[chirp_devel] [resolved] Inverted Boolean Help Needed

[Jim Unroe]

I figured out what the issue was. Apparently I was reading the wrong value,
inverting it and then stuffing it into the "beep_tone" setting.

Jim KC9HI


On Tue, Jan 21, 2014 at 3:30 AM, IZ3GME Marco <iz3gme.marco at gmail.com>wrote:

> Don't have the time to test myself but I would check in the direction of
> type conversion: check the type of the variable and eventually replace
> "NOT" with appropriate comparision (eg == 0)
>
> my two cents
> 73 de IZ3GME Marco
>
> On 21/01/2014 04:09, Jim Unroe wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 10:04 PM, Jens J. <kd4tjx at yahoo.com
> > <mailto:kd4tjx at yahoo.com>> wrote:
> >
> >     Not that this fixes your specific problem, but I have run into a few
> >     different settings which have this sort of "inverted" logic.
> >     To keep things simple in the rest of the code, I just name the
> >     setting appropriately so that the logic in the rest of the program
> >     need not be inverted, e.g., name your setting foo_disable if value
> >     of True/1 disables foo, and foo_enable if True/1 enables foo.
> >
> >     I think it makes it easier to read.
> >     "beep_tone" is a boolean?
> >     If I'm reading that "beep_tone_disabled" seems like it would be a
> >     much more meaningful name for the setting field.
> >
> >
> > Jens,
> >
> > That makes sense. If I can figure out how to fix this, I can change that
> > too.
> >
> > Jim
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://intrepid.danplanet.com/pipermail/chirp_devel/attachments/20140121/84440579/attachment-0001.html