# If you really want to do.

Pexsa: X = 100, y = 9, . i = 11, . return 100-11*9

Pexsa: Yeah, sorry, I brain-farted on precidence.

Hisserich: Pexsa: in some code, i noticed that function, so i was wondering why didnt the author just use the % modulo operator

Pexsa: Silv3r_m00n, The % is one of the lesser known math operators, so it’s possible the author simply was ignorant of it.

Paretti: I’ve got issue with bPopup – it works fine once, but when I try to pop the same window for the second time, it is displayed in ugly, wrong way. how can I fix that?

Brofman: Pexsa: the function actually behaves bit different when x is a negative number

Ohl: Perhaps thats the reason

Pexsa: X = -100;y=9;x-Math.floorx/y*y;

Pexsa: X = -100;y=9;x-Math.floorx/y*y;

Tamashiro: I think i ususally do x % wrap + wrap % wrap

Beutnagel: To wrap around circularly

Bobb: But, i usually have to think about it for a moment.

Sentz: X = -100; y = 9; x % y + y % y

Sothen: That makes sense to me, since x % y won’t be more than -y, so you add y and mod again.

Pexsa: Yeah, that looks like it.

Durette: X = -143.4; y = 7.2; x % y, x % y + y % y, x-Math.floorx/y*y

Wakley: Tcsc: object -6.600000000000002, 0.5999999999999979, 0.5999999999999943

Casaceli: Ignoring rounding, they both look like they work for floats

Colarusso: The math.floor way is probably slightly faster though

Pexsa: Sometimes I wish I got to do more algebraic, trigonometric, and word that means “of or pertaining to calculus” math.

Hashem: X = 12; y = 15; x % y

Stuchlik: I’m just wondering about how one would go about checking particle collisions when there are a bunch of particles moving in random directions – would checking the alpha value or something be done? I was thinking about edge checking against other particles positions, but I would have to iterate over every particle for every particle, so I’m not sure that makes sense

Spratlen: Pexsa: so why not learn the subjecs?

Pexsa: Literphor, Oh, I’ve done them. I meant in my work.

Hashem: RedAero how many problems have you solved at PE?

Stuchlik: Does anyone ‘do’ project euler?

Stuchlik: There’s a lot there to do.

Hashem: Baxx also only 25 at PE rosettacode. a few

Pexsa: Looks like Calculous is my word

Stuchlik: Haven’t heard of rosetta. yeah 25 euler problems fair – there are hundreds and hundreds though aren’t there. I had a look a while back and did a few

Stuchlik: Pexsa: have you looked at processing and stuff? there’s a lot of geometric animation stuff doing that which might appeal if you’re that way inclined

Stuchlik: Processing as in the language wrapper on java.

Pexsa: Baxx, I know I could find the stuff to do, I just wish it came up in the work I /need/ to do more often.

Pexsa: I’ve used processing. For one of my first dev jobs I actually used some of the drawing libraries from it.

Pexsa: When I was in high school I did a bunch of robotics. PID loops are fun.

Sowders: Is there a way to constrict the mouse to a specific screen area?

Alkbsh: Smgs: not many, I’m a noob

Grohmann: I only started “programming” in my spare time about 6 months ago

Hashem: RedAero: me too. solving a few problems can be done by noobs.

Hashem: I think i am one for sure

Siegfreid: Baxx: you usually don’t want to do collision detection between particles

Lewark: There are other ways to achieve similar effects, what are you going for?

Stuchlik: Tcsc: oh right cool, 2 secs I’ll post a link

Chipp: That said you can greatly reduce the search space by using a grid as a spatial partition

Hannon: If you really want to do true collision detection