On 08/09/2017 11:05 AM, Mark Waddingham via use-livecode wrote:
Fortunately, there is a potential carrot to go with the stick - we can
expand the range of the bit operations (and baseConvert) to 52-bits
without too much difficulty I think; and add error checking at the same
time. Which would p
On 08/09/2017 10:15 AM, Mark Waddingham via use-livecode wrote:
...although that scale is relatively common in 'high-end'
cryptography settings (factoring large numbers for the purposes of
generating keys and such).
Heh. And that, of course, is exactly what I was working on, and what got
me
Is it a good idea to implement a bignum library in LC Builder?
___
use-livecode mailing list
use-livecode@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo
On 2017-08-09 18:50, Richard Gaskin via use-livecode wrote:
Imagine the frustration of passing an invalid object reference to
something like the delete command, and rather than reporting that it
couldn't do what it asked you it just arbitrarily deleted some other
object instead without notificati
Mark Wieder wrote:
> But what annoys me isn't the fact that baseconvert, etc (bitXor is the
> one that bit me) only work on integers less than 2^32. It's more the
> fact that the input data was crunched down to something the functions
> could handle, and then give me the wrong result with no warni
On 2017-08-09 19:15, Bob Sneidar via use-livecode wrote:
OIC. I was under the impression that the C math libraries deal with
numbers of high precision better than Livecode does, perhaps
themselves generating errors on overflow. Maybe that is not the case.
C itself does no error checking/bounds
On 2017-08-09 19:11, Mark Wieder via use-livecode wrote:
The problem I've run into is more at a higher level, dealing with
number parsing and runtime overflow detection before truncating input
parameters down to unsigned integers and calling the math library.
Well there's two things here...
1)
On 08/09/2017 09:32 AM, Mark Waddingham via use-livecode wrote:
Please do file a bug about it - it is, at the very least, an anomaly.
Done.
http://quality.livecode.com/show_bug.cgi?id=20254
--
Mark Wieder
ahsoftw...@gmail.com
___
use-livecode mai
OIC. I was under the impression that the C math libraries deal with numbers of
high precision better than Livecode does, perhaps themselves generating errors
on overflow. Maybe that is not the case.
Bob S
> On Aug 9, 2017, at 10:11 , Mark Wieder via use-livecode
> wrote:
>
> On 08/09/2017
On 2017-08-09 18:56, Bob Sneidar via use-livecode wrote:
Btw, I should mention that the way numbers work in LiveCode has become
one of my biggest 'pet peeves' over the last year or so. The current
way things work is too simplistic really - it hides the very important
distinction between 'exact'
On 08/09/2017 09:56 AM, Bob Sneidar via use-livecode wrote:
I wonder how much leveraging SQLite can help. SQLite has only basic math
functions, and you cannot use stored functions, but you CAN map functions to a
C API. And if you can do THAT, then someone has written a math API, and maybe
that
I wonder how much leveraging SQLite can help. SQLite has only basic math
functions, and you cannot use stored functions, but you CAN map functions to a
C API. And if you can do THAT, then someone has written a math API, and maybe
that is a good place to start looking.
Bob S
https://stackoverf
On 2017-08-09 18:29, Mark Wieder via use-livecode wrote:
Looking into the engine code, by the time you get to the actual bitXor
code, the input arguments are already unsigned integers. Since I was
passing 20-hex-digit values to bitXor, I would have expected some kind
of runtime warning or error o
Hi Mark.
I remember an old trick to determine if a math function was overflowing. Run
the equasion backwards and see if that result equals the initial value. This
will reveal rounding errors too.
Bob S
> On Aug 8, 2017, at 18:38 , Mark Wieder via use-livecode
> wrote:
>
> Phooey...
>
>
On 2017-08-09 18:29, Mark Wieder via use-livecode wrote:
Looking into the engine code, by the time you get to the actual bitXor
code, the input arguments are already unsigned integers. Since I was
passing 20-hex-digit values to bitXor, I would have expected some kind
of runtime warning or error o
On 2017-08-09 18:14, Mark Wieder via use-livecode wrote:
Oops. OK - point sheepishly taken. Is that the definition of integer
in the dictionary? The "integer" entry just says "if the value
contains digits (and an optional minus sign) and no other characters,
it is an integer", which is as simplis
On 08/09/2017 02:58 AM, Mark Waddingham via use-livecode wrote:
The engine hasn't ever done range checks on integers - mainly because
numbers are doubles so (in most ases) you just lose accuracy / precision
as the numbers get larger. In this case it *could* because it is
actually using integer
I agree. At least the result should contain something about an overflow.
Bob S
> On Aug 9, 2017, at 09:14 , Mark Wieder via use-livecode
> wrote:
>
> But what annoys me isn't the fact that baseconvert, etc (bitXor is the one
> that bit me) only work on integers less than 2^32. It's more the
On 08/09/2017 02:36 AM, hh via use-livecode wrote:
Mark wrote:
but I'm annoyed that the IDE doesn't give me an overflow warning if I try
to perform an operation on a number that's bigger than 0x.
Instead, it just happily trims it down to an unsigned integer and proceeds
to give me a wrong
On 2017-08-09 11:36, hh via use-livecode wrote:
Mark wrote:
but I'm annoyed that the IDE doesn't give me an overflow warning if I
try
to perform an operation on a number that's bigger than 0x.
Instead, it just happily trims it down to an unsigned integer and
proceeds
to give me a wron
> Mark wrote:
> but I'm annoyed that the IDE doesn't give me an overflow warning if I try
> to perform an operation on a number that's bigger than 0x.
> Instead, it just happily trims it down to an unsigned integer and proceeds
> to give me a wrong result.
Hey Mark.
Don't complain because
Phooey...
put baseconvert("10001",16,10)
...and yes, I understand what's going on under the hood, but I'm annoyed
that the IDE doesn't give me an overflow warning if I try to perform an
operation on a number that's bigger than 0x. Instead, it just
happily trims it down to an unsig
22 matches
Mail list logo
