CU Amiga Super CD-ROM 2/CU Amiga Magazine's Super CD-ROM 02 (1996)(EMAP Images)(GB)[!][issue 1996-04].iso/magazine/amiga_e/amigae.june.archive/000055_crash!minyos.xx….OZ.AU!s924723_Fri, 11 Jun 93 19:50:14 PST.msg

Text File | 1993-08-31 | 4KB | 70 lines

Received: by bkhouse.cts.com (V1.16/Amiga)
    id AA00000; Fri, 11 Jun 93 19:50:14 PST
Received: from peladon.rmit.OZ.AU by crash.cts.com with smtp
    (Smail3.1.28.1 #15) id m0o4Kkf-0000YBC; Fri, 11 Jun 93 18:51 PDT
Received: from minyos.xx.rmit.OZ.AU by peladon.rmit.OZ.AU with SMTP id AA05495
  (5.65c/IDA-1.4.4 for <[e-mail]>); Sat, 12 Jun 1993 11:51:19 +1000
Received: by minyos.xx.rmit.oz.au
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 1993 11:51:14 +1000 (EST)
In-Reply-To: <[e-mail]> from "Barry D. Wills" at Jun 11, 93 08:01:00 am
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL22]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 2714
From: [e-mail] (Son Huu Le)
To: [e-mail] (Barry D. Wills)
Cc: [e-mail]
Subject: Sources

>
> Hi, Son Le. Just want to make sure you got the two linked list examples I send
> to the mailing list for you.  Now, I sent three earlier, called something like
> listexample1.e thru *3.e. More recently I sent two called list1.e and list2.e.
> The latter 2 deal with your question about "what's the diff between these two
> list code segments?"  Did you get 'em?

Hmmm.. I don't really know. If you mean through private email, then no. If you
mean through the maillist.. then yep. I don't know if I got all the examples,
but I did get a lot though. (;  (Oh yeah, I've got 3meg RAM).

> Also, I'm *VERY* interested to see what you did to speed up epp013.  I do hope
> the modifications are KS1.3 compatible; if not, I'll have to start ditributing
> two versions, one for each target (eesh).  If you hurry and send me what you
> have for epp013 then I can try to apply what's there to epp014 before I
> officially release it.

I was gonna modify epp014b according to the way I modified epp013b..
And no it's not 2.0 specific.. I tried to retain your code/style as much as
possible.. I'll send it to you (epp013b).

> Thanks for taking such an interest in epp.  Since you are the most proavtive
> fellow E programmer (or so it seems to me) that I've dealt with, you are
> probably most qualified to advise me:  what do you think about my code?  Is it
> understandable, readable?Or does it give you a headache when you try to follow

Qualified? Moi? (; I like E, but I still haven't fully grasp everything...
And one thing I still can't do properly (confidently) is passing of different
types of variables.. as you did in EPP (eg. ^variable, but only 'var' if var
is a ptr to something, etc). That's one thing I found hard to comprehend about
your source. *grin*

Actually being verbose is good and more readable.. After a while, yeah, I say
your code is easy to understand, though I don't like your proc_[space]_() (;
and the way you passed like 10 variables to a procedure. If it's that much
I usually make it global and not pass it at all (although strictly speeching
your method is correct).

> it?  I know I tend to be verbose.  And often I do things the long way just to
> the code more understandable (even though performance will suffer a little)
> and I like a lot of whitespace (sorry, I intend to keep the space between the
> proc name and parentheses :)  What I'm really asking is "do you think my
> programming style improved the source code?"  Awaiting your *speedy* reply |-)

Why did you have to say *speedy*? Forced me to reply to you now instead of
latter! Spaces are good, and comments are best, but there's a trade-off between
wasting space/verbose and good, small fast routines.

Later
Son Le