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

Groups > comp.sys.sinclair > #112 > 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 lachman@ebony.ppc.ubc.ca (Milton Lachman) - 2011-03-31 05:14 +0000
    Re: Conversion of ISO Date-stamps into Weekday Numbers spike1@freenet.co.uk - 2011-03-31 17:13 +0100
      Re: Conversion of ISO Date-stamps into Weekday Numbers lachman@ebony.ppc.ubc.ca (Milton Lachman) - 2011-04-01 16:06 +0000
        Re: Conversion of ISO Date-stamps into Weekday Numbers spike1@freenet.co.uk - 2011-04-01 20:52 +0100
          Re: Conversion of ISO Date-stamps into Weekday Numbers lachman@ebony.ppc.ubc.ca (Milton Lachman) - 2011-04-07 18:04 +0000

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

>   From: Guesser <alistair@alistairsserver.no-ip.org>
>On 31/03/2011 00:00, Milton Lachman wrote:
>> The original post said superBASIC, while the revision said Sinclair BASIC
>
>
>> Sinclair ZX BASIC
>

How difficult is it to look up the original post on google and
quote me properly as saying 

"the Sinclair BASIC subroutine below"
"superBASIC"
"this method is designed to run superbly as a stand-alone subroutine"
"succeeds where other Methods do not when computing the 
 day of the week even on lowly Sinclair ZX BASIC"

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#116

And verily, didst Milton Lachman <lachman@ebony.ppc.ubc.ca> hastily babble thusly:
>>   From: Guesser <alistair@alistairsserver.no-ip.org>
>>On 31/03/2011 00:00, Milton Lachman wrote:
>>> The original post said superBASIC, while the revision said Sinclair BASIC
>>
>>
>>> Sinclair ZX BASIC
>>
> 
> How difficult is it to look up the original post on google and
> quote me properly as saying 
> 
> "the Sinclair BASIC subroutine below"
> "superBASIC"
> "this method is designed to run superbly as a stand-alone subroutine"
> "succeeds where other Methods do not when computing the 
> day of the week even on lowly Sinclair ZX BASIC"

Direct quote from the original article. (no need for google if you use a
decent newsreader/caching server combo)
------------------ begin quote -------------------
Although using a processor more sophisticated than found on four-function
 calculators, this method is simpler to execute than Hans' original Method
 of Congruence needing manipulation of data by numerically competent users.
 It succeeds where other Methods do not when computing the day of the week
 even on lowly Sinclair ZX BASIC: having no need of extra instructions for
 data stored in tables as in Babwani's Method nor for redundant operations
 as in Zeller's or Tondering's--nor even a C compiler running on a bloated
 development system as in Mike Keith's-- yet doing more in under 12 lines.

 

-- 
|   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]

#118

   From: spike1@freenet.co.uk
>Direct quote from the original article. (no need for google if you use a
>decent newsreader/caching server combo)
>And verily, didst Milton Lachman <lachman@ebony.ppc.ubc.ca> hastily babble thusly:
>------------------ begin quote -------------------
>Although using a processor more sophisticated than found on four-function
> calculators, this method is simpler to execute than Hans' original Method
> of Congruence needing manipulation of data by numerically competent users.
> It succeeds where other Methods do not when computing the day of the week
> even on lowly Sinclair ZX BASIC: having no need of extra instructions for
> data stored in tables as in Babwani's Method nor for redundant operations
> as in Zeller's or Tondering's--nor even a C compiler running on a bloated
> development system as in Mike Keith's-- yet doing more in under 12 lines.

 Even if you didn't read the very 1st post, it is clearly stated in
 the revision that my method, designed for data in the form of string
 variables, would succeed "even on lowly Sinclair ZX BASIC."  EVEN is
 an adverb used in comparisons: in this case any said BASIC that can
 use sliced strings as integer arguments, is just being *compared* to
 something else; here something else has to be superBASIC, whose parser
 is the QL's CLI, so making it 'the "most" basic of computer' on which
 the subroutine is to run, as stated in the 1st paragraph.

 Otherwise, I've been posting about the QL here since the 1st half of
 the 1990s, and on comp.sys.m68k recently, so Guesser was misconstruing 
 sarcasm as spin.

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

#122

And verily, didst Milton Lachman <lachman@ebony.ppc.ubc.ca> hastily babble thusly:
> Otherwise, I've been posting about the QL here since the 1st half of
> the 1990s, and on comp.sys.m68k recently, so Guesser was misconstruing 
> sarcasm as spin.

You've been posting here that long?
Then why don't I recognise the name? I've been posting here that long.
What name were you posting under? 

-- 
|   spike1@freenet.co.uk   | "I'm alive!!! I can touch! I can taste!         |
|   Andrew Halliwell BSc   |  I can SMELL!!!  KRYTEN!!! Unpack Rachel and    |
|            in            |  get out the puncture repair kit!"              |
|     Computer Science     |     Arnold Judas Rimmer- Red Dwarf              |

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

#141

>   From: spike1@freenet.co.uk
>And verily, didst Milton Lachman <lachman@ebony.ppc.ubc.ca> hastily babble thusly:
>> Otherwise, I've been posting about the QL here since the 1st half of
>> the 1990s, and on comp.sys.m68k recently, so Guesser was misconstruing
>> sarcasm as spin.
>
>You've been posting here that long?
>Then why don't I recognise the name? I've been posting here that long.
>What name were you posting under?

The same name and/or email address as now. 

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

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

csiph-web