It happens that Jax formulated :
> "p-0''0-h the cat (ES)"  wrote in
> news:a6qt8a9u1jgr1pdtc0lcscgcakalj8sjsp@4ax.com: 
>
>> On Mon, 15 Dec 2014 08:12:40 -0500, FromTheRafters
>>  wrote:
>> 
>>> ~BD~ formulated on Monday :
>>>> On 15/12/2014 11:13, p-0''0-h the cat (ES) wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 15 Dec 2014 05:57:14 -0500, FromTheRafters
>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> After serious thinking p-0''0-h the cat (ES) wrote :
>>>>>>> On Mon, 15 Dec 2014 05:36:58 -0500, FromTheRafters
>>>>>>>  wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I don't care why you posted the scoring info, and even less
>>>>>>>> about how Jax *still* thinks something was wrong with
>>>>>>>> exevalid after all of the explanations we have provided. Jax
>>>>>>>> and Crybaby don't seem to be at all concerned about
>>>>>>>> providing truthful posts. 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> That really is funny. Exevalid had a major mathematical flaw
>>>>>>> in the 'coding'. It's a heap of ####. No amount of
>>>>>>> 'explanations' will ever change that. 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I stand corrected. Jax, Crybaby, and Pooh.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Pooh doesn't need to lie.
>>>> 
>>>> It appears that Rafters has a sense of humour failure this
>>>> morning. :-( 
>>>> 
>>>> Perhaps he got out of the wrong side of the bed; for him, it is
>>>> VERY early to be posting! He'll be "good to go" after another
>>>> mug of coffee! 
>>> 
>>> Still no coffee, but my comment was about the fact that exevalid
>>> had no flaw in the way it performed on the set of data for which
>>> it was designed. The comment by Ant was not to be taken as "I
>>> appreciate (am glad about) the fact that you didn't attempt to use
>>> it on modern PE executables" it was more of an "I appreciate
>>> (understand) that it wasn't designed for modern executables". Not
>>> a negative comment at all,  as some people like to make it seem. 
>>> 
>>> I have no idea at this point whether Dustin misunderstood the 
>>> capabilities of the program when working on modern PEs (the header
>>> filesize information being bogus) or not, and I don't care, it
>>> still stands that the program was not flawed. It does indeed
>>> *appear* to be incongruous to take the absolute value of a natural
>>> number, but in this  case it was correct. 
>> 
>> Twaddle. You don't code that kind of flaw in as a correct
>> solution. Doing it correctly was trivial. Dustin just didn't know
>> what he was doing and he didn't check or if he did check he
>> checked wrong which is even more damning. Sorry you got your arse
>> kicked. I gave you every chance to win. Even that wasn't enough to
>> help you sad arrogant bastards.
>
> Pooh Cat have you noticed how, all of a sudden, code efficiency is 
> no longer an issue when discussing Dustin's score file entries but 
> it was a major discussion point when talking to you about Eexvalid. 
> Just saying!

It's not code for one thing, and I'm not the one making an issue of 
efficiency in Pooh's version of the code snippet. My point was that 
Pooh added such inefficient code when no fix was needed. Pooh and 
Dustin went on a coding challenge after that, but that was not why the 
inefficiency of Pooh's code was mentioned. Pooh didn't like the ABS 
instruction and built a way around using it because he didn't 
understand why it was being used and possibly still doesn't.

You keep bringing up errors in exevalid and errors in ASIC when there 
is no such error in either. Using it outside of its intended purpose is 
an error, but that is not the responsibility of the code.


--- NewsGate v1.0 gamma 2