As a native speaker, I wish you the best of luck in your English-learning career. It's a weird language, and I commend you for getting this far.
t = peripheral.wrap(tankSide)
if t==nil then
print("No tank found!") return
end
while true do
value = 0 max = 0
ti = t.getTankInfo(tankSide)
for i,j in pairs(ti) do
for name,data in pairs(j) do
if name=="capacity" then max = data
elseif name=="amount" then value = data
end
-- print(name) -- for debugging
end
end
What does this add that is not already present?
It is planned.Call it a friendly conversation if that is what you think it was but MoosyDoosy got the basic gist of what i meant
CC/OC support for RotaryCraft blocks/machines. Does this support also carry over to ReactorCraft? Would be neat to design more complex computer systems for display of fuel status, heat, time run, time left etc
You can already do that by cutting the power (as in real reactors).
private static final LuaMethod getName = new LuaReactorGetName();
private static final LuaMethod getTemp = new LuaReactorGetTemperature();
private static final LuaMethod lowerRods = new LuaLowerControlRods();
private static final LuaMethod raiseRods = new LuaRaiseControlRods();
private static final LuaMethod checkFuel = new LuaReactorCheckFuel();
private static final LuaMethod checkPebbles = new LuaReactorCheckPebbles();Does Lua have a Integer.parseInt(String s) equivalent?@Reika
Is having the getTime method on engines like the gasoline engine return a number something you would consider? Just starting to find computercraft uses for the engines and this would be useful. Its not essential because I can work with the string return but I guess there is no harm in asking
Unless there is a better way to regulate the amount of ethanol crystals that end up in the engine in which case I will try to work that out.
tonumber works with stuff like "4" but I don't think it works with something "00:00:00". I can write my own method to parse it properly though, not done anything like it before but it shouldn't be too difficult. I was planning on doing that anyway, unless you agreed to fulfill my request. I am not suggesting that my free time is any more valuable than your's though so if you don't want to do it for any reason I won't mither you for it and I will work around it myself.
The numerical time is stored (unsurprisingly) in ticks, so if I wrote such a function, you would need to convert it mathematically. I think manual parsing is probably easier, given that it gives you actual time units.
As someone who studies linguistics as a hobby, please do not perpetuate this. The spoken and written languages are different things. A native speaker of a language is by definition better at using the language than a non-native speaker. A non-native speaker or learner of a language usually is unnaturally formal in their writing style, whereas a native speaker is very natural and fluid in this regard, and is much more flexible in their application of the language, both in speech and in writing. Such constructs as "lol it okei" (as seen in the image) are actually internally consistent and very complex, representing a form of English that is very natural and nuanced. It is short because the person who wrote it knew at least subconsciously that it would be understood by fellow native speakers. It is NOT something to be viewed as negative, and we must realize that such constructs made by non-native speakers as portrayed in the above image are almost always consciously determined through memorization and textbook knowledge.Agreed. Your english is better than most "native" speakers.For managing to convince you that asking mod authors for things isn't necessarily a bad thing.
And @Lathanael you're English is pretty much perfect. I thought it was your primary language from previous posts and from these.
TL;DR: Native speakers know best about their language.
-snip-
If the definition is such that someone who cannot tell the difference between their/they're/there and were/we're/where and who spells 'mistake' as 'mestake' is more fluent because they know nothing else, then that definition is pointless and worthless, because it conveys no useful information.
The orthography - the written language - is different from the spoken language. The written language is based off of the spoken language, and proficiency is measured based on the spoken language. Being able to use the spoken language in its written form is ultimately secondary; if you can write in a language but you cannot speak it, you will have a far harder time than the other way around. For that matter, the vast majority of the languages in the world have no written form of any kind anyway. As long as you can communicate in the spoken language without issue, you are doing just fine. Regardless of test results, a non-native speaker of a language can NEVER reach the proficiency levels of a native speaker without spending the majority of their life only communicating in that language and doing so with native speakers.
This is a different argument than that with which you started. You initally said that a native speaker is by definition the most fluent, regardless of any other factor. I responded by saying that such a definition is useless, and you went on to distinguish between fluency in written and spoken language as if it was somehow relevant.
By this logic a native English speaker who is constantly using malapropisms because they are unaware of the actual meanings of half the words they use is still a more fluent speaker than someone who speaks perfectly with no errors in semantics or syntax. I maintain my position that this definition of fluency is worthless.
is simply false.
A malapropism is to use a completely incorrect word, not to mispronounce a correct one.
This is another tautology: No matter what a native speaker says, it is defined as correct because a native speaker said it. It is also absurd.
I am not defining any word use by a native speaker as correct; even native speakers occasionally make mistakes. Yes, saying that such utterances would mean such things is absurd indeed, and that is why I never attempted to imply that such a thing is the case. Instead, I am saying that a statement is only considered acceptable if a native speaker finds it acceptable and ties it to the same meaning consistently aside from simple slips of the tongue.