[Brad]

I don't see that you've changed it to add offsets significantly lower than the low constraint.

[PM]

Hmm..

If you'd call function(1, 12, 3, -25)
It should do:

function(low /*1*/, high/*12*/, seed/*3*/, offset/*-25*/)
{
   new numElements = high - low + 1; // = 12 - 1 + 1 = 12
   offset += seed - low; // += 3 -1 => now equals -23
   
   if (offset >= 0)
      return low + (offset % numElements);
   else // This branch gets chosen
      return high - (abs(offset) % numElements) + 1; // return 12 - (23 % 12) + 1 => return 12 - 11 + 1 => return 2
   return 0;    // Makes the compiler happy -_-
}

So it returns 2, which should be ok.

[Brad]

When will you learn not to believe everything I say? I think your code is probably right.

Glad you could make use of the new abs() function. Using it in this context is the original reason I brought up the fact that it was missing.

[XxAvalanchexX]

My idea for the function name was clamp_rollover. I like it.

[Brad]

Should the new function have an idiot check? For example, a person reversing the low and high parameters.

[PM]

Originally Posted by Brad Jones Should the new function have an idiot check? For example, a person reversing the low and high parameters.

zomg, I don't think so, you'll be probably the only one using it anyway

[Brad]

Oh, lots of people will be using it once I unveil the reason I'm using it. There will be oohs and ahs. Maybe even a parade.

Everyone likes a good parade.

[Brad]

Sorry to beat a dead horse but...

OH! OH! I FOUND IT! I did! I did! I did!

Only... The function that I couldn't remember (the one that sparked this thread) doesn't actually do everything I thought it did.

Originally Posted by core.inc Returns value if it is in the range min-max, min if value is lower than min, max if higher than max. Syntax: clamp ( value, min=cellmin, max=cellmax ) Type: Native

This is what I was originally thinking of. Now I'm wondering if the new functionality, derived from the conversation on this thread, should/could be added to clamp() rather than creating a new function for it. I thinking along the lines of an optional 4th parameter that would accept a boolean or enum value indicating whether the 'value' should be cut off at min/max or if the 'value' should rollover.

The function's new signature could be...

clamp ( value, min=cellmin, max=cellmax, rollover=false )

Anyway, just throwing this all out there. I don't really care if it's the same or a separate function.

[PM]

Originally Posted by Brad Jones Sorry to beat a dead horse but... OH! OH! I FOUND IT! I did! I did! I did! Only... The function that I couldn't remember (the one that sparked this thread) doesn't actually do everything I thought it did. Originally Posted by core.inc Returns value if it is in the range min-max, min if value is lower than min, max if higher than max. Syntax: clamp ( value, min=cellmin, max=cellmax ) Type: Native This is what I was originally thinking of. Now I'm wondering if the new functionality, derived from the conversation on this thread, should/could be added to clamp() rather than creating a new function for it. I thinking along the lines of an optional 4th parameter that would accept a boolean or enum value indicating whether the 'value' should be cut off at min/max or if the 'value' should rollover. The function's new signature could be... clamp ( value, min=cellmin, max=cellmax, rollover=false ) Anyway, just throwing this all out there. I don't really care if it's the same or a separate function.

That's a good idea, it goes right into my TODO list (I sound like Ado^H^Hlfred)

[Brad]

Originally Posted by PM (I sound like Ado^H^Hlfred)

To verify this for myself, where might I find more information on this individual?