for some reason half of my variable's are bugged, or something, they always equal -32767, no matter what, i've put code in to change them to 0 if they're under 0, yet they stay at -32767, no part of my code tells them to do this! why is it doing it?! i'll give the code if you need to look at it, anything to get it to work.
(btw: tron this is a very only slightly alerted version of your last fix )

having a variable that apparently = -32767 means you are reading the value of a variable that doesn't actually exist!

check your spelling of the variable name closely, and make sure you are using the correct syntax to read the variables back...

set numeric <test;125>

creates a numeric variable called test and sets it to 125

msg <test = %test%> 

should print as

test = 125

The %'s are important!

Al (MaDbRiT)

Perhaps you defined a string variable and are attempting to access a numeric variable of the same name.

use less than 1 not 0.

francisstokes wrote:use less than 1 not 0.

WHY?

Because that stopped the problem for me, plus your the one who told me to do it!

I don't know what you were comparing against, but it's different for every person.
If he's checking for a number less than one, then setting it to 0 - he'll end up in a loop, seeing as how 0 is less than 1.

Thats true, but by doing that, it is constantly set to 0 thus making sense.

And i know that people will argue this but if you consider it, there shouldnt (numericaly speaking) be numbers less than 0, since 0 is nothing, how can you have less than nothing?

I think you just asked a question you clearly aren't ready to get an answer for.

Here's one example, debt.

You're an idiot.
The whole point about have negative numbers, or infinity (or it's opposite - negative infinity) is the whole genious of being human.

And actually, 'numerically speaking' there is most definately a NEED for negative numbers... 4-55 does NOT equal 0!
On a graph, a transformation of -3 does not equate to "0"...
And when you are subtracting, what do you actually think you are doing? You're adding a negative number into the equation (4 + (-4) = 0).
Numbers aren't always quantities, they are usually representations of ideas.

Once you reach 10 then you'll understand!

You're an idoit.
there's no such thing as 'negative intinity'. the number of possative integers is EQUAL to the number of possative integers with zero AND all integers, possative and negative. proof?
make a numbered list:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... etc.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... etc.
-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 ... etc.
see they all fit, and therefore are the same number, which is called alef-nol, written A-0. there are many different infinities, in fact there's an infinite number of infinities.... lol.

And let's not get started on imaginary and complex numbers...

I luuurve complex numbers .
... Or, by the name I recognise in the real-world, agebra.

AFAIK complex numbers are the programming equivilant (I've seen a couple of D things about). Haven't really heard of imaginary numbers - but those are probably half-numbers anyway, fractions, etc. (square root of -4 too probably).

what are you on about elexxorine?

elexxorine wrote:You're an idoit.

Hahahaahahahahahhahahahhhahh!!!!!

Hahahahahahahhah!!!!!

Hahhahaahhahahaahahahahahhahhahahaahahhaahahahahhh!!!!!

Hahahhahahahahahahahahahahaahhaahhahahahahahah!

I luuurve complex numbers .
... Or, by the name I recognise in the real-world, agebra.

AFAIK complex numbers are the programming equivilant (I've seen a couple of D things about). Haven't really heard of imaginary numbers - but those are probably half-numbers anyway, fractions, etc. (square root of -4 too probably).

Er, complex numbers isn't just algebra.

Imaginary numbers are multiples of i, which is the square root of -1. The square root of -4 is 2i.

Complex numbers are a combination of imaginary and real numbers, e.g. (5 + 3i) is a complex number.

I just don't see any difference from albegra.
i=root(-1)
3i=root(-9) ... that to me is algebra - even if the end result can't be fully achieved (root(-1) is total imagination - obviously).
same as 5+3i.

Thanks for pointing out the subtle differences though Alex!

ok thats not turn this into a maths debate, how do i sovle the problem. (no pun intended on maths debate)