Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.sinclair > #6 > unrolled thread

Re: Conversion of ISO Date-stamps into Weekday Numbers

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.sinclair

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: Conversion of ISO Date-stamps into Weekday Numbers Guesser <alistair@alistairsserver.no-ip.org> - 2011-03-29 19:38 +0100
    Re: Conversion of ISO Date-stamps into Weekday Numbers spike1@freenet.co.uk - 2011-03-29 22:26 +0100
      Re: Conversion of ISO Date-stamps into Weekday Numbers Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2011-03-30 10:57 +0100
        Re: Conversion of ISO Date-stamps into Weekday Numbers spike1@freenet.co.uk - 2011-03-30 18:50 +0100
          Re: Conversion of ISO Date-stamps into Weekday Numbers Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2011-03-30 19:27 +0100
            Re: Conversion of ISO Date-stamps into Weekday Numbers lachman@ebony.ppc.ubc.ca - 2011-03-31 05:18 +0000
              Re: Conversion of ISO Date-stamps into Weekday Numbers Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2011-03-31 10:55 +0100
                Re: Conversion of ISO Date-stamps into Weekday Numbers spike1@freenet.co.uk - 2011-03-31 17:10 +0100
                  Re: Conversion of ISO Date-stamps into Weekday Numbers Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2011-03-31 17:31 +0100
                Re: Conversion of ISO Date-stamps into Weekday Numbers lachman@ebony.ppc.ubc.ca (Milton Lachman) - 2011-04-01 16:24 +0000
                  Re: Conversion of ISO Date-stamps into Weekday Numbers Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2011-04-01 18:17 +0100
                    Re: Conversion of ISO Date-stamps into Weekday Numbers Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> - 2011-04-01 18:22 +0100
                    Re: Conversion of ISO Date-stamps into Weekday Numbers lachman@ebony.ppc.ubc.ca (Milton Lachman) - 2011-04-07 18:18 +0000
          Re: Conversion of ISO Date-stamps into Weekday Numbers lachman@ebony.ppc.ubc.ca (Milton Lachman) - 2011-03-30 23:00 +0000
            Re: Conversion of ISO Date-stamps into Weekday Numbers Guesser <alistair@alistairsserver.no-ip.org> - 2011-03-31 00:38 +0100
            Re: Conversion of ISO Date-stamps into Weekday Numbers lachman@ebony.ppc.ubc.ca (Milton Lachman) - 2011-04-12 18:08 +0000
    Re: Conversion of ISO Date-stamps into Weekday Numbers lachman@ebony.ppc.ubc.ca (Milton Lachman) - 2011-03-30 22:39 +0000

#6 — Re: Conversion of ISO Date-stamps into Weekday Numbers

On 29/03/2011 18:18, Milton Lachman wrote:
>
> 1. hijacking a thread explicitly for Sinclair BASIC ("ZX83" here)

however you try to spin it SuperBASIC is not "Sinclair ZX BASIC" as you 
originally posted.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#10

And verily, didst Guesser <alistair@alistairsserver.no-ip.org> hastily babble thusly:
> On 29/03/2011 18:18, Milton Lachman wrote:
>>
>> 1. hijacking a thread explicitly for Sinclair BASIC ("ZX83" here)
> 
> however you try to spin it SuperBASIC is not "Sinclair ZX BASIC" as you 
> originally posted.

Indeed. It's not really even recognisable as QL SuperBASIC either.
If it was, it'd've expanded the rems to REMarks.

-- 
|   spike1@freenet.co.uk   |                                                 |
|   Andrew Halliwell BSc   | "ARSE! GERLS!! DRINK! DRINK! DRINK!!!"          |
|            in            | "THAT WOULD BE AN ECUMENICAL MATTER!...FECK!!!! |
|     Computer Science     | - Father Jack in "Father Ted"                   |

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#12

spike1@freenet.co.uk writes:
> And verily, didst Guesser <alistair@alistairsserver.no-ip.org> hastily babble thusly:
>> On 29/03/2011 18:18, Milton Lachman wrote:
>>>
>>> 1. hijacking a thread explicitly for Sinclair BASIC ("ZX83" here)
>> 
>> however you try to spin it SuperBASIC is not "Sinclair ZX BASIC" as you 
>> originally posted.
>
> Indeed. It's not really even recognisable as QL SuperBASIC either.
> If it was, it'd've expanded the rems to REMarks.

Wouldn't 'DIV8' be parsed as a single identifier rather than 'DIV 8',
too?

(Did SuperBASIC even -have- DIV and MOD?  It's been years and while I
think I still have a QL manual, it's not to hand right now.)

-- 
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#106

And verily, didst Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> hastily babble thusly:
> spike1@freenet.co.uk writes:
>> And verily, didst Guesser <alistair@alistairsserver.no-ip.org> hastily babble thusly:
>>> On 29/03/2011 18:18, Milton Lachman wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 1. hijacking a thread explicitly for Sinclair BASIC ("ZX83" here)
>>> 
>>> however you try to spin it SuperBASIC is not "Sinclair ZX BASIC" as you 
>>> originally posted.
>>
>> Indeed. It's not really even recognisable as QL SuperBASIC either.
>> If it was, it'd've expanded the rems to REMarks.
> 
> Wouldn't 'DIV8' be parsed as a single identifier rather than 'DIV 8',
> too?
> 
> (Did SuperBASIC even -have- DIV and MOD?  It's been years and while I
> think I still have a QL manual, it's not to hand right now.)
> 
Has MOD iirc, but can't remember if it has DIV (which is pretty pointless
really as  INT(x/y) would do just as well.
-- 
|   spike1@freenet.co.uk   |   Windows95 (noun): 32 bit extensions and a    |
|                          | graphical shell for a 16 bit patch to an 8 bit |
|   Andrew Halliwell BSc   | operating system originally  coded for a 4 bit |
|            in            |microprocessor, written by a 2 bit company, that|
|     Computer Science     |        can't stand 1 bit of competition.       |

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#107

spike1@freenet.co.uk writes:
> And verily, didst Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> hastily babble thusly:
>> spike1@freenet.co.uk writes:

>>> Indeed. It's not really even recognisable as QL SuperBASIC either.
>>> If it was, it'd've expanded the rems to REMarks.
>> 
>> Wouldn't 'DIV8' be parsed as a single identifier rather than 'DIV 8',
>> too?
>> 
>> (Did SuperBASIC even -have- DIV and MOD?  It's been years and while I
>> think I still have a QL manual, it's not to hand right now.)
>> 
> Has MOD iirc, but can't remember if it has DIV (which is pretty pointless
> really as  INT(x/y) would do just as well.

Having dug out my manual, yes it did have DIV.  Still, I think 'DIV8'
without a space disqualifies it from being even being input to
SuperBASIC's parser.

-- 
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#113

>   From: Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk>
>>> Wouldn't 'DIV8' be parsed as a single identifier rather than 'DIV 8',
>>> too?
>>>
>>> (Did SuperBASIC even -have- DIV and MOD?  It's been years and while I
>>> think I still have a QL manual, it's not to hand right now.)
>
>Having dug out my manual, yes it did have DIV.  Still, I think 'DIV8'
>without a space disqualifies it from being even being input to
>SuperBASIC's parser.
>
 But I didn't write "DIV8" as an expression that would cause   
 the parser to expect an identifier, rather than an operator          
 followed by another operand. Besides, identifiers may not begin
 with numbers, parentheses etc.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#114

lachman@ebony.ppc.ubc.ca writes:

>>>> Wouldn't 'DIV8' be parsed as a single identifier rather than 'DIV 8',
>>>> too?
>>>>
>>>> (Did SuperBASIC even -have- DIV and MOD?  It's been years and while I
>>>> think I still have a QL manual, it's not to hand right now.)
>>
>> Having dug out my manual, yes it did have DIV.  Still, I think 'DIV8'
>> without a space disqualifies it from being even being input to
>> SuperBASIC's parser.
>
>  But I didn't write "DIV8" as an expression that would cause   
>  the parser to expect an identifier, rather than an operator          
>  followed by another operand. Besides, identifiers may not begin
>  with numbers, parentheses etc.

The SuperBASIC parser does not work the way you apparently think it
does.  "DIV8" is a variable name, "DIV 8" is an operator followed by an
integer, and the expression context does not alter this.

I've just checked this in an emulator.  I'd have used a real QL but
sadly one of mine won't boot at all and the other has too many dead keys
to be usable (I think the ribbon cable got damaged last time it was
open).

-- 
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#115

And verily, didst Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> hastily babble thusly:
> I've just checked this in an emulator.  I'd have used a real QL but
> sadly one of mine won't boot at all and the other has too many dead keys
> to be usable (I think the ribbon cable got damaged last time it was
> open).
> 
Y'could perform a membrane transplant, remove the one from the dead QL and
place it in the working one...

OR get a new membrane from RWAP. They last a lot longer than the original
sinclair ones, better materials.
-- 
|   spike1@freenet.co,uk   | "Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?"   |
|   Andrew Halliwell BSc   |                                                 |
|            in            | "I think so brain, but this time, you control   |
|     Computer Science     |  the Encounter suit, and I'll do the voice..."  |

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#117

spike1@freenet.co.uk writes:
> And verily, didst Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> hastily babble thusly:

>> I've just checked this in an emulator.  I'd have used a real QL but
>> sadly one of mine won't boot at all and the other has too many dead keys
>> to be usable (I think the ribbon cable got damaged last time it was
>> open).

In fact on further inspection the visibly broken connector is in the one
that won't boot anyway.

> Y'could perform a membrane transplant, remove the one from the dead QL and
> place it in the working one...

Maybe one day l-)

> OR get a new membrane from RWAP. They last a lot longer than the original
> sinclair ones, better materials.

-- 
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#119

   From: Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk>
>lachman@ebony.ppc.ubc.ca writes:
>
>>  But I didn't write "DIV8" as an expression that would cause
>>  the parser to expect an identifier, rather than an operator
>>  followed by another operand. Besides, identifiers may not begin
>>  with numbers, parentheses etc.
>
>The SuperBASIC parser does not work the way you apparently think it
>does.  "DIV8" is a variable name, "DIV 8" is an operator followed by an
>integer, and the expression context does not alter this.
>

So what is it about DIV such that "9DIV8" won't be an operation while 
"2TO3" is?  Might this work on Minerva's superBASIC instead?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#120

lachman@ebony.ppc.ubc.ca (Milton Lachman) writes:
> Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> writes:
>> lachman@ebony.ppc.ubc.ca writes:

>>>  But I didn't write "DIV8" as an expression that would cause
>>>  the parser to expect an identifier, rather than an operator
>>>  followed by another operand. Besides, identifiers may not begin
>>>  with numbers, parentheses etc.
>>
>> The SuperBASIC parser does not work the way you apparently think it
>> does.  "DIV8" is a variable name, "DIV 8" is an operator followed by
>> an integer, and the expression context does not alter this.
>
> So what is it about DIV such that "9DIV8" won't be an operation while 
> "2TO3" is?  Might this work on Minerva's superBASIC instead?

There is no difference.  "2TO3" parses as integer 2 followed by
identifier TO3, exactly as "9DIV8" parses as integer 9 followed by
identifier DIV8.

You will find the code at 8706 in the JS (if the disassembly I have to
hand is accurate) or pa_chnlt in Minerva.  It looks for anything that
could possibly be an identifier, it doesn't stop just because it happens
to match a keyword and it doesn't take surrounding context into account.

-- 
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#121

Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> writes:

> You will find the code at 8706 in the JS (if the disassembly I have to

"in the JS ROM"

> hand is accurate) or pa_chnlt in Minerva.  It looks for anything that
> could possibly be an identifier, it doesn't stop just because it happens
> to match a keyword and it doesn't take surrounding context into account.

-- 
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#142

>   From: Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk>
>lachman@ebony.ppc.ubc.ca (Milton Lachman) writes:
>> So what is it about DIV such that "9DIV8" won't be an operation while
>> "2TO3" is?  Might this work on Minerva's superBASIC instead?
>
>There is no difference.  "2TO3" parses as integer 2 followed by
>identifier TO3, exactly as "9DIV8" parses as integer 9 followed by
>identifier DIV8.
>
>You will find the code at 8706 in the JS (if the disassembly I have to
>hand is accurate) or pa_chnlt in Minerva.  It looks for anything that
>could possibly be an identifier, it doesn't stop just because it happens
>to match a keyword and it doesn't take surrounding context into account.

 It's ironic that the QL doesn't do so, while the ZX machines did, esp.
 as it must go through a list of operators in order of precedence. So
 I'll post a revision of the routine, and make it more recognisable as 
 superBASIC. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#110

>   From: spike1@freenet.co.uk
>And verily, didst Richard Kettlewell <rjk@greenend.org.uk> hastily babble thusly:
>> spike1@freenet.co.uk writes:
>>> And verily, didst Guesser <alistair@alistairsserver.no-ip.org> hastily babble thusly
>>>> however you try to spin it SuperBASIC is not "Sinclair ZX BASIC" as you
>>>> originally posted.

The original post said superBASIC, while the revision said Sinclair BASIC.

>>>
>>> Indeed. It's not really even recognisable as QL SuperBASIC either.
>>> If it was, it'd've expanded the rems to REMarks.

DESPERATELY TRYING TO GET ABOVE 1 on the Troll Richter Scale, eh?

>> (Did SuperBASIC even -have- DIV and MOD?  It's been years and while I
>> think I still have a QL manual, it's not to hand right now.)
>>
>Has MOD iirc, but can't remember if it has DIV (which is pretty pointless
>really as  INT(x/y) would do just as well.

It's not pointless, since x/y would be evaluated as FP. DIV is faster.
I'd have used Hans' constants for a FP method.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#111

On 31/03/2011 00:00, Milton Lachman wrote:
> The original post said superBASIC, while the revision said Sinclair BASIC


On 15/03/2011 10:26, Milton Lachman wrote:
> Sinclair ZX BASIC

The first post to this group that I see...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#154

>   From: lachman@ebony.ppc.ubc.ca (Milton Lachman)
>>> spike1@freenet.co.uk writes:
>>Has MOD iirc, but can't remember if it has DIV (which is pretty pointless
>>really as  INT(x/y) would do just as well.

Seeing how you have clock cycles to burn, why even bother w/INT when
you can precalculate the 1st term as temp%=s$/40000, and thereby obviate the
2nd INT as well?

otherwise...
>It's not pointless, since x/y would be evaluated as FP. DIV is faster.
>I'd have used Hans' constants for a FP method.

But due to the dynamic resizing of string variables, I'd still have to
append a "1" before 93.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#124

>   From: Guesser <alistair@alistairsserver.no-ip.org>
>On 29/03/2011 18:18, Milton Lachman wrote:
>> 1. hijacking a thread explicitly for Sinclair BASIC
>
>however you try to spin it SuperBASIC is not "Sinclair ZX BASIC" as you
>originally posted.

The original post was explicit that it was in superBASIC, while the
followup said "Sinclair BASIC". superBASIC qualifies as Sinclair BASIC.
I've been posting here since the 1990s about the QL.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.sinclair

csiph-web