Subject:
|
Re: circular pointer
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.robotics
|
Date:
|
Sun, 13 May 2007 20:41:57 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
4767 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.robotics, linmix <linmix@gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
> So by defining SIZE here I can easily change the size of the macro
> without having to alter anything else in the code. Nice!
[snip]
I would say defining SIZE changes the size of the array and thus the period of
the moving average. I'm not sure how you mean "macro" in this context.
[snip]
> > v[i]=0; • Is it necessary to initialise v[2] or simply 'cleaner' coding?
> > while (true) //** Do it forever
> > {
> > sum -= v[i];
Yes, both necessary and cleaner. If you don't initialize v[2] then the first
statement in the while loop evaluates to "sum = sum - UNDEFINED;" which could be
anything. In many cases, it'll be zero, but it's better to be certain.
Often, variables are declared and initialized at the same time. Thus:
int i, j = 0;
int v[3] = {1, 2, 3};
(syntax approximate)
But when using a #define or when the array is large it can work better to
initialize an array with a loop.
Dennis
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: circular pointer
|
| (...) I should have written: 'array' (...) OK, undefined is not the same as zero, that makes sense (in a way). I looked up how to initialise an array and according to Dave Baum's NQC Guide "The initial values for an array's elements cannot be (...) (17 years ago, 14-May-07, to lugnet.robotics)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: circular pointer
|
| I've inserted some comments, not all are questions, some are simply 'thinking aloud'. (...) So by defining SIZE here I can easily change the size of the macro without having to alter anything else in the code. Nice! (...) Right you are, I should (...) (17 years ago, 13-May-07, to lugnet.robotics)
|
8 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
