|
Development team answer:
This is not a bug. All key values must be uppercase.
We are simplifying the application so services and Services are no more supported, avoiding further errors.
In fact, the check is now:
If len(vkeys[lval, 0]) = 8 and Mid(lvkeys[lval, 0], 0, 1) = "S" and Mid(lvkeys[lval, 0], 1, 1) = "E" ... and so on.
(Note, I started to write this at the same time of the last post... I think our development team is having problems of communication... who the hell tought we must support other keywords??  ).
|
|
|
|
|
This is an excerpt from some sample code provided in the documentation for an EFT interface
decimal divider;
divider = 10*10*10;
divider = Decimal.Multiply(divider,10*10*10*10*10);
divider = Decimal.Multiply(divider,10*10*10*10*10);
divider = Decimal.Multiply(divider,10*10*10*10*10);
Blows my mind 
|
|
|
|
|
Never mind casting - at least he didn't use a loop:
decimal tenE18 = 1;
for (int i = 0; i < 18; i++)
{
tenE18 *= 10;
}
Still, I think I will stick to the old-fashioned, boring way:
decimal d = 1E18M;
[edit]Got the number of zeros wrong, didn't I? Oops.[/edit]You should never use standby on an elephant. It always crashes when you lift the ears. - Mark Wallace
C/C++ (I dont see a huge difference between them, and the 'benefits' of C++ are questionable, who needs inheritance when you have copy and paste) - fat_boy
modified on Wednesday, March 3, 2010 11:21 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
 test your code - it saves processing time, but raises debug time - if you are able to compile it 
|
|
|
|
|
it might have a syntax error but you can do it this way.. you can refer algorithm by corman... n compare to given algo
for (int i = 0; i < 18; i++)
{
tenE18 *= 10;
}
this one will run for 18times.. for debuging also you have to go through this loop 18 times... then how can you say algo i gave takes more time to debug.. complexity of given algo is O(n) and complexity of algo i gave is O(lg(n))....modified on Wednesday, March 3, 2010 10:37 PM
|
|
|
|
|
chevu wrote: how can you say algo i gave takes more time to debug.. complexity of given algo is O(n)
O(n) and O(lg(n)) apply to execution time, not debugging time.
There are no formulas for debugging time; it depends on number of statements, decision points, readability of code, and initial number of bugs. Your code has more than 5 bugs, it will take you lots of time to find all of them. I suggest you try and fix and run it until the result is correct.
|
|
|
|
|
thank you for answering to chevu - he didn't get the hint - "debug time" ![Rose | [Rose]](https://www.codeproject.com/script/Forums/Images/rose.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
that is completely wrong in many ways. did you try a simple example, say pow=1?
|
|
|
|
|
Is that an attempt at binary exponentiation?
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: Still, I think I will stick to the old-fashioned, boring way:
decimal d = 10E18M;
decimal bigNumber = 1000000000000000000M;
This makes the old-fashioned way more exciting I have no smart signature yet...
|
|
|
|
|
using System;
namespace DecimalTest
{
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
decimal bigNumber = 1000000000000000000M;
decimal bigNumber2 = 10E18M;
Console.WriteLine("Is {0} the same as {1}?", bigNumber, bigNumber2);
if (bigNumber == bigNumber2)
Console.WriteLine("WTF???");
else
Console.WriteLine("No - Maths saved!");
Console.ReadKey();
}
}
}
|
|
|
|
|
run your code -> how many digits do you count?
|
|
|
|
|
| I did - and checked they gave the same results before I posted it. You should never use standby on an elephant. It always crashes when you lift the ears. - Mark Wallace
C/C++ (I dont see a huge difference between them, and the 'benefits' of C++ are questionable, who needs inheritance when you have copy and paste) - fat_boy
|
|
|
|
|
lol - same results...
Check it:
using System;
namespace DecimalTest
{
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
decimal divider;
divider = 10*10*10;
divider = Decimal.Multiply(divider,10*10*10*10*10);
divider = Decimal.Multiply(divider,10*10*10*10*10);
divider = Decimal.Multiply(divider,10*10*10*10*10);
Console.WriteLine(divider);
decimal tenE18 = 10;
for (int i = 0; i < 18; i++)
tenE18 *= 10;
Console.WriteLine(tenE18);
Console.WriteLine(10E18M);
Console.WriteLine(String.Format("{0:N}", Math.Pow(10d, 18d)));
Console.ReadKey();
}
}
}
who invented those nasty zero!?!
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, I checked my results matched! 
I didn't check his!
Oops.You should never use standby on an elephant. It always crashes when you lift the ears. - Mark Wallace
C/C++ (I dont see a huge difference between them, and the 'benefits' of C++ are questionable, who needs inheritance when you have copy and paste) - fat_boy
|
|
|
|
|
yea - it was even hard for me to check his crazy code - lol. There is some resistence to execute such a thing -
|
|
|
|
|
|
chevu wrote: This one is correct code
wrong again:
1. the result for pow=18 is wrong.
2. pow=5 and pow=6 give the same result???
I think you have abundantly proven now that your code has high debugging complexity.
|
|
|
|
|
sorry dude... i had really forget to check till 18... coz of odd even cases that code will fail...
I knw you people are getting irritated by now, but you can check this code
double pow(long long a, long long b)
{
if(b == 0)
return 1.0;
else if(b == 1)
return a;
else if(b%2 == 0)
return pow(a*a,b/2);
else
return a* pow(a*a,b/2);
}
i have tested this code upto long long limits...
|
|
|
|
|
Recursive functions brings color in life  I have no smart signature yet...
|
|
|
|
|
chevu wrote: long long a
If I were a canadian, thats how I would describe this thread.modified on Thursday, March 4, 2010 8:11 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
Erm, a half-assed joke, you douche.
|
|
|
|
|
Here's how:
static decimal pow(decimal x, uint n)
{
decimal result = 1;
while (n > 0)
{
if ((n & 1) == 1)
{
result *= x;
}
n >>= 1;
if (n == 0)
break;
x *= x;
}
return result;
}
Good luck!
ok so it's not the best possible code, I just hacked it together, but it works (tested)modified on Friday, March 5, 2010 11:40 AM
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
