|
Wordle 569 X/6
β¬β¬π¨π¨β¬
π©π©π¨β¬β¬
π©π©β¬β¬π©
π©π©β¬β¬π©
π©π©β¬β¬β¬
π©π©β¬β¬β¬
Lost today. I was under the impression that this was a proper noun.
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 569 5/6
π¨β¬β¬β¬β¬
π©π©β¬β¬β¬
π©π©β¬π¨β¬
β¬β¬β¬β¬β¬
π©π©π©π©π©
Given my favourite literary genre I should have gotten it in 4 at maximum.
GCS/GE d--(d) s-/+ a C+++ U+++ P-- L+@ E-- W+++ N+ o+ K- w+++ O? M-- V? PS+ PE Y+ PGP t+ 5? X R+++ tv-- b+(+++) DI+++ D++ G e++ h--- r+++ y+++* Weapons extension: ma- k++ F+2 X
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 569 4/6
β¬β¬π¨β¬β¬
β¬β¬π¨β¬π©
π©β¬β¬β¬π©
π©π©π©π©π©
I've been beating these a lot in the last two weeks (been playing Atelier Ryza in my Holiday)
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 569 4/6
β¬β¬β¬β¬π©
β¬β¬π¨π¨π©
β¬π©β¬β¬π©
π©π©π©π©π©
Get me coffee and no one gets hurt!
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 569 6/6
β¬β¬β¬β¬π©
π©β¬β¬β¬π©
π©β¬π¨β¬π©
π©π©β¬β¬π©
π©π©β¬β¬π©
π©π©π©π©π©
I have a cat with this name so should have tried it sooner!
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 569 4/6*
β¬π¨β¬β¬β¬
π¨β¬π¨β¬β¬
β¬π¨π¨β¬π©
π©π©π©π©π©
Happiness will never come to those who fail to appreciate what they already have. -Anon
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 569 3/6*
β¬β¬π¨β¬β¬
π©β¬π¨β¬π©
π©π©π©π©π©
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 569 5/6
β¬β¬β¬β¬β¬
β¬β¬β¬β¬π©
β¬β¬π¨β¬π©
β¬β¬β¬π©π©
π©π©π©π©π©
tough
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day"
Badfinger
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tiny!
If you can't laugh at yourself - ask me and I will do it for you.
|
|
|
|
|
I was thinking warm
Hogan
|
|
|
|
|
Socks short for Windows sockets I think
|
|
|
|
|
This is definitely a Software Engineer's (or just Engineer's) joke, because we take everything for exactly what you say. Nothing less, nothing more.
+5 Software Engineering points for this joke.
|
|
|
|
|
what is this place? I'm new here and I don't know what to do.
|
|
|
|
|
Cowboys used to hang lanterns from their saddles at night to help them find their way home.
This is the earliest example of saddle light navigation on record!
π₯Όπͺ
If you can't laugh at yourself - ask me and I will do it for you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
good one.
"A little time, a little trouble, your better day"
Badfinger
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes it was. Arenβt most of them?
If you can't laugh at yourself - ask me and I will do it for you.
|
|
|
|
|
DRHuff wrote: Yes it was.
By me. M'colleagues enjoyed it....
|
|
|
|
|
For the non-native speakers like me, in American English "satellite" is pronounced with "tuh" or "d". Same as in "better" -> "bedder".
Advertise here β minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
|
|
|
|
|
I was just thinking about this today when I was retooling my IoT button library.
I use template-instance statics to get around not being able to pass an argument to an interrupt routine (which must be void () ) under the Arduino framework
template<uint8_t Pin>
class button {
static button* m_this;
static IRAM_ATTR void isr() { m_this->... }
};
...
like that.
It's really useful but it makes me kinda wanna puke too, even though there's absolutely nothing wrong with it, technically speaking, since it doesn't make sense to have two buttons on one pin anyway, and you're not dealing in a pre-emptively threaded environment in 80% of all cases on 80% of all platforms.
Template-instance statics (i don't know what else to call them) are something I have to rely on way more than I wish I had to, but I am glad they are there.
What's your go to coding technique that nevertheless makes you uncomfortable?
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
|
|
|
|
|
I had a number of buttons on my Arduino project that needed to do similar (but slightly different) things.
I had all this code to handle the button debouncing.
So then I discovered a nice way to pass a pointer to a function (button press handler) so that the code was the same no matter which button was pressed, but the specific function for the correct button is called.
And, all the debouncing for each button is wrapped up nicely.
typedef void (*ButtonPressHandler) (void);
void checkButton(const int BUTTON, bool &last, bool ¤t, ButtonPressHandler handler ){
current = debounce(last, BUTTON); if (last == LOW && current == HIGH) {
handler();
}
last = current; }
boolean debounce(boolean last, int button)
{
boolean current = digitalRead(button); if (last != current) {
delay(5); current = digitalRead(button); }
return current; }
Now you just call it with whichever button is pressed so it can all be handled:
checkButton(ROOM_BTN,roomBtnPrev,roomBtnCurrent,checkChangeRoomButton);
checkButton(DATA_BTN, dataBtnPrev, dataBtnCurrent, checkWriteDataButton);
Now they are both handled the same way and all the debouncing is wrapped up.
What do you think?
|
|
|
|
|
I think I need more coffee, because I don't get it yet. I will look again when my eyes are focusing properly. For some reason it's a lot easier to look at my own code in the morning than other people's. I didn't think about that when I wrote my OP.
Edit: Okay, I get it. That's interesting. It's an approach I'd be more inclined to take in C. That's part of why I didn't grok it at first, because I was expecting something kinda C++ish.
That works great for buttons, but less so with more complicated widgets, like display drivers, because then you run into having an entire API of "callbacks" you have to source.
I'd certainly adopt this approach in a C project. With C++ I tend to prefer to encapsulate things to a containing class, but then that invites all the complication that comes with it, of course.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, it's a simple thing that makes it so:
1. Debouncing is handled for all buttons in one place.
2. The specific functionality for the button is run.
Otherwise you have button debouncing code all over the place.
It definitely cleans it up. And, yes, C++ could do this a bit cleaner via encapsulation (in it's own class) but I find that Arduino C++ is more like a hybrid of C & C++ because C++ class overhead does use some memory so there are places in Arduino where you often do more C-like and other places where you may do more C++-like (include classes).
|
|
|
|