|
Is the watch made by the same company as your car?
|
|
|
|
|
Nope, the watch is Seiko (Japanese), the cars are Mercedes (German)
Gawd that sounds pretentious - I have two Mercedes because I'm selling one of them, when the weather gets to the point that it's worth valeting it for photos ...
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
To own one Mercedes is unfortunate; to own two is...
- I would love to change the world, but they wonβt give me the source code.
|
|
|
|
|
How's shiny new box [and nailbiting] coming on?
"If we don't change direction, we'll end up where we're going"
|
|
|
|
|
I've got everything but the mobo (arrives monday) and system drive (arrives the following wednesday)
Then I will do a dry run - placing the cooler on the cpu without paste, just to see if everything fits in the chassis. Gosh I hope it does.
The CPU cooler is huge. The little chip is so small in comparison.
I also think it's funny that both my system drive and my mobo were each more expensive than my CPU. Times have changed. The CPU isn't a slouch - it's an i5 but it ranks 6th at userbenchmark.com, and is routinely classed in with intel i9s in terms of speed rankings.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the CPU is most likely homemade, but the MB is imported. This definitely adds to the price difference. Also, modern MB do some cool stuff - NVMe interface for example.
There is only one Vera Farmiga and Salma Hayek is her prophet!
Advertise here β minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah and this motherboard is a demon. It's got 3 NVMe PCIe 4.0 slots, supports RAID onboard, automatic overclocking, DDR5-6000, and PCIe 5.0. It's only real downside at this point is lack of USB 4.0, all in mATX form factor. It's the only mATX board I could find that was DDR5 and performance oriented from a vendor I'd buy from.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
|
|
|
|
|
Disclaimer: You get to be my rubber ducks. This isn't a coding question. It's a vent.
I'm banging my head against a problem that seems simple until I try to do it.
Often times devices have little buttons on them - maybe one or two to accompany a screen so you have to make the buttons multifunction - click to do one thing, double click to do something else, or hold it down (long click) to do yet another thing.
To that end I'm writing a bit of software that can connect to a little button circuit and give you notifications when the button is clicked, double clicked, or "long" clicked.
It's brutal. Click is fine, but the other two are fighting with each other - I get double click working, and then long click stops working. Or I get long click working and double click starts firing along with click. It's nonsense.
The logic is complicated to the point where I'm half convinced I'm Doing It Wrong(TM).
Something so seemingly simple, and it's one of the more challenging coding prospects I've had in a minute.
I've gone through several iterations, but getting the bugs out is like pushing a bubble out of a waterbed.
I would just use existing code, but I have an ecosystem I'm trying to build on, and this is such a basic function I don't want a 3rd party dependency to creep into virtually all my projects and potentially complicate licensing for something so ... simple? Or I thought it was. The other thing is, the code I've seen out there is far too ATAP and gold plated. It's too much. Firmware space is important. It seemed a worthwhile endeavor but now I'm not so sure. 
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
|
|
|
|
|
Smells like a debounce issue. Try having a debounce for validating the key press, a timer for the long press and a minumim timer (under debounce) for the pause between the clicks to validate the double click. Maybe add a down time (under debounce) to reset the entire state machine.
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
|
|
|
|
|
It's not a debounce issue, and I already debounce. It's a logic issue. The double click or long press each work by themselves, but no matter what when I try to combine the two (which use two different pseudo-"timers") it horks it up one way or another.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe you simply forgot to clear the other timer when one of the two events fires? When the double click is validated, long click should be zeroed too, and viceversa. And if managed by a state machine it shold return to the starting position until a change in input happens (to not have a looooooooong click registering as multiple events).
Sorry if I suggest things you already done, I'm tackling the same way I would do if I had the same issue.
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
|
|
|
|
|
I didn't break it out to a state machine ... yet. I was hoping to avoid that. It is a matter of not clearing the right things when or otherwise two things interfering. The original one works except click and double click both fire on double click. *sob*. fixing that seems easy, but fixing it breaks everything else. I'll get it eventually.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
|
|
|
|
|
Click and double click *always* fire together on a double click, even on Windows. I had my share of issues in VB6 to manage a custom control that took click, double click and long (continuous) press. You have to filter them out manually delaying the response to click for a set down time.
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
|
|
|
|
|
Oh yeah, I realize that. I can get click and double click to work fine, until I add long click into the mix, and vice versa. 
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
|
|
|
|
|
Have you tried bracing your single-line if-statements? 
|
|
|
|
|
in C++ I pretty much always do unless I've forgotten myself.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
|
|
|
|
|
My gods, the Hell I went through for those.
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
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: bracing your single-line if
Wow, are you some kind of guru?
"If we don't change direction, we'll end up where we're going"
|
|
|
|
|
You know, there is a 'button release' that makes the difference between a double click and a long press. 
"In testa che avete, Signor di Ceprano?"
-- Rigoletto
|
|
|
|
|
Have you studied your Agrippa?
|
|
|
|
|
Just drag and drop another button. Isn't that obvious? 
In a more serious note, I would create easy to change variables for long click duration and double click interval and mindlessly play with changing the values. Mybe the issue is not your logic but the verry tight margins.
There is only one Vera Farmiga and Salma Hayek is her prophet!
Advertise here β minimum three posts per day are guaranteed.
modified 7-Dec-22 13:02pm.
|
|
|
|
|
I finally fixed it but i couldn't tell you exactly how.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: I finally fixed it but i couldn't tell you exactly how.
I don't know what I'm doing, but I'm doing it perfect 
|
|
|
|
|
Who am I to argue with the compiler and the CPU? *shrug*
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 536 5/6
π¨β¬β¬π¨β¬
β¬π©β¬π©π©
β¬π©β¬π©π©
β¬π©β¬π©π©
π©π©π©π©π©
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
