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