Storing info for cards

[Default User]

Old Wolf wrote:

Keith wrote that it should be " its' " (note the trailing
apostrophe), which is incorrect (not correct, as you said).
However you correctly pointed out that the possessive of "it"
does not use an apostrophe at all. In fact it is the
only English word that has this property.

Also "his" and "hers".



Brian

 

[Keith Thompson]

Your correction of his Robert's observation of Keith's correction
of Robert's incorrect usage seems to be incorrect.

Keith wrote that it should be " its' " (note the trailing
apostrophe), which is incorrect (not correct, as you said).

Which was precisely my intent.

However you correctly pointed out that the possessive of "it"
does not use an apostrophe at all. In fact it is the
only English word that has this property.

No, it's one of several, and it's part of a consistent pattern.
Possessives of pronouns in general do not take apostrophes (he -->
his, she/her --> her/hers, you --> your/yours, we/us --> our/ours, it
--> its). Contractions involving pronouns do take apostrophes (he is
--> he's, she is --> she's, you are --> you're, we are --> we're, it
is --> it's). The spellings are irregular, but the apostrophe rules
are consistent.

 

[Mike Wahler]

Precisely. Keith answer was:

Shouldn't that be "its'"?

Can't you see the little apostrophe after "its"?

Now I do. I didn't notice it before, I was too focused on
the one Robert used incorrectly.

That single character
makes his answer incorrect.

That's correct. It's incorrect.

-Mike

 

[pete]

Neat pete.

I'm glad that you like it.
Paul Hsieh posted one in comp.programming a while ago,
that scored the poker hands.

Yours?

Yes.
It has a few algorithms that I picked up here and other places.

Used in?

I just like to post code a lot.

 

[pete]

Paul Hsieh posted one in comp.programming a while ago,
that scored the poker hands.

He posted a URL.

http://www.pobox.com/~qed/poker.zip

 

[Thad Smith]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but

#define suit_of(card) (((card)&0xe0)>>5)

would produce exactly the same result in every situation.

As would
#define suit_of(card) ((card)>>5)

since card is the most-significant field.

Thad

 

[Walter Roberson]

Antonio Contreras wrote:

As would
#define suit_of(card) ((card)>>5)

since card is the most-significant field.

Thad, make that "The most significant field that is populated in
that code snippet." Other code might fiddle with higher-order bits
(e.g., to mark the card as discarded.) (Not portably, but it
could happen if CHAR_BIT > 8.) When working with bits, it is
a safer design to treat each grouping independantly, as if there might
be additional used bits before or afterward.