[NSRCA-discussion] Chapter-12 computer science.
Ed Alt
ed_alt at hotmail.com
Tue Jul 3 00:02:28 AKDT 2007
Matt:
If you want to, you can initialize as many variables as you like in the FOR
statement. It doesn't necessarily make it very readable though. As for the
memory used, those variables are allocated on the stack since they are local
to the function, so once it returns, that memory is available again.
Anyway, I don't think it was an exercise in programming style or efficiency,
it seems like it was more like can someone tell what it will do. You
passed. Back to model airplane stuff...
Ed
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matthew Frederick" <mjfrederick at cox.net>
To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 10:34 PM
Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Chapter-12 computer science.
> John,
> What language is that for? C/C++? I don't think that function would work
> because doing math with a data type char provides unpredictable results.
> It
> looks like a function that would return the number 255 to the function
> that
> called it, but I would have written it like this:
> int foo(void){
> int num;
> for(num = 0; cnt < 255; num++){
> }
> return num;
> }
>
> Or better yet:
> int foo(void){
> return 255;
> }
>
> Or even better yet, if you know the number that will always be returned,
> just make it a global constant and be done with it... Also I've never
> intialized 2 variables in a FOR statement before. Didn't know it was
> possible, and not quite sure I would ever need to. If the language shown
> was
> not C/C++, then maybe in that language you can in fact do math with data
> type char, but why would you store numbers as text? It takes far more
> space
> to store them. Keep in mind, I haven't done actual programming in a couple
> of years so I am a little rusty (I don't consider working with access
> databases and excel to be programming although some knowledge is helpful).
>
> Matt
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Pavlick" <jpavlick at idseng.com>
> To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
> Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 9:16 PM
> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Chapter-12 computer science.
>
>
>> OK, what does this do?
>>
>> char foo(void)
>> {
>> char cnt, num;
>>
>> for(cnt = 0, num = 0; cnt < 256; cnt++)
>> {
>> num++;
>> }
>> return num;
>> }
>>
>> John Pavlick
>> http://www.idseng.com
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Matthew Frederick" <mjfrederick at cox.net>
>> To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>> Sent: Sunday, July 01, 2007 4:22 AM
>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Chapter-5 Going too far.
>>
>>
>>> I'd like to see the code myself... I've got quite a bit of Computer
>>> Science
>>> training.
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Fred Huber" <fhhuber at clearwire.net>
>>> To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 3:23 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Chapter-5 Going too far.
>>>
>>>
>>>> What computer language was the program written in?
>>>>
>>>> Send me the source code.
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "W. Hinkle" <whinkle1024 at msn.com>
>>>> To: <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 26, 2007 10:25 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Chapter-5 Going too far.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Dave is a good pilot but character being beyond reproach is a bit of a
>>>>> stretch. Ask John Glizellis about when Dave shot him down and haggled
>>>>> over
>>>>> the price. This was to replace a brand new model with less than 30
>>>>> flights
>>>>> on it at the NATS. The incident was at the NATS during practice at the
>>>>> AMA
>>>>> field. We all make mistakes, but to penny pinch the guy that just cost
>>>>> his
>>>>> new model part way through the Nationals. JR had to step in and forced
>>>>> the
>>>>> hand. If it had not been for Dave the sponsorship threat Dave would
>>>>> still
>>>>> be
>>>>> argueing the price of a new built model. Dave replaced it after some
>>>>> debate
>>>>> with JR. This is not character beyond reproach? Dave may be a good guy
>>>>> just
>>>>> don't be on the same freq. He'll tell how poor your model is built and
>>>>> its
>>>>> not worth the price of a professional built kit.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'll agree that both parties in this fight are not angels. I'm not a
>>>>> fan
>>>>> or
>>>>> Eric's but my question to this forum
>>>>>
>>>>> Why is the NSRCA involved at all?
>>>>>
>>>>> Doesn't the NSRCA have better things to do with its time and energy
>>>>> than
>>>>> lynching a judge at the request of a couple pilots that have character
>>>>> beyond reproach?
>>>>>
>>>>> I feel this is another sign of the NSRCA just wasting resources, time
>>>>> and
>>>>> money in the name of being the Savior of pattern flying. Beware people
>>>>> beware. Come on. Getting two of Dave's best buddies in D1 to write a
>>>>> program
>>>>> to damn a person that they and David hate with a passion. To me is
>>>>> smells
>>>>> like old shellfish. These were the same judges who claimed in the past
>>>>> the
>>>>> judge that gave the zero was the one that got it right.
>>>>>
>>>>> The NSRCA has no business in this arena. I find it appalling the Board
>>>>> even
>>>>> had this on the agenda. I also find it appalling that a ruling was
>>>>> made,
>>>>> then Eric was notified of the charges and the conviction. As Eric
>>>>> stated,
>>>>> no
>>>>> statistics can determine what the judge actually saw or better yet
>>>>> what
>>>>> the
>>>>> pilot actually flew. So Eric's scores were below the average for a
>>>>> given
>>>>> pilot. Maybe the pilot flew below average in Eric's eyes. This is why
>>>>> the
>>>>> NATS uses more than one judge. This is a fact of life. This looks very
>>>>> one
>>>>> sided by the NSRCA.
>>>>>
>>>>> The NSRCA has no place in this squabble.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>From: "John Pavlick" <jpavlick at idseng.com>
>>>>>>Reply-To: NSRCA Mailing List <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>>>>>To: "NSRCA Mailing List" <nsrca-discussion at lists.nsrca.org>
>>>>>>Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Chapter-5 Going too far.
>>>>>>Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2007 01:27:00 -0400
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Len,
>>>>>> All of the people involved were from D1 - I thought the good ol'
>>>>>> boys
>>>>>>were in D2 and D3! <LOL>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>John Pavlick
>>>>>>http://www.idseng.com
>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>> From: Leonard Rudy
>>>>>> To: NSRCA Mailing List
>>>>>> Sent: Monday, June 25, 2007 8:47 PM
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Chapter-5 Going too far.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The conflict may have blossomed like a Hockey Game Conflict,
>>>>>> but
>>>>>> in
>>>>>>the NHL
>>>>>> those "with the power" hear both sides and let each side present
>>>>>> their
>>>>>>case before
>>>>>> the powers to be assign penalties. After the penalties are
>>>>>> imposed,
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>player or
>>>>>> individual still has the right to appeal the decision.
>>>>>> You say Eric should take whatever the powers to be want and
>>>>>> don't
>>>>>>make any
>>>>>> noise or waves.
>>>>>> This is a clear message to others who will be judging at meets
>>>>>> in
>>>>>>the future. DO NOT GIVE THE GOOD OLD BOYS GROUP any low or bad scores
>>>>>>or
>>>>>>you may be on the receiving end of some form of penalty that you will
>>>>>>not
>>>>>>like.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Len Rudy
>>>>>> "Life is easier if you learn to plow around the stumps" or in
>>>>>> other
>>>>>>words, do not
>>>>>> hand out low scores to the Good Old Boys or you will pay dearly for
>>>>>> it
>>>>>>one way or
>>>>>> another.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fred Huber <fhhuber at clearwire.net> wrote:
>>>>>> The penalty does not appear appropriate...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It also sounds like it was not applied in a manner consistant
>>>>>> with
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>rules system.
>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>> From: John Ferrell
>>>>>> To: Don Ramsey ; NSRCA Mailing List
>>>>>> Sent: Monday, June 25, 2007 8:12 AM
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Chapter-5 Going too far.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have the good fortune to not be involved in this dispute. I
>>>>>> am
>>>>>>only aware of the conflict.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not being very good at staying out of arguments, I offer the
>>>>>>following observations:
>>>>>> A heated difference of opinions occurred.
>>>>>> Every one involved is considered a valuable asset to the
>>>>>> Pattern
>>>>>>Game.
>>>>>> Things were said that should not have been said.
>>>>>> Every one thinks they are right.
>>>>>> There was probably at least one (or may be several) bad call(s)
>>>>>> by
>>>>>>some one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The conflict blossomed like a Hockey Game Conflict and the net
>>>>>>result was those with the power and responsibility treated it like a
>>>>>>Hockey
>>>>>>Game Conflict! A serious "time out" was assigned to the individual at
>>>>>>the
>>>>>>focal point of the conflict. It was their duty to put the problem on
>>>>>>ice.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The expectations of the rest of us who value the game and its
>>>>>>players is that right or wrong the referee's call must be honored. The
>>>>>>referee has the power to impose further penalties if the individual
>>>>>>continues to make waves. Right or wrong, this is the was disputes are
>>>>>>handled in the world of competition.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If the individual was drawn into the conflict by goading it is
>>>>>> still
>>>>>>he who gets the penalty.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Conflict resolution is not something that is natural to the
>>>>>> human
>>>>>>condition. Conflict is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Eric needs to take the penalty and get on with things.Those in
>>>>>> power
>>>>>>need to accept that the penalty has been applied and to continue the
>>>>>>game.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> WE ALL need to be aware that we either play nice or get sent to
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>showers!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Another factor to consider is that the higher profile one
>>>>>> achieves
>>>>>>in this sport the greater the need to hold that individual to higher
>>>>>>standards.
>>>>>> Eric is certainly a "high profile" player.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> John Ferrell W8CCW
>>>>>> "Life is easier if you learn to plow
>>>>>> around the stumps"
>>>>>> http://DixieNC.US
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>> From: Don Ramsey
>>>>>> To: NSRCA Mailing List
>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, June 24, 2007 7:32 PM
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [NSRCA-discussion] Chapter-5 Going too far.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I would like to thank Eric for the nice complement in his
>>>>>> comment,
>>>>>>"To circumvent this conflict of interest problem and to keep the
>>>>>>Nationals
>>>>>>above reproach, I steeped out of line and asked Don Ramsey to
>>>>>>independently
>>>>>>choose the judges, Dave could not refuse this method, but I will tell
>>>>>>you
>>>>>>that he got extremely mad at me for doing it."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I must respond that for good or bad I've been choosing the
>>>>>> finals
>>>>>>judges for many years. I started that process when Jeff Hill was
>>>>>>Event
>>>>>>Director. It must also be stated that I've never had any pressure of
>>>>>>any
>>>>>>kind from contest management regarding who I choose to judge. I try
>>>>>>to
>>>>>>pick the best candidates and rotate those so no single judge can
>>>>>>influence
>>>>>>the outcome extradionarly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Don
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>>>>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>>>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>>>>>
>>>>>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>>>>>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>>>>>> Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.9.6/863 - Release Date:
>>>>>>6/23/2007 11:08 AM
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>>>>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>>>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> Building a website is a piece of cake.
>>>>>> Yahoo! Small Business gives you all the tools to get online.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>>>>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>>>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>>>NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>>>>>NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>>>>>http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>>>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>>>>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>>>>> Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.9.9/872 - Release Date:
>>>>> 6/26/2007
>>>>> 6:43 PM
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
>> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
>> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
> _______________________________________________
> NSRCA-discussion mailing list
> NSRCA-discussion at lists.nsrca.org
> http://lists.nsrca.org/mailman/listinfo/nsrca-discussion
>
More information about the NSRCA-discussion
mailing list