A Sky, cable and digital tv forum. Digital TV Banter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » Digital TV Banter forum » Digital TV Newsgroups » uk.tech.digital-tv (Digital TV - General)
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

uk.tech.digital-tv (Digital TV - General) (uk.tech.digital-tv) Discussion of all matters technical in origin related to the reception of digital television transmissions, be they via satellite, terrestrial or cable. Advertising is forbidden, with no exceptions.

Retuning the TV - naive question



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old September 26th 15, 12:23 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 45
Default Retuning the TV - naive question

NY wrote:

The other thing, and Kernighan and Ritchie's book is to blame for this, is
purely stylistic: why did they use the layout

if (a b) {
c =d;
e = f:
}
g = h;

rather than

if (a b)
{
c =d;
e = f:
}
g = h;

I always wondered this (I've been writing stuff in C since the 1980s).
However there *is* a reason - the K&R format uses fewer lines and this
used to be more important on terminals with a limited number of lines.

I actually prefer:-

if (a b)
{
c =d;
e = f:
}
g = h;

It shows (me, anyway) that the {} belong to the if.

--
Chris Green
·
Ads
  #32  
Old September 26th 15, 01:44 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
NY
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,329
Default Retuning the TV - naive question

wrote in message news
NY wrote:

The other thing, and Kernighan and Ritchie's book is to blame for this,
is
purely stylistic: why did they use the layout

if (a b) {
c =d;
e = f:
}
g = h;

rather than

if (a b)
{
c =d;
e = f:
}
g = h;

I always wondered this (I've been writing stuff in C since the 1980s).
However there *is* a reason - the K&R format uses fewer lines and this
used to be more important on terminals with a limited number of lines.

I actually prefer:-

if (a b)
{
c =d;
e = f:
}
g = h;

It shows (me, anyway) that the {} belong to the if.



True. Either way is fine - at least the corresponding opening and closing
braces are underneath each other and lined up equally with *something* -
either the "if" or else the code that is executed.

Modern coding environments will colour-code things to make it easier to
check for matching, and will probably flag mismatches even while you are
typing in the code, but I'm going back to the days of plain text editors
like PFE, Notepad - or even vi on a Unix terminal.

  #33  
Old September 27th 15, 02:49 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Johnny B Good[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 513
Default Retuning the TV - naive question

On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 07:56:22 +0100, Roger Mills wrote:

On 22/09/2015 06:53, Andy Burns wrote:
Another John wrote:

Retuning always takes several minutes, but this time our main TV (Sony
)
took about 45 minutes before it reached "100%".


The higher channels no longer carry TV signals, instead they can be 4G
phone masts. It's possible some sets notice the mobile signals as
"something" rather than an unused channel, then spend too long per
channel trying to decode them.


I always tune mine manually, anyway - just pointing it at the muxes on
my preferred transmitter to avoid picking up stray channels from other
transmitters.


I have to manually tune each mux on the toppy after each round of
musical chairs has screwed everything up. If I let it auto-tune, the
unwanted weak welsh muxes confuse the hell out of the recording
scheduler. As far as I can see, there doesn't seem to be any way of
editing unwanted channels out of the list so a manual tune is my only
option.

Unfortunately, the tuning menu has very awkwardly arranged tuning
options which makes it rather more of a pain than it could have been if
only just a little more thought had been put into the layout.


--
Johnny B Good
  #34  
Old September 27th 15, 09:17 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Jim Lesurf[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,326
Default Retuning the TV - naive question

In article , NY
wrote:
What really lets down C, compared with Pascal etc, is the pointer thing.
I spent more time sorting out problems with "does this function want a
thing, a pointer to the thing or a pointer to a pointer to the thing as
an argument" than with anything else when debugging why programs didn't
work.


I'm generally now happy with pointers. I just think of 'C' as being a fancy
form of assembler with a lot on useful libraries. :-)

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

  #35  
Old September 27th 15, 03:58 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Phil Cook
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 437
Default Retuning the TV - naive question

On 27/09/2015 03:49, Johnny B Good wrote:
On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 07:56:22 +0100, Roger Mills wrote:

On 22/09/2015 06:53, Andy Burns wrote:
Another John wrote:

Retuning always takes several minutes, but this time our main TV (Sony
)
took about 45 minutes before it reached "100%".

The higher channels no longer carry TV signals, instead they can be 4G
phone masts. It's possible some sets notice the mobile signals as
"something" rather than an unused channel, then spend too long per
channel trying to decode them.


I always tune mine manually, anyway - just pointing it at the muxes on
my preferred transmitter to avoid picking up stray channels from other
transmitters.


I have to manually tune each mux on the toppy after each round of
musical chairs has screwed everything up. If I let it auto-tune, the
unwanted weak welsh muxes confuse the hell out of the recording
scheduler. As far as I can see, there doesn't seem to be any way of
editing unwanted channels out of the list so a manual tune is my only
option.

Unfortunately, the tuning menu has very awkwardly arranged tuning
options which makes it rather more of a pain than it could have been if
only just a little more thought had been put into the layout.


I don't recall the manual re-tune procedure off hand but I did it a
few weeks ago, but it is a whole lot easier than deleting unwanted
channels. You do that for each individual channel from the channel
list. Something like this:

list select channel options delete are you sure? yes

I think there is a TAP for deletion multiple channels based on a text
file.

googles

It seems there is a better option, Channel Organiser TAP

http://www.toppy.org.uk/downloads/info.php?tid=287

--
Phil Cook
  #36  
Old September 27th 15, 07:18 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Johnny B Good[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 513
Default Retuning the TV - naive question

On Sun, 27 Sep 2015 16:58:52 +0100, Phil Cook wrote:

On 27/09/2015 03:49, Johnny B Good wrote:


====snip====

I have to manually tune each mux on the toppy after each round of
musical chairs has screwed everything up. If I let it auto-tune, the
unwanted weak welsh muxes confuse the hell out of the recording
scheduler. As far as I can see, there doesn't seem to be any way of
editing unwanted channels out of the list so a manual tune is my only
option.

Unfortunately, the tuning menu has very awkwardly arranged tuning
options which makes it rather more of a pain than it could have been if
only just a little more thought had been put into the layout.


I don't recall the manual re-tune procedure off hand but I did it a few
weeks ago, but it is a whole lot easier than deleting unwanted channels.
You do that for each individual channel from the channel list. Something
like this:

list select channel options delete are you sure? yes

I think there is a TAP for deletion multiple channels based on a text
file.

googles

It seems there is a better option, Channel Organiser TAP

http://www.toppy.org.uk/downloads/info.php?tid=287


Thanks for that pointer, Phil.

I've downloaded the zip to expand my 30 odd collection of taps, zips and
tfds in my "Toppy" folder. I might install it if the game of musical
chairs becomes frequent enough for it "To become old very fast.". Up to
now, this game only gets played about once every other month or so.

Since it's likely to take longer than the 5 or 10 minutes it takes me to
manually retune the 5 or 6 muxes to install the Channel Organiser TAP,
I'll probably land up 'taking the easy way out' and 'just do
it' (manually retune, that is!). I'd need to make a conscious effort and
pick a time when the XYL is out of the way to install this TAP (and
probably some others whilst I'm at it).

It's been quite a few years since I last installed any TAPs but, if
memory serves, I had to link it to my laptop (bring the mountain to
Mohamed as it were) in order to do so. One of these days, I just might
work up enough enthusiasm to have another play with installing TAPs but,
for the time being, that's an exercise that's likely to remain on the
back burner for the foreseeable future.

--
Johnny B Good
  #37  
Old October 5th 15, 06:49 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Paul Ratcliffe
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,486
Default Retuning the TV - naive question

On Sat, 26 Sep 2015 12:40:36 +0100, NY wrote:

What really lets down C, compared with Pascal etc, is the pointer thing.


Like any useful tool, it can be misused. At least you have the choice.

I spent more time sorting out problems with "does this function want a thing,
a pointer to the thing or a pointer to a pointer to the thing as an
argument" than with anything else when debugging why programs didn't work.


Perhaps you didn't understand the code or ignored the warnings?
You did have warnings turned on didn't you?
I knew some people way back who just ignored warnings and then wondered
why their stuff didn't build and/or run properly.
They didn't like it when I pointed out that warnings were there to be
fixed and not ignored.

The other thing, and Kernighan and Ritchie's book is to blame for this, is
purely stylistic: why did they use the layout

if (a b) {
c =d;
e = f:
}
g = h;


That's nasty...

if (a b)
{
c =d;
e = f:
}
g = h;


but that's absolutely hideous. You can hardly see the braces for the
intervening clutter.
The only sensible way is:

if (a b)
{
c = d;
e = f;
}

where it's blindingly obvious when something is missing. Who cares about
'wasting' a line?

C is an excellent language, but it makes it far too easy for people to write
programs that are "write-only":


Actually, I find it no worse than any other language. Other people just
write crap code :-)
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:17 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.SEO by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright 2004-2018 Digital TV Banter.
The comments are property of their posters.