• anonymous (unregistered) in reply to Carrie
    Carrie:
    anonymous:
    QJo:
    right:
    QJo:
    Carrie:
    Steve The Cynic:
    Then again, calling () parentheses does allow a "parenthetical remark" to make sense (a remark that is in parentheses).

    I usually make my parenthetical remarks between dashes.

    The real WTFs are:

    1. Confusing the grammatical construct (i.e. "parenthesis") with the symbology used to indicate it. As Carrie points out -- appositely -- you can use different symbols to indicate a parenthesis, using whichever is appropriate, and it's an instance (a stupid one, in my mind) of confusing the medium with the message to name a specific instance of the symbols as the construct it indicates.

    2. Calling "()" parentheses, calling "[]" brackets and calling "{}" braces. We sensible Europe-side English-speakers call them "round brackets", "square brackets" and "curlies".

    What's sensible about using two words when one would be enough?

    What's sensible about using four syllables ("parentheses") when three ("round brackets") would be enough?
    Need I to introduce you to its two-syllable abbreviated form, "parens"?

    What's sensible about arbitrarily assigning two different words to differentiate between similar objects when there are simple descriptive phrases which anyone familiar with the symbols in question is incapable of confusing?

    "Round brackets" is descriptive of these. Parens aren't round. They're approximately semielliptical.

    Anyway, that's how language works. Arbitrary words are used all the time. Trying to use a descriptive phrase for everything would be painfully tedious.

  • John (unregistered)

    "http://mathworld.wolfram.com/AlmostAll.html"

    Interesting. I was only trying to write something because this is such a dumb wtf that I have not enjoyed.

  • (cs) in reply to Old Man
    Old Man:
    chubertdev:
    Anomaly:
    Parentheses are not just for function calls. You can use them to force orders of operations in expressions.

    (x + y) * n is different then x + y * n for almost all cases.

    Yeah, but in:

    return (5);

    The parentheses are considered redundant.

    I just tested this in PyCharm (which I just happened to have open, and does seem to be quite the code nanny), and it does display a warning, which I would have to agree with, regardless of language.

    What was the warning? "WARNING: You have too much time on your hands, so here's something you can worry about since you have nothing else to do."

    I see that you've used PyCharm as well!

  • dude (unregistered) in reply to Windows Hater
    Windows Hater:
    Nah. It just means they will have a CHANCE at being good programmers, and not have drank the cool-aid.

    Good programmers can use any operating system.

    Limiting your os choice on religious grounds is drinking the cool-aid, it seems like you might have drunk too much of it.

  • JKor (unregistered)

    When you are doing tons of c++ template metaprogramming, just getting it to compile gets rid of tons of logic bugs.

  • eric bloedow (unregistered)

    one of the comments reminded me of a story: a psych question: "you are in a room with a bunch of equipment (long list of stuff), and the room is on fire. what would you do?" only one person got the right answer: "i would open the door and walk out." the question didn't say the door was locked, but most of the people taking the test assumed it was...

Leave a comment on “Flawless Compilation”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article