| --- Log opened Fri Dec 14 00:00:48 2007 |
| 01:10 | | gnolam [lenin@85.8.5.ns-20483] has quit [Quit: Z?] |
| 01:22 | | Chalcedon is now known as ChalcyAFK |
| 01:58 | | Vornicus is now known as Darius |
| 03:34 | | Forj [~Forj@116.93.128.ns-23287] has joined #code |
| 03:34 | | mode/#code [+o Forj] by ChanServ |
| 04:18 | | Chalcy [~Chalcedon@116.93.128.ns-23287] has joined #code |
| 04:18 | | mode/#code [+o Chalcy] by ChanServ |
| 04:18 | | ChalcyAFK [~Chalcedon@Nightstar-11713.ue.woosh.co.nz] has quit [Ping Timeout] |
| 04:54 | | Forj [~Forj@116.93.128.ns-23287] has quit [Ping Timeout] |
| 04:54 | | Chalcy [~Chalcedon@116.93.128.ns-23287] has quit [Ping Timeout] |
| 06:00 | | EvilDarkLord [~jjlehto3@Nightstar-2194.vipunen.hut.fi] has quit [Ping Timeout] |
| 06:00 | | EvilDarkLord [~jjlehto3@130.233.228.ns-13022] has joined #code |
| 06:01 | | EvilDarkLord is now known as NSGuest-3401 |
| 06:32 | | Forj [~Forj@203.211.122.ns-2621] has joined #code |
| 06:32 | | mode/#code [+o Forj] by ChanServ |
| 06:59 | | NSGuest-3401 [~jjlehto3@130.233.228.ns-13022] has quit [Ping Timeout] |
| 07:00 | | EvilDarkLord [~jjlehto3@Nightstar-2194.vipunen.hut.fi] has joined #code |
| 07:01 | | EvilDarkLord is now known as NSGuest-3405 |
| 07:19 | | Chalcedon [~Chalcedon@Nightstar-1707.ue.woosh.co.nz] has joined #code |
| 07:19 | | mode/#code [+o Chalcedon] by ChanServ |
| 08:20 | | Darius is now known as Vornicus |
| 09:16 | | Vornicus is now known as Vornicus-Latens |
| 09:26 | | Chalcedon [~Chalcedon@Nightstar-1707.ue.woosh.co.nz] has quit [Quit: slep] |
| 09:35 | | AnnoDomini [AnnoDomini@83.21.56.ns-26805] has quit [Ping Timeout] |
| 09:38 | | You're now known as TheWatcher |
| 09:41 | | AnnoDomini [AnnoDomini@Nightstar-29046.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl] has joined #Code |
| 09:41 | | mode/#code [+o AnnoDomini] by ChanServ |
| 09:42 | | Thaqui [~Thaqui@Nightstar-262.dialup.xtra.co.nz] has joined #code |
| 09:42 | | mode/#code [+o Thaqui] by ChanServ |
| 10:14 | | Forj [~Forj@203.211.122.ns-2621] has quit [Quit: Gone] |
| 10:44 | | Thaqui [~Thaqui@Nightstar-262.dialup.xtra.co.nz] has left #code [Leaving] |
| 10:54 | | * AnnoDomini hates it how WinXP sorts files the other way than Win98SE. |
| 10:54 | <@AnnoDomini> | Any way to make it put the newest at the TOP, retaining that the folders are on top too? |
| 10:55 | <@AnnoDomini> | 'Cause it seems I have an option between newest on the bottom, folders at the top, or newest at the top, folders at the bottom. |
| 10:55 | <@AnnoDomini> | Neither is satisfactory. |
| 11:14 | < Kyrre> | Only in detailed view. |
| 13:01 | <@AnnoDomini> | No... that doesn't work. |
| 13:09 | < Kyrre> | Hmm. |
| 13:09 | < Kyrre> | No clue |
| 14:35 | | Xiphias [Ameroth@82.68.15.ns-4527] has joined #code |
| 14:43 | | gnolam [lenin@Nightstar-10613.8.5.253.static.se.wasadata.net] has joined #Code |
| 14:43 | | mode/#code [+o gnolam] by ChanServ |
| 14:56 | | Vornicus-Latens [~vorn@Admin.Nightstar.Net] has quit [Ping Timeout] |
| 15:28 | | opqlogic [~opqlogic@202.152.240.ns-3494] has joined #Code |
| 16:08 | | opqlogic [~opqlogic@202.152.240.ns-3494] has quit [Quit: ] |
| 16:34 | | Xiphias [Ameroth@82.68.15.ns-4527] has quit [Quit: I was never gone] |
| 17:05 | | You're now known as TheWatcher[afk] |
| 17:47 | | Attilla [~The.Attil@194.72.70.ns-11849] has quit [Quit: <Insert Humorous and/or serious exit message here>] |
| 18:18 | | gnolam [lenin@Nightstar-10613.8.5.253.static.se.wasadata.net] has quit [Quit: Fan Death.] |
| 18:20 | | gnolam [lenin@Nightstar-10613.8.5.253.static.se.wasadata.net] has joined #Code |
| 18:20 | | mode/#code [+o gnolam] by ChanServ |
| 18:48 | | You're now known as TheWatcher |
| 18:52 | | Chalcedon [~Chalcedon@203.211.122.ns-2621] has joined #code |
| 18:52 | | mode/#code [+o Chalcedon] by ChanServ |
| 20:08 | | Attilla [~The.Attil@194.72.70.ns-11849] has joined #code |
| 20:13 | | Vornotron [~vorn@Admin.Nightstar.Net] has joined #code |
| 20:22 | | Vornotron is now known as Vornicus |
| 20:26 | < C_tiger> | I have somehow broken IDLE |
| 20:26 | < Vornicus> | Heh. How so? |
| 20:26 | <@AnnoDomini> | Elucidate. |
| 20:26 | < C_tiger> | I tried running this piece of code... I'm assuming I screwed something up, it crashed. |
| 20:27 | < C_tiger> | Now when I restart, I get a "socket error |
| 20:27 | < C_tiger> | and I can't restart IDLE. |
| 20:31 | < Vornicus> | ...oh, awesome. |
| 20:31 | < Vornicus> | That means there's a Python process still running. |
| 20:31 | < C_tiger> | Oh. |
| 20:32 | < Vornicus> | (and therefore is still sitting on a socket) |
| 20:33 | < C_tiger> | This is what happens when you try coding at 5 AM. |
| 20:35 | < C_tiger> | Now I get "IDLE can't start a subprocess" |
| 20:35 | < C_tiger> | and something about a connection firewall. |
| 20:35 | < C_tiger> | Let me just restart this stupid computer. |
| 20:36 | | C_tiger [~c_wyz@Nightstar-5378.nycmny.east.verizon.net] has quit [Quit: And away she goes!] |
| 21:00 | <@gnolam> | That's one wicked boot time. |
| 21:03 | | ilovefire [~santros_v@209.82.191.ns-11321] has joined #code |
| 21:04 | < Vornicus> | How do you use for without using xrange? |
| 21:06 | < ilovefire> | well, ummm... *checks his notes, all his made programs, and umm, it's not there. This is my fault. I probably forgot to note it. |
| 21:07 | | * Vornicus hunts his own logs. |
| 21:09 | < Vornicus> | Also, take a guess. |
| 21:10 | | C_tiger [~c_wyz@Nightstar-5378.nycmny.east.verizon.net] has joined #code |
| 21:10 | < ilovefire> | Well, umm, I guess it will start a loop based on a variable in... something? |
| 21:11 | < Vornicus> | Nothing so complicated. |
| 21:11 | < Vornicus> | You have a list. You need to take each item in that list in turn and process it. |
| 21:11 | < ilovefire> | Okay... |
| 21:11 | < Vornicus> | call said list, I don't know, my_list. |
| 21:12 | < ilovefire> | Allright. |
| 21:12 | < Vornicus> | try this: |
| 21:12 | < C_tiger> | Oh, microsoft corporation's windows XP, how do I love thee... let me count the ways. When you hang three times at startup before working inexplicably, my heart explodes in my chest in pure bliss. |
| 21:12 | < Vornicus> | my_list = [15,23,97000,2] |
| 21:12 | < Vornicus> | for k in my_list: print k |
| 21:13 | < ilovefire> | Ah, I see now. sort of. |
| 21:13 | < Vornicus> | (with appropriate indenting.) |
| 21:13 | < Vornicus> | now, how do you tell is_prime() to check against each item in known_primes? |
| 21:13 | < ilovefire> | for k in known_prime? |
| 21:14 | < Vornicus> | Hey, look |
| 21:19 | < Vornicus> | Now, rewrite is_prime to check against the values in known_primes instead of the values gotten from that xrange thing. |
| 21:23 | | * ilovefire does so, tests it, and it seems to work! |
| 21:24 | < Vornicus> | Okay, paste that code. |
| 21:24 | < C_tiger> | and you didn't have to stay up to 5 AM to figure out why... (oh my head...) |
| 21:24 | < Vornicus> | poor C. |
| 21:24 | < ilovefire> | Right, op or voice please |
| 21:25 | | mode/#code [+o ilovefire] by AnnoDomini |
| 21:25 | | mode/#code [+oooooo Attilla C_tiger Kyrre NSGuest-3405 Pi-2 TheWatcher] by Vornicus |
| 21:25 | | mode/#code [+o Vornicus] by Vornicus |
| 21:27 | <@ilovefire> | http://rafb.net/p/CDq3Xn72.html also, I forgot to erase import_math, so just ignore that. |
| 21:27 | <@Vornicus> | Actually we'll still need it. |
| 21:27 | <@Vornicus> | See, there's a problem here. |
| 21:28 | <@Vornicus> | We've made it so we check primes, but... in checking, say, 100, instead of checking only the 9 numbers from 2 to 10, we're checking the 25 primes from 2 to 10. |
| 21:28 | <@Vornicus> | 25 primes from 2 to 100. |
| 21:28 | <@Vornicus> | But what we /really/ need to be checking is the 4 primes from 2 to 10. |
| 21:29 | <@C_tiger> | Idly, question: does it hurt that much to import an extra module? |
| 21:29 | <@Vornicus> | Generally no. |
| 21:29 | <@Vornicus> | I mean, okay, it /does/, but only at startup. |
| 21:30 | <@Vornicus> | And for large portions of the standard library - math included - it's like flipping a switch. |
| 21:30 | <@Vornicus> | Anyway. |
| 21:31 | <@McMartin> | Most user modules will be similar; there's only a major cost if there are expensive module setup operations, and there basically never are. |
| 21:31 | <@C_tiger> | That's what I thought. |
| 21:31 | <@ilovefire> | ... And the easiest way to do that is to jsut figure those out myself, type it in in the known_primes list, and remove the code that adds numbers to the list, yes? |
| 21:31 | <@Vornicus> | ilf: nope. |
| 21:31 | <@C_tiger> | ... no. |
| 21:31 | <@Vornicus> | We can do it much more nicely. |
| 21:32 | <@ilovefire> | Do tell. |
| 21:32 | <@Vornicus> | To prove this: put in a print statement in primes() where you print known_primes, right at the end; then run primes(100) |
| 21:32 | <@C_tiger> | Ilf: whenever you're tempted to think "hey I could just do X myself", also consider: the code has to work with n = 1000000. Do you really want to be typing in that many primes? |
| 21:33 | <@ilovefire> | ... but, but vorn said we only need to check the primes from 2 to 10... or is that only for 100? |
| 21:33 | <@C_tiger> | That's only for 100 |
| 21:33 | <@Vornicus> | That's only for 100. |
| 21:34 | <@Vornicus> | For 1000000 we need to check the primes from 2 to 1000. |
| 21:34 | <@C_tiger> | And for 100000000000000000000.... you get the picture... |
| 21:34 | | * ilovefire nods. |
| 21:34 | <@C_tiger> | Ok, quick backtrack, why, for 100, do we only need to check the primes from 2 to 10? |
| 21:35 | <@ilovefire> | Because we only need to check numbers up to the square root of the number--after that they start to repeat, basically. |
| 21:36 | <@Vornicus> | Yep. |
| 21:36 | <@Vornicus> | Okay, so, what we need to do is just /not check/ primes that are higher than the square root of the number we're testing. |
| 21:37 | <@Vornicus> | now, the obvious way to do this is just to say if p > sqrt(n): pass |
| 21:37 | <@Vornicus> | (pass is another keyword; we use it to say "this block is empty") |
| 21:37 | <@Vornicus> | (I think in my entire career I've used it once) |
| 21:38 | <@McMartin> | () |
| 21:38 | <@McMartin> | (It shows up in almost every custom exception I write) |
| 21:38 | <@Vornicus> | But this still technically /checks/ each prime. |
| 21:38 | <@ilovefire> | Which is not as efficient as we can get it. |
| 21:39 | <@Vornicus> | What we want to do is /stop checking/ once we know we'll be repeating ourselves. |
| 21:39 | | * ilovefire is slowly starting to realize that coding is all about how efficient you can get it without cutting corners. |
| 21:39 | <@C_tiger> | actually cutting corners is just fine. |
| 21:39 | <@C_tiger> | It's before the code stops working. |
| 21:39 | <@McMartin> | Just don't cut the corners that are part of the answer. |
| 21:39 | <@Vornicus> | It's actually not. We just don't want to spend 4 and a half hours - or even a minute - checking primes, when we can spend less time. |
| 21:40 | <@Vornicus> | So, before we know we can do this, we need to check something: remember when I had you print known_primes? |
| 21:40 | <@Vornicus> | What'd you get? |
| 21:41 | <@ilovefire> | [2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, 37, 41, 43, 47, 53, 59, 61, 67, 71, 73, 79, 83, 89, 97] |
| 21:41 | <@C_tiger> | Coding is two-fold: first you up with a method to do something, then you tweak the method to make it run better (faster, more efficiently, produce better-quality answers) OR if tweaking can't help, you start over and try a NEW method to see if it work better. |
| 21:42 | <@C_tiger> | it'd |
| 21:42 | <@Vornicus> | okay. Looking at that list, at what point do you know you no longer need to check numbers? |
| 21:43 | <@Vornicus> | for, say, n = 100? |
| 21:44 | <@ilovefire> | after 7? |
| 21:44 | <@Vornicus> | Right. |
| 21:44 | <@Vornicus> | and 11 > sqrt(100), right? |
| 21:45 | <@ilovefire> | yes... |
| 21:45 | <@Vornicus> | So how do we tell the loop to, uh, stop looping when that happens? |
| 21:47 | <@ilovefire> | Hmm... |
| 21:47 | <@Vornicus> | (this should be in your notes) |
| 21:48 | <@ilovefire> | Break? |
| 21:49 | <@Vornicus> | Try it. |
| 21:53 | | * ilovefire fiddles with different places to apply the if statement and the break. |
| 21:54 | <@ilovefire> | ... BRB |
| 21:54 | | ilovefire is now known as ilf_AFK |
| 22:05 | | * AnnoDomini wonders why Firefox is so very slow at rendering images, but apparently hasn't any problems at rendering the same images within a HTML document. |
| 22:09 | <@C_tiger> | Because when it's rendering images, it has to know if it needs to "resize" them so they fit. |
| 22:09 | <@C_tiger> | There's a line in about:config that stops this behavior. |
| 22:10 | | NSGuest-3405 is now known as EvilDarkLord |
| 22:20 | <@C_tiger> | Ok, I'm done. |
| 22:20 | <@C_tiger> | I know what's wrong with my code, but it's almost too much work to fix. |
| 22:21 | <@C_tiger> | I have learned a whole lot about python in the process, which is really why I did this in the first place. |
| 22:24 | <@EvilDarkLord> | What is this code you speak of? |
| 22:24 | | ilf_AFK is now known as ilovefire |
| 22:24 | <@ilovefire> | Okay, lesse. |
| 22:24 | | * ilovefire goes back to fiddling. |
| 22:28 | <@C_tiger> | I wrote a little python script to teach myself python. It's to try to calculate the best way to solve "given N otherwise identical coins, where *two* are a different weight, using a two-pan balance find the two coins and determine whether they're heavy or light in the minimum number of uses of the scale. |
| 22:30 | <@ilovefire> | hmm, I know I need to bring a break in here... |
| 22:30 | <@C_tiger> | Well, you don't HAVE to... but I think that's the solution Vorn wants you to go for. |
| 22:32 | <@C_tiger> | Here's another approach: |
| 22:32 | <@C_tiger> | Forget your program for a second. |
| 22:32 | <@C_tiger> | Pretend you're the function is_prime. |
| 22:33 | <@C_tiger> | You have a list of primes from 2 - 97 (that's the list you printed above.) |
| 22:33 | | * ilovefire nods |
| 22:33 | <@C_tiger> | Now how would you figure out if 100 is prime? |
| 22:33 | <@C_tiger> | Remember you can only check one thing at a time. |
| 22:33 | | * ilovefire nods... |
| 22:33 | <@C_tiger> | Just walk me through it. |
| 22:34 | <@ilovefire> | Well, first off figure out what the cut-off point is--at what point where the numbers start to repeat, which is also, forutantley, at the number in question's square root. |
| 22:35 | <@C_tiger> | Ok, so first you calculate the square root. |
| 22:35 | <@C_tiger> | So now you know three things: you know you need to figure out if 100 is prime, you know that the square root of 100 is 10, you know a list of primes from 2 - 97. |
| 22:35 | <@C_tiger> | Now what? |
| 22:36 | <@ilovefire> | now, you check each prime below 10 to see if 100 is evenly divisble by it. |
| 22:36 | <@C_tiger> | Ok... but you can't check all the primes at the same time. |
| 22:37 | <@ilovefire> | Right, so you check those primes one at a time. |
| 22:37 | <@C_tiger> | (Also, pretend the number we're checking is 97, not 100... ) |
| 22:39 | <@C_tiger> | Ok, check the first number: 2, 97%2 = 1, 1 == 0 false. |
| 22:39 | <@C_tiger> | Now what? |
| 22:41 | <@ilovefire> | then we check the second, which is 3... 97 % 3 == 1, 1 == 0 false. |
| 22:41 | <@C_tiger> | ok... |
| 22:41 | <@C_tiger> | ok now suppose we're on the fifth number: 11. |
| 22:42 | <@ilovefire> | Well, we wouldn't need to check that, because it's above the square root of 97, which is 9.849 |
| 22:42 | <@C_tiger> | Right what did you just do? |
| 22:44 | <@ilovefire> | Err... found the break-even point of the number 97, and broke off my mind's loop because there's no need to test past it. |
| 22:44 | <@Vornicus> | okay. |
| 22:44 | <@C_tiger> | Right, you compared the number you got with the square you got earlier. |
| 22:45 | <@C_tiger> | So now do this in code. |
| 22:45 | <@ilovefire> | Hmm. |
| 22:46 | <@C_tiger> | er, squareroot. |
| 22:47 | <@ilovefire> | int(math.sqrt(k)) = break_even | for b in known_primes: | if b > break_even: |
| 22:47 | <@ilovefire> | | Break |
| 22:47 | <@ilovefire> | I guess |
| 22:47 | <@C_tiger> | ... good. |
| 22:48 | <@C_tiger> | you have to do break_even = int(math.sqrt(k)) |
| 22:48 | <@ilovefire> | Ah. |
| 22:48 | <@ilovefire> | Well, almost had it right in one go. |
| 22:48 | <@C_tiger> | Now try it. |
| 22:49 | <@Vornicus> | don't need to int it. |
| 22:49 | <@C_tiger> | (it doesn't hurt.) |
| 22:50 | <@Vornicus> | (we needed to in the xrange one to get rid of that deprecation warning, but we don't here) |
| 22:50 | <@ilovefire> | Hmm, still dosen't work. |
| 22:50 | <@C_tiger> | Ok, pastie time. |
| 22:50 | <@Vornicus> | Yeah, show us what you're doing, then we can beat it with sticks. |
| 22:51 | <@C_tiger> | Also, don't think of = as "equals" think of it as the assignment operator. You assign the right hind side to the variables in the left hand side. |
| 22:51 | | * ilovefire nods |
| 22:51 | <@C_tiger> | x = 2 doesn't mean x equals 2, it means you put 2 into x |
| 22:51 | <@ilovefire> | http://rafb.net/p/eozW6596.html |
| 22:52 | <@Vornicus> | How does it fail? looks okay to me. |
| 22:52 | <@C_tiger> | Man, beat me to the punch. |
| 22:52 | <@Vornicus> | oh, I see how it will fail. |
| 22:52 | <@ilovefire> | Oh? |
| 22:52 | <@Vornicus> | it will fail on the /second/ attempt, because known_primes is out there instead of inside. |
| 22:53 | <@ilovefire> | ah, so I need to stick known_primes on the inside of is_prime? |
| 22:53 | <@C_tiger> | Oh, right, you never told it to look at known_primes. |
| 22:53 | <@Vornicus> | You need to put known_primes in primes(), and you need to pass known_primes /to/ is_prime. |
| 22:53 | <@C_tiger> | Wait, we never did this before? |
| 22:53 | <@Vornicus> | We did this before. I don't know why it got changed. |
| 22:54 | <@C_tiger> | ANYHOW, you got the break part right. |
| 22:54 | <@Vornicus> | Yes. |
| 22:55 | <@ilovefire> | yay. |
| 22:55 | <@ilovefire> | Now to fix the other problem, because I honestly have no idea how I screwed that up. |
| 22:55 | <@C_tiger> | Why is known_primes declared outside? |
| 22:56 | <@ilovefire> | C: I honestly can not remember. |
| 22:57 | <@C_tiger> | Also, when you get this thing fully ironed out, cheer! I think this may be the last of prime numbers you see in a while. |
| 22:57 | <@C_tiger> | (Unless Vorn has one more trick up his sleeve (which wouldn't surprise me, now that I think about it.) |
| 22:57 | | * ilovefire phews, saves the celebrations. |
| 22:58 | | * ilovefire stranges, can't seem to remmeber how to pass known_primes to is_prime... hmm. |
| 22:58 | <@Vornicus> | Actually once you get it right, we have only one thing left to do, and that's trivial. |
| 22:58 | <@C_tiger> | It's as easy as you think it would be. |
| 22:59 | <@C_tiger> | (Python is surprisingly nice about this, as I have discovered. |
| 22:59 | <@C_tiger> | ) |
| 23:00 | <@Vornicus> | (it doesn't require any thinking at all; it's just changing the function from testable to usable with other code, which is just removing any print statements, and making it return known_primes. Don't do this until you're sure it's right though) |
| 23:02 | <@Vornicus> | (also we might /use/ primes() to get sample data once in a while.) |
| 23:03 | | * ilovefire eyes. "Global name 'known_primes' is not defined." |
| 23:03 | <@C_tiger> | are you passing it correctly? |
| 23:03 | <@C_tiger> | And spelling it correctly? |
| 23:03 | <@ilovefire> | C: as far as I'm aware, but BRB |
| 23:03 | | ilovefire is now known as ilf_AFK |
| 23:06 | <@C_tiger> | Also make sure you have somewhere where you actually say what known_primes is (as in assign an empty list to it) |
| 23:08 | <@ilf_AFK> | C: I have, in primes() |
| 23:08 | | ilf_AFK is now known as ilovefire |
| 23:08 | <@Vornicus> | Okay, and are you passing it to is_prime()? |
| 23:09 | <@C_tiger> | (both in the call and in the line where you define the function) |
| 23:14 | <@Vornicus> | also, pastie, if you haven't figured it out. |
| 23:17 | <@ilovefire> | http://rafb.net/p/iYCFFa46.html |
| 23:17 | <@C_tiger> | Um. |
| 23:17 | <@C_tiger> | so no passing. |
| 23:17 | <@Vornicus> | You haven't passed known_primes to is_prime |
| 23:18 | <@C_tiger> | or put it in the prototype. |
| 23:20 | <@ilovefire> | well, should I allready know the syntax for this? |
| 23:20 | <@C_tiger> | yes. |
| 23:20 | <@C_tiger> | You've done it before. |
| 23:22 | <@ilovefire> | Okay, between my parents bombarding me with questions and other vagaries of existance, I can't concentrate to figure it out. |
| 23:23 | <@C_tiger> | Ok, you are already passing something to is_prime |
| 23:23 | <@Vornicus> | Hell, not only did you do it before, you did it with /these very functions/ |
| 23:27 | <@ilovefire> | Right, so... |
| 23:30 | <@Vornicus> | How do you make a function take multiple arguments? |
| 23:30 | <@ilovefire> | oh. Right. |
| 23:30 | <@C_tiger> | (like add, remember when we wrote add way back when?) |
| 23:32 | <@ilovefire> | ... except if I make it is_prime(k, known_primes) it won't work, and umm... I guess if it, umm. |
| 23:32 | <@C_tiger> | When you call add, how do you do it? |
| 23:32 | <@Vornicus> | Why won't it work? |
| 23:32 | <@C_tiger> | My guess is either it's missing from the declaration or the call. |
| 23:33 | | * Vornicus wanted ILF to figure that out. |
| 23:34 | <@C_tiger> | sorry. |
| 23:34 | <@C_tiger> | it seemed like you were confused. |
| 23:34 | <@C_tiger> | But then again, I got 2 hours of sleep last night. |
| 23:34 | <@Vornicus> | heh |
| 23:34 | <@Vornicus> | You really need to stop these all-night hacking sessions. :P |
| 23:35 | | ilovefire [~santros_v@209.82.191.ns-11321] has quit [Ping Timeout] |
| 23:35 | <@C_tiger> | Hah, like my programing chops go beyond things that shuffle data around. |
| 23:35 | <@Vornicus> | piffle. |
| 23:37 | | ilovefire [~santros_v@209.82.191.ns-11321] has joined #code |
| 23:39 | | mode/#code [+o ilovefire] by C_tiger |
| 23:53 | <@Vornicus> | anyway, where were we? |
| 23:54 | <@ilovefire> | I have come to realize that, whenver my mother asks me a questions, it allways derails my current train of thought so much that I cannot reclaim it. |
| 23:54 | <@Vornicus> | Heh |
| 23:54 | <@ilovefire> | Otherwise I would probably have figured out my problem by now. |
| 23:54 | <@TheWatcher> | That isn't as unlikey as you might think |
| 23:55 | <@ilovefire> | http://rafb.net/p/ERButR38.html so, oh people with less easily distractable minds, where have I gone wrong? |
| 23:55 | <@Vornicus> | ilf: now you need to tell is_prime where it's supposed to be getting known_primes. |
| 23:55 | <@C_tiger> | Read it through really carefully. |
| 23:56 | | You're now known as TheWatcher[T-2] |
| 23:56 | <@C_tiger> | Start with primes, now pretend you're the computer, tell me what's going on. |
| 23:59 | <@C_tiger> | (This exercise may seem annoying but it's really important.) |
| --- Log closed Sat Dec 15 00:00:09 2007 |