For $20 dollars, I'll post all 10,000 lines of this engineering wonder. The question comes on how the node gets allocated.
Maybe I'm being dense, but why not go something like:Code:struct node { int scores; int *next; }; typedef N_TYPE n_type; /*skip 500 lines */ node ->next = malloc(sizeof *node->next);
node->next = malloc(sizeof(struct node));
>> For $20 dollars, I'll post all 10,000 lines of this engineering wonder.
a twenty dollar visual assault? I'll pass.
>> why not go something like:
that would be a clearer way to do it.
Code:#include <cmath> #include <complex> bool euler_flip(bool value) { return std::pow ( std::complex<float>(std::exp(1.0)), std::complex<float>(0, 1) * std::complex<float>(std::atan(1.0) *(1 << (value + 2))) ).real() < 0; }
So going like
Is supposed to make the intent more clearer than going something likeCode:node ->next = malloc(sizeof *node->next);
Code:node ->next = malloc(sizeof (struct node));
no, I meant the other way around.
Code:#include <cmath> #include <complex> bool euler_flip(bool value) { return std::pow ( std::complex<float>(std::exp(1.0)), std::complex<float>(0, 1) * std::complex<float>(std::atan(1.0) *(1 << (value + 2))) ).real() < 0; }
Depends on what you mean by "clear". I do agree with you on that one, though.
