Simplify and correct bar logic #58
Open
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Logic is intended to check how many bars to draw by examining 2 bar positions at a time. Previous version the second conditional was always false (because if barsOn-2*i+1 is not >=0 in the first conditional it certainly won't be >=1 in the second. Instead of >=1, the second conditional needed to be >=-1 in the prior logic. Simplifying the logic so that the value being checked in the conditional corresponds directly to the number of bars to light solves the problem and makes the flow much more directly understandable.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Fun's printLevelVertical is doesn't ever display single bars, only double bars.
That's because its logic is bugged:
The first conditional checks
barsOn-2*i+1 >=0which means that when that's false, the second conditional is always false as well --- if it's not >=0 it certainly won't be >=1. In this logic, the second conditional needed to be -1.Instead, I simplifed the logic so that the value being checked in the conditional corresponds directly to the number of bars to light (2 or 1). This solves the problem and has the benefits of reducing the terms in the conditional and making them directly relevant, all of which improves readability.
Closes #59.