Peter_Jensen, a real coder would've already known that. 8888
On Sun, 19 Feb 2006 21:14:24 +0000, Jeff Relf
Wrong. Understanding code comes from reading the code. Not from examining the application in operation. The code *is* the program; reading it is sufficient to understand most important aspects of operation, though one may not get a "feel" for some aspects, such as how fluidly animation code works.
Your code is so badly written that it's not even clear what language it's supposed to be; it is provably neither C nor C++, though it bears some rather trivial, minor similarities to each. Since the language of interest cannot even be determined, it is simply not possible to tell, from the code, what the program is supposed to do... and since it is the code that defines what the program is supposed to do, any observation of runtime behaviour is absolutely pointless; at most that would determine whether runtime behaviour matches expected behaviour, but there *is no* expected behaviour.
Peter_Jensen, a real coder would've already known that. 8889
BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Jeff?elf You consistently ignore the Followup-To header, so I'll only be posting in COLA when replying to...
Pick a language and learn it - then tell us you can write code.
Also, fix your freakin' garbage news client; it's spewing garbage characters to go along with its garbage formatting, and, of course, perpetually demonstrating you to be an idiot by cross-posting your drivel to even less relevant groups than COLA. I know the concept of doing *anything* right is completely foreign to you, but you could at least pretend you were sane.
Linux Advocacy Newsgroups