Sort of Gray code to binary converter

In article , Spehro Pefhany wrote: [...]

C++ has got to be an April fools day joke that got out of hand. C was the wrong place to start to try to extend a language to include objects. C was intended to produce very tight code and be easy to write a compiler for. The cost was things like not being able to pass arrays and structures[1]. C++ loses the tightness and ease of compiling and keeps the inability to pass some things.

SureToChange = FooBar(Suspect);

BTW: Java was created by the sort of sick and twisted people who like C++ but wanted to remove the "dangers of pointers". The result is a language that sneeks pointers in here and there.

In article , John B wrote: [...]

Because of the 8.3 file name format Microsoft likes they had to drop the "J". It is really C#.NJET. or C#.NIET depending on your spoken language.

from rec.humour.funny:

micro

I bought the book a long time ago. He sues lots of Asserts, as I recall. Not available in my current environment.

One suggestion I followed has to do with the =/== error: "if(x = 1)" is always true, but "if(x == 1)" may not be. He (and usually I) now write it "if(1 == x)", since writing "if(1 = x)" will be detected as an error by the compiler.

See...

Ken Smith mentioned this approach as a possibility, but didn't elaborate.

Since "John B" mentioned magnetic switches I took the liberty of making them pull-down instead of pull-up, so I could use existing complex functions.

Wind Direction Number (DIRWIND) and Pull-Down version correspond to the original list as follows:

Original DIRWIND Pull-Down

Hidden in the hierarchy "INDICATOR" is logic that takes "DIRWIND as a variable and outputs the original table, making simulation testing a cinch.

...Jim Thompson

But there's no possibility of argument there.

John

My entry has already been taken - a PAL16L8 or similar device appropriately programmed. I checked prices at Digikey, however, and a single PAL in 1's is costly these days compared to a handful of 74xx gates. My feeling about PAL costs is colored by the shoebox of leftover "free" PALS I have accumulated over the years.

On 17/12/2005 the venerable Jim Thompson etched in runes:

. . .

So we're down to 2 1/4 chips. Congratulations Jim, that's another toast in the offing.

Looks like I'll have to get down to the local Co-op and restock the wine cellar. It'll have to be tomorrow as it's 2:30 am here and I'm off to my bed.

P.S. There are officially still seven days left so Richard can still get his entry in, although competition is very tight now. >:-}

Well, if John B is doing a one-off, why not program him one and send it off in an envelope? ;-)

Or would that count as "bribing the judge"? ;-)

Cheers! Rich

Hmmmm... I just did s google on '"parity generator" IC', and this was the first hit:

But I know there used to be an MSI parity generator - I think it's somewhere in the 7418x series, to go with the ALUs. Ah! Here we go:

And the priority encoder is 74148:

Cheers! Rich

On 17/12/2005 the venerable Richard Henry etched in runes:

. .

Just before I retired I cleaned out the back cupboard in the office and found a box of ECL PAL's from 1989 or thereabouts (can't remember the part number). I couldn't think what to do with them so they went in the skip. Pity, because you could have added them to your collection!!

In article , Jim Thompson wrote: [...]

Thanks for making the schematic. I like your U3A a lot better than my idea that used up 3/4ths of a quad NAND.

In the first post where I proposed it. I showed a tables of the outputs from the parity and priority chips but didn't bother to go look up part numbers.