar96@gmail.com - 2017-03-25 23:12 -0700
Re: microsecond resolution delay and time krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2017-03-26 05:32 -0700
Re: microsecond resolution delay and time krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2017-03-25 11:20 -0700
Re: microsecond resolution delay and time krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2017-03-25 18:28 -0700
Re: microsecond resolution delay and time rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-25 21:44 -0400
Re: microsecond resolution delay and time krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2017-03-25 19:00 -0700
Re: microsecond resolution delay and time rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-26 03:00 -0400
Re: microsecond resolution delay and time krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org - 2017-03-26 05:39 -0700
Re: microsecond resolution delay and time rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> - 2017-03-27 18:10 -0400
Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-25 21:44 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ob768r$ju7$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #56307 |
On 3/25/2017 9:28 PM, krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org wrote: > On Saturday, March 25, 2017 at 1:20:38 PM UTC-5, krishna...@ccreweb.org wrote: >> >> MS ( u -- ) \ delay for u milliseconds (Standard Forth) >> MS@ ( -- u ) \ return elapsed time in milliseconds >> MS-D@ ( -- ud ) \ return elapsed time in ms as ud >> US ( u -- ) \ delay for u microseconds >> US-D@ ( -- ud ) \ return the time elapsed in microseconds >> > > Actually, I think I prefer MS2@ and US2@ instead of MS-D@ and US-D@. The D@ implies a signed number. Yes, you don't want to cut your range in half... ;) -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-25 19:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <2dbb1c36-4032-4b65-8047-338898f71748@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #56310 |
On Saturday, March 25, 2017 at 8:44:46 PM UTC-5, rickman wrote: > On 3/25/2017 9:28 PM, krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org wrote: > > On Saturday, March 25, 2017 at 1:20:38 PM UTC-5, krishna...@ccreweb.org wrote: > >> > >> MS ( u -- ) \ delay for u milliseconds (Standard Forth) > >> MS@ ( -- u ) \ return elapsed time in milliseconds > >> MS-D@ ( -- ud ) \ return elapsed time in ms as ud > >> US ( u -- ) \ delay for u microseconds > >> US-D@ ( -- ud ) \ return the time elapsed in microseconds > >> > > > > Actually, I think I prefer MS2@ and US2@ instead of MS-D@ and US-D@. The D@ implies a signed number. > > Yes, you don't want to cut your range in half... ;) > The range isn't the point, as I'm sure you're well aware. It's a question of making the name not be misleading about the return type. Of course I'm sure you're aware of this and just couldn't resist a snarky comment. KM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-26 03:00 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ob7opg$qgj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #56311 |
On 3/25/2017 10:00 PM, krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org wrote: > On Saturday, March 25, 2017 at 8:44:46 PM UTC-5, rickman wrote: >> On 3/25/2017 9:28 PM, krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org wrote: >>> On Saturday, March 25, 2017 at 1:20:38 PM UTC-5, krishna...@ccreweb.org wrote: >>>> >>>> MS ( u -- ) \ delay for u milliseconds (Standard Forth) >>>> MS@ ( -- u ) \ return elapsed time in milliseconds >>>> MS-D@ ( -- ud ) \ return elapsed time in ms as ud >>>> US ( u -- ) \ delay for u microseconds >>>> US-D@ ( -- ud ) \ return the time elapsed in microseconds >>>> >>> >>> Actually, I think I prefer MS2@ and US2@ instead of MS-D@ and US-D@. The D@ implies a signed number. >> >> Yes, you don't want to cut your range in half... ;) >> > > The range isn't the point, as I'm sure you're well aware. It's a question of making the name not be misleading about the return type. Of course I'm sure you're aware of this and just couldn't resist a snarky comment. Did you not see the smiley? Not intended to be snarky, realistic. My point is how would it ever matter if the return value is signed or unsigned? As unsigned it rolls over in half a million years. As signed it rolls over in 292,271.0230453 years to be exact. Who will ever know??? I'm just suggesting that this can be looked at realistically and the signed/unsigned is completely irrelevant. Call it a signed result and make the name nice and simple. I find the use of "US-D@" to be more clear and easier to remember. When I see a D used this way I know it is a double word. When I see a 2 used like this it can mean other things than the size of the data word. I think I also would have second thoughts about using the US part. I know it is common practice to use upper case in Forth name notation in documents even though they are case insensitive... whoops, some systems are case sensitive, aren't they? But since the U is not really a U but rather a short hand for the mu character which is normally done with a lower case 'u', I would notate this name as uS-D@ which is immediately more clear that we are talking about microseconds. "US" could be any of a number of things. BTW, trying to make a point with humor doesn't have to be taken as "snarky". I suggest you try to see people in a more positive light. -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-26 05:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e4e50c5a-8691-4281-88a7-97c2b467965e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #56322 |
On Sunday, March 26, 2017 at 2:00:50 AM UTC-5, rickman wrote: > On 3/25/2017 10:00 PM, krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org wrote: > > On Saturday, March 25, 2017 at 8:44:46 PM UTC-5, rickman wrote: > >> On 3/25/2017 9:28 PM, krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org wrote: > >>> On Saturday, March 25, 2017 at 1:20:38 PM UTC-5, krishna...@ccreweb.org wrote: > >>>> > >>>> MS ( u -- ) \ delay for u milliseconds (Standard Forth) > >>>> MS@ ( -- u ) \ return elapsed time in milliseconds > >>>> MS-D@ ( -- ud ) \ return elapsed time in ms as ud > >>>> US ( u -- ) \ delay for u microseconds > >>>> US-D@ ( -- ud ) \ return the time elapsed in microseconds > >>>> > >>> > >>> Actually, I think I prefer MS2@ and US2@ instead of MS-D@ and US-D@. The D@ implies a signed number. > >> > >> Yes, you don't want to cut your range in half... ;) > >> > > > > The range isn't the point, as I'm sure you're well aware. It's a question of making the name not be misleading about the return type. Of course I'm sure you're aware of this and just couldn't resist a snarky comment. > > Did you not see the smiley? Not intended to be snarky, realistic. My > point is how would it ever matter if the return value is signed or > unsigned? As unsigned it rolls over in half a million years. As signed > it rolls over in 292,271.0230453 years to be exact. Who will ever know??? > > I'm just suggesting that this can be looked at realistically and the > signed/unsigned is completely irrelevant. Call it a signed result and > make the name nice and simple. I find the use of "US-D@" to be more > clear and easier to remember. When I see a D used this way I know it is > a double word. When I see a 2 used like this it can mean other things > than the size of the data word. Ok, if you had made the argument that "D@" is preferable to "2@", then I would have not taken your comment as I did. > > I think I also would have second thoughts about using the US part. I > know it is common practice to use upper case in Forth name notation in > documents even though they are case insensitive... whoops, some systems > are case sensitive, aren't they? But since the U is not really a U but > rather a short hand for the mu character which is normally done with a > lower case 'u', I would notate this name as uS-D@ which is immediately > more clear that we are talking about microseconds. "US" could be any of > a number of things. > Agreed. I'm working with a case insensitive system, so us2@ is not distinct from US2@; however, your point is noted that I should document it as us2@ (really, the "s" should be lower case as well). > BTW, trying to make a point with humor doesn't have to be taken as > "snarky". I suggest you try to see people in a more positive light. Sometimes it's difficult to tell humor from snark in terse comments, but I'll note your suggestion. Krishna
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-27 18:10 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <obc2eh$4i4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #56341 |
On 3/26/2017 8:39 AM, krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org wrote: > On Sunday, March 26, 2017 at 2:00:50 AM UTC-5, rickman wrote: >> On 3/25/2017 10:00 PM, krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org wrote: >>> On Saturday, March 25, 2017 at 8:44:46 PM UTC-5, rickman wrote: >>>> On 3/25/2017 9:28 PM, krishna.myneni@ccreweb.org wrote: >>>>> On Saturday, March 25, 2017 at 1:20:38 PM UTC-5, krishna...@ccreweb.org wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> MS ( u -- ) \ delay for u milliseconds (Standard Forth) >>>>>> MS@ ( -- u ) \ return elapsed time in milliseconds >>>>>> MS-D@ ( -- ud ) \ return elapsed time in ms as ud >>>>>> US ( u -- ) \ delay for u microseconds >>>>>> US-D@ ( -- ud ) \ return the time elapsed in microseconds >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Actually, I think I prefer MS2@ and US2@ instead of MS-D@ and US-D@. The D@ implies a signed number. >>>> >>>> Yes, you don't want to cut your range in half... ;) >>>> >>> >>> The range isn't the point, as I'm sure you're well aware. It's a question of making the name not be misleading about the return type. Of course I'm sure you're aware of this and just couldn't resist a snarky comment. >> >> Did you not see the smiley? Not intended to be snarky, realistic. My >> point is how would it ever matter if the return value is signed or >> unsigned? As unsigned it rolls over in half a million years. As signed >> it rolls over in 292,271.0230453 years to be exact. Who will ever know??? >> >> I'm just suggesting that this can be looked at realistically and the >> signed/unsigned is completely irrelevant. Call it a signed result and >> make the name nice and simple. I find the use of "US-D@" to be more >> clear and easier to remember. When I see a D used this way I know it is >> a double word. When I see a 2 used like this it can mean other things >> than the size of the data word. > > Ok, if you had made the argument that "D@" is preferable to "2@", then I would have not taken your comment as I did. > >> >> I think I also would have second thoughts about using the US part. I >> know it is common practice to use upper case in Forth name notation in >> documents even though they are case insensitive... whoops, some systems >> are case sensitive, aren't they? But since the U is not really a U but >> rather a short hand for the mu character which is normally done with a >> lower case 'u', I would notate this name as uS-D@ which is immediately >> more clear that we are talking about microseconds. "US" could be any of >> a number of things. >> > > Agreed. I'm working with a case insensitive system, so us2@ is not distinct from US2@; however, your point is noted that I should document it as us2@ (really, the "s" should be lower case as well). > >> BTW, trying to make a point with humor doesn't have to be taken as >> "snarky". I suggest you try to see people in a more positive light. > > Sometimes it's difficult to tell humor from snark in terse comments, but I'll note your suggestion. I appreciate your understanding. Thanks. I will try harder to not sound sarcastic. -- Rick C
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.forth
csiph-web