What? Bool() problem..

[utopiomania]

Code: Select all

N(1) = N(1) + (Yr % 4 = 0) | (Yr % 100 = 0) | (Yr % 400 = 0)

X Line 8: Boolean comparisons can only be used with test operators
like If, While, Repeat. Use Bool() instead.

?? Worked in the past..

[STARGÅTE]

Code: Select all

N(1) = N(1) + Bool(Yr % 4 = 0) | Bool(Yr % 100 = 0) | Bool(Yr % 400 = 0)

[utopiomania]

Ok, thanks...

[Little John]

It looks as if this piece of code should calculate a leap day -- but it does not do so correctly.
For calculating a leap day, use e.g. the following code

Code: Select all

N(1) + Bool((year % 4 = 0 And year % 100 <> 0) Or year % 400 = 0)

In order to see the different results of both code snippets, try e.g. for year = 1900.

[utopiomania]

The code calculated leap years correctly until newer versions of PB stopped calculating and throwed a syntax error...

The underlying logic in my program is and was correct. Stargåte just put things right by explaining to me how to use
Bool() to make this new >PB> version understand it

[Little John]

Stargåte just put things right by explaining to me how to use
Bool() to make this new >PB> version understand it

Yes, that's good. And your fine code can be even more improved. The following snippet yields exactly the same results as Stargate's code:

Code: Select all

N(1) = N(1) + Bool(Yr % 4 = 0)

However, if you prefer you can also use e.g.

Code: Select all

N(1) = N(1) + Bool(Yr % 4 = 0) - 4 + 7 - 3

The code calculated leap years correctly until newer versions of PB stopped calculating and throwed a syntax error...

I don't think that many people care whether you privately use some flawed code which just works by chance in particular cases.
But when you post wrong code in a public forum, it shouldn't be too much of a surprise when someone corrects it.

[utopiomania]

I don't think that many people care whether you privately use some flawed code which just works by chance in particular cases.
But when you post wrong code in a public forum, it shouldn't be too much of a surprise when someone corrects it.

The algorithm and code is and was correct, and is not flawed, the problem had to do with syntax, not flawed logick or algorithms.

And, you are on my ignore list, so go away Bye.

[Little John]

The algorithm and code is and was correct, and is not flawed [...]

And, you are on my ignore list, so go away Bye.

Obviously, logical thinking and sense of reality are also on your ignore list.
Boy, you made my day.

[Brandon Parker]

For cimplicity's sake, to test for a leap year (within PB's applicable Date range) you could just use the built in Date() function

Returns -1 if the given Date() parameters do not exist....

Code: Select all

Debug Date(2013, 02, 29, 12, 00, 00)
;Returns -1

or

Returns the date value expressed by the passed parameters

Code: Select all

Debug Date(2013, 02, 28, 12, 00, 00)
;Returns 1362009600

That's how I would do it anyway....let PureBasic decide when a leap year exists.

{:0)

Brandon

[rsts]

For cimplicity's sake, to test for a leap year you could just use the built in Date() function

For dates within the limits of PB's date functions.

[Brandon Parker]

For cimplicity's sake, to test for a leap year you could just use the built in Date() function

For dates within the limits of PB's date functions.

I thought that was a given.......

{:0)

Brandon

[rsts]

I thought that was a given.......

{:0)

Brandon

It wasn't

in order to see the different results of both code snippets, try e.g. for year = 1900.

[Brandon Parker]

I thought that was a given.......

{:0)

Brandon

It wasn't

in order to see the different results of both code snippets, try e.g. for year = 1900.

Yeah.....while that quote is about something completely different; I get it. I just assumed that someone using the Date() function would know that what I posted wouldn't work outside of PB's applicable date range. I know.... I know.... one should not assume that anyone ever reads the documentation before trying something.....

{:0)

Brandon

[utopiomania]

The code I posted calculates leap years correctly from 1562 to 3999.

[rsts]

As Little John noted, it fails in some circumstances. e.g. 1900, which it reports as a leap year, but was not.

Little John's code is correct.

cheers