Considering that he has been ranting for years, two decades in fact, the claim that he needs to do it to give notice to others that such code isn't acceptable doesn't seem to stand up to scrutiny. Clearly the last two decades of ranting did not prevent this submission being made.
It is precisely because he hardly ever does it that it makes news when he does. If he threw verbal abuse regularly it wouldn't be news when he does it the next time. It's news because roughly 1 in every thousand of his "corrections" is a rant.
If Linus has simply said "do it this way, it's clearer, and the custom stuff caused build problems", wouldn't that have had the same effect?
No. That sends the message "I'm willing to fix your fuckups". The message he (apparently) wanted to send was "You fucked up and now I shall spread that pain around."
The most people-efficient places (armed forces, ER's, etc) have a chain of command such that a superior can call you out in almost any way and in any language that they feel like, and you have no recourse but to suck it up and try to fuck up less next time. It's a proven method:-)
The key thing is the microaggressions and expulsion from a community are actually pretty distantly linked.
Pretty much everyone will inadvertently post microaggressions from time to time and competent moderators know this. I'm certainly far too culturally ignorant to get it right all the time. However in this area people are normally judged not for the original post but how they react when it is pointed out to them.
So, do you apologize to white-supremecists when they point out that your support of mixed-race marriages is a microaggression? Will you apologize to homophobes when they point out that your support of same-sex marriages is deeply offensive to them? Will you take steps to stop being deeply offensive to those people who are offended because you are the wrong religion?
The problem with that, is that 'respectful behavior' is a constantly moving target. What is respectful in one culture, may not be in another. Or to another person.
Again, the key is listening.
If you're not a jerk (and I don't mean you specifically), you would be surprised at the amount of latitude and understanding people give you. Everybody knows what passive-aggressive behavior sounds like.
Listening won't help - microaggressions are, by definition almost, felt only by the most thin-skinned people. The barrier is so low that merely asking someone "So, you're chinese, right?" is called a microaggression. Asking a japanese person to identify a japanese character is considered microaggression.
You have committed multiple microaggressions yourself, so it's a bit hypocritical that you now appear to think that you can identify them just by listening.
trouble is - no-one knows in advance what constitutes "respectful"
If you don't know what constitutes respectful behavior, then maybe you weren't brought up right. I don't mean you specifically, of course.
This is a good example of a microaggression that will land you afoul of the CoC. If *you* have trouble conforming to the SJW rules how do you expect people who are ignorant of the ideology to follow those rules?
There's no man hating here. There is gamergate hating though. And I am a gamer and a man, so...
When you gamergate hate, you'r hating on women, you know - look at the number of women using #notyourshield. The type of man who uses a bunch of women as a tool to further what looks like an untra-right-wing ideology is... well, you can probably guess...
GanerGate argues that "professional victims" harass themselves with fake threats to gain attention. Using that logic we can conclude that GamerGate is probably behind all threats made against GamerGate, since it profits from the drama.
More seriously, in my experience when people start accusing others of dishonest behaviour based on some dubious circumstantial evidence, it's because that's how they think and how they themselves act. The fact that we have IRC logs of GanerGate channels where people discuss doing this pretty much confirms it.
There's only one group profiting from the mud-slinging. Only one of the groups is making actual money from all of this.
Likewise, claiming misogyny for "pussy" is going a bit far.
but it is somewhat problematic. I'm sure you don't intend it to be, but it refers to men being led by their dicks, acting with little thought because they are horny. It's a lame trope that belittles guys, kinda like the one about bond women being dumb or women acting irrationally because they are menstruating.
So, in addition to claiming that women undergo no hormonal changes at different points in their cycle, you also want the world to stop using body parts as insults? Let us know how your crusade to stop people using the word arsehole...
Calling a guy a "pussy" is not making out that female genitalia or having female genitalia is a bad thing, it's making fun of the guy's lack of masculinity, which in the real world,
...boils down to the same shit. Why is his lack of what you perceive to be masculinity a bad thing?
Surely you can't be this dense? Lack of masculinity in a man is something normal men are ashamed of in much the same way that lack of humanity in a human is something that normal humans are ashamed of.
I get either zero or infinite miles per gallon of gasoline in my TDI. Zero if I pour it in the fuel tank, attempt to drive on it and thereby quickly destroy the engine. Infinite if I get the gallon of gasoline in a jerry can and drive it around; the amount of gasoline never changes.
If by gasoline you mean petrol, then no, you won't destroy the engine. You may need new engine accessories (pipes, pumps, filters, etc) but the engine itself will be all good. A woman I dated once filled up her Golf TDi with petrol. Dealership sorted the car out in a day.
Bullshit. This coalition is not "liberals", it probably covers a large range of political backgrounds.
Actually, it doesn't. You should have read the article before (ironically) spouting your own brand of bullshit. I looked a the list of groups in the coalition and I can't find one that doesn't self-identify as liberal
For all practical purposes, the far left doesn't differ from the far right. They're both the same - a bunch of prudes who want to restrict other peoples activities on the basis that anyone, anywhere, enjoying their limited time on earth is an evil that must be stopped at all costs.
I have never understood that. Some people seem to reach a point in their professional lives where they stop bothering to learn new stuff and just expect to allowed to vegetate away in their jobs for the last 15-20 years until retirement. I've been coding since around the time than many of the younger developers I work with were still a twinkle in their father's eyes and I still manage to keep up with new developments.
Maybe because the "new stuff" is only superficially new and the old fogeys have seen it before with a different name. It gets really tiring to see the wheel reinvented for the nth time, sometimes discarding a lot of good ideas learned from previous wheels.
The other reason could simply be that your time is worthless. It has no value, not to you nor anyone else. When your time is worthless then you can spend as much time as you want learning "new" things that aren't, really. My time is valuable. My rates reflect that.
You still can't deny the fact that the r9k murders happened. If you head over to that board right now, you can see it is full of anti-feminists who blame people like Sarkeesian and Harper for making women hate men and preventing them from getting laid. That's their actual argument - feminism has turned women against men, and so they are forced to be involuntarily celibate.
That's one weird-ass argument there. I'm not saying that I don't believe you (I do), just that *that* is a stupid argument. Once upon a time, way back when I was but a young man, I had to work hard to get sex. I had to impress a woman, dodge her brothers and fathers and be absolutely certain about her in the long term.
Now, thanks to the feminists' continuous message of "you're just like a man, you can act like one too" means I can have sex with her and she will not expect any commitment from me! I don't have to support her just 'cos we had sex. I don't have to stay with her. Any children she has will be tested for paternity, and I'll happily pay the maintenance for the child. Hell, if she claims too much I'll just get custody with "Too financially irresponsible for custody" (yes, it works) argument.
This is the best that men have ever had in terms of sex: DNA studies have found that only half as many men as women procreated; now thanks to an equality message (which I fully support, BTW) just about all men can have sex without needing to give any resources in return.
The type of twat that says feminists spoiled his chances for sex is the type that wouldn't get laid anyway. Thanks to feminists just about every woman will put out these days. No need for commitment.
Who cares about that argument? I'm more interested in the case where willful damage of another person's property is justified because someone makes an assumption that it infringes their right to privacy.
An assumption that was later found to be correct. You seem to be under the belief that it's all still "assumed" or "alleged"; it's not - there's a judgement. A court found that there was a privacy invasion. *You* are saying that there is an *assumed* privacy invasion while a court has decided that there is no "assumed" about it.
Normally when someone invades your privacy you call the police, take them to court, get a restraining order, etc.
"Normally", yes. It appears though that in this case the shooting and destruction of property was justified, and a court judgement backs that up.
In my view the correct justice would have been the person doing the shooting have to pay for the damage to the drone. Then the person infringing the privacy get hit with a fine for doing so.
That is far more consistent than having a "right to shoo a drone"
A court agreed that it was the "right" thing to do - get over it. The "right" to trespass via remote control is not a right that anyone should ever get: if you willingly invade someones privacy *repeatedly* and intentionally then expect to lose your remote control viewing privileges.
His privacy was no more threatened than it is by aviation; anyone who files a flight plan can legally overfly him, and nothing prevents them from taking pictures as they go.
They cannot legally fly below the treeline, which, if you read even the summary, you'll find was a major point of the judgement.
And his property was not threatened; he shot down the drone, it was not revealed to be a firebomb.
Whether it was threatening or not is irrelevant. You don't get to invade my backyard and then cry about how you aren't threatening.
Now if there was a person who got shot the justice system may have tilted the other direction.
There is a public interest in restricting the use of firearms within city limits and the like to actual emergencies. This wasn't one of those.
Unfortunately for you you're wrong: it was found that the downside of firing birdshot into the air is less than the downside of allowing drone operators to film someone else's backyard. Both are downsides but a court felt that the value of having one outweighed the value of having the other.
If inside doesn't have an ambulance, you need to call 911 first. Then, when 911 is called, and the "real" response is on the way, call the security and let them know 911 is on the way for a medical emergency. They can send something too, or not. But delaying an ambulance response to satisfy security's power trip is a bad decision.
I actually have been in an emergency at work; the primary pain was so bad that I only realised a few days later in hospital that I had also broken one of my fingers. I shudder to think what would have happened if external EMTs were called before security.
I was later told (I, of course, don't actually remember what happened as I was passed out) that security was on the scene in about 20 seconds (a guard was walking past at the time), security located the nearest first aiders ten seconds later and within a minute of me hitting the ground a first aider was beside me administering first aid (bleeding, etc). EMTs were on the scene about 15 minutes later.
Those first few seconds are vital, and calling external responders wastes valuable time while perfectly trained medical personnel are sitting around, unaware that someone is bleeding out...
You've ignored the question - how would you rewrite the given function, which does not return allocated memory, without using goto's? Consider it a challenge: you said it could be done after all:-)
There are systems of public transport which are very good at reaching out into the environs around towns and cities, and linking them all together. Not all public transport is as crappy as your have experienced it. Your arguments would make sense if that was the case, but it simply isn't. You are arguing against what public transport was like in the 70s and 80s, not what it is today.
I'm arguing against what it is right now, which is damn slow in low-density areas. From the outskirts you take a bus. From the bus destination you take a train. From the train destination you take another bus, walking the last ten minutes to your final destination. Covering 20km - 25km like this can take anything from 50m - 90m. OTOH, using a car takes less than 30m at a relatively slow 40km/h - 50km/h.
That extra 65 minutes is better spent at home, with my family, not on public transport doing the crossword or reading the internet.
Like I said before, when I was young and didn't have any reason to be home much I didn't care, *and* I lived in high-density apartments. There the bus goes by every five minutes. Where I live now, bus goes by every 15 minutes (maybe... my gardener complains that it sometimes takes a good 35 minutes for a bus some days) if at all. Some suburbs don't even have that - it's a ten minute walk to the nearest bus route, maybe more.
Frequent buses in a suburb doesn't make sense - they'd run empty most of the time because there simply aren't enough residents, even if every resident used the bus exclusively. High-density areas make sense for buses: they have around 100 times more people per square kilometre.
I sorta figured you'd say that - I *have* seen this argument before, you know, and it still doesn't fly: moving around *where* allocation is done doesn't make the cleanup code go away. Even if we followed your software engineering principles the caller still faces the same problem.
Let's look at an example of a caller-allocated memory function: IOW the caller preallocate memory for whatever foo/bar/baz needs. If any errors occur then you *still* need to have cleanup code. Here's an example with (as you insist) caller-allocated memory. Let's see how you rewrite this without gotos:
int func (void) { // foo(), bar() and baz() needs buffers to fill, the caller allocates those buffers.
char *one=NULL, *two=NULL, *three=NULL;
if ((one = malloc (10))==NULL) goto errorexit;
if ((two = malloc (10))==NULL) goto errorexit;
if ((three = malloc (10))==NULL) goto errorexit;
if (!foo (one)) goto errorexit;// foo() fills in buffer 'one'
if (!bar (one, two)) goto errorexit;// bar() fills in buffer 'two', using contents of 'one'
if (!baz (one, two, three)) goto errorexit;// baz() fills in buffer 'three', using contents of other buffers
if (!correct (three)) goto errorexit;
free (one);
free (two);
free (three);
return 0;
The problem remains whether or not you have a higher software engineering standard or not. You, personally, cannot make that code any clearer than it is right now. If you feel any use of malloc is wrong, then feel free to replace all occurrences of malloc() above with a file_open() type function. The problem of cleanup still remains.
"..while also letting you save videos to watch offline on your phone or tablet and play videos in the background."
I am already doing that before viewing any lengthy video to avoid any interruptions, I wonder if they will change the way playback is working to prevent that, rigth now I just open page info->media and viola!
It plays a sound recorded from a stringed instrument?:-)
Slashdot Mirror
Considering that he has been ranting for years, two decades in fact, the claim that he needs to do it to give notice to others that such code isn't acceptable doesn't seem to stand up to scrutiny. Clearly the last two decades of ranting did not prevent this submission being made.
It is precisely because he hardly ever does it that it makes news when he does. If he threw verbal abuse regularly it wouldn't be news when he does it the next time. It's news because roughly 1 in every thousand of his "corrections" is a rant.
If Linus has simply said "do it this way, it's clearer, and the custom stuff caused build problems", wouldn't that have had the same effect?
No. That sends the message "I'm willing to fix your fuckups". The message he (apparently) wanted to send was "You fucked up and now I shall spread that pain around."
The most people-efficient places (armed forces, ER's, etc) have a chain of command such that a superior can call you out in almost any way and in any language that they feel like, and you have no recourse but to suck it up and try to fuck up less next time. It's a proven method :-)
That's why a reasonable forum will show: 'Dick tastes great! Post below if you agree.' Edited 1 time on 2 Nov 2015 at 15:20 UTC
Doesn't help. No one reads in chronological order, everyone reads in the order it is presented.
The key thing is the microaggressions and expulsion from a community are actually pretty distantly linked.
Pretty much everyone will inadvertently post microaggressions from time to time and competent moderators know this. I'm certainly far too culturally ignorant to get it right all the time. However in this area people are normally judged not for the original post but how they react when it is pointed out to them.
So, do you apologize to white-supremecists when they point out that your support of mixed-race marriages is a microaggression? Will you apologize to homophobes when they point out that your support of same-sex marriages is deeply offensive to them? Will you take steps to stop being deeply offensive to those people who are offended because you are the wrong religion?
Again, the key is listening.
If you're not a jerk (and I don't mean you specifically), you would be surprised at the amount of latitude and understanding people give you. Everybody knows what passive-aggressive behavior sounds like.
Listening won't help - microaggressions are, by definition almost, felt only by the most thin-skinned people. The barrier is so low that merely asking someone "So, you're chinese, right?" is called a microaggression. Asking a japanese person to identify a japanese character is considered microaggression.
You have committed multiple microaggressions yourself, so it's a bit hypocritical that you now appear to think that you can identify them just by listening.
If you don't know what constitutes respectful behavior, then maybe you weren't brought up right. I don't mean you specifically, of course.
This is a good example of a microaggression that will land you afoul of the CoC. If *you* have trouble conforming to the SJW rules how do you expect people who are ignorant of the ideology to follow those rules?
There's no man hating here. There is gamergate hating though. And I am a gamer and a man, so...
When you gamergate hate, you'r hating on women, you know - look at the number of women using #notyourshield. The type of man who uses a bunch of women as a tool to further what looks like an untra-right-wing ideology is... well, you can probably guess...
GanerGate argues that "professional victims" harass themselves with fake threats to gain attention. Using that logic we can conclude that GamerGate is probably behind all threats made against GamerGate, since it profits from the drama.
More seriously, in my experience when people start accusing others of dishonest behaviour based on some dubious circumstantial evidence, it's because that's how they think and how they themselves act. The fact that we have IRC logs of GanerGate channels where people discuss doing this pretty much confirms it.
There's only one group profiting from the mud-slinging. Only one of the groups is making actual money from all of this.
Misandry us going a bit far,
Likewise, claiming misogyny for "pussy" is going a bit far.
but it is somewhat problematic. I'm sure you don't intend it to be, but it refers to men being led by their dicks, acting with little thought because they are horny. It's a lame trope that belittles guys, kinda like the one about bond women being dumb or women acting irrationally because they are menstruating.
So, in addition to claiming that women undergo no hormonal changes at different points in their cycle, you also want the world to stop using body parts as insults? Let us know how your crusade to stop people using the word arsehole...
Calling a guy a "pussy" is not making out that female genitalia or having female genitalia is a bad thing, it's making fun of the guy's lack of masculinity, which in the real world,
...boils down to the same shit. Why is his lack of what you perceive to be masculinity a bad thing?
Surely you can't be this dense? Lack of masculinity in a man is something normal men are ashamed of in much the same way that lack of humanity in a human is something that normal humans are ashamed of.
I get either zero or infinite miles per gallon of gasoline in my TDI. Zero if I pour it in the fuel tank, attempt to drive on it and thereby quickly destroy the engine. Infinite if I get the gallon of gasoline in a jerry can and drive it around; the amount of gasoline never changes.
If by gasoline you mean petrol, then no, you won't destroy the engine. You may need new engine accessories (pipes, pumps, filters, etc) but the engine itself will be all good. A woman I dated once filled up her Golf TDi with petrol. Dealership sorted the car out in a day.
Bullshit. This coalition is not "liberals", it probably covers a large range of political backgrounds.
Actually, it doesn't. You should have read the article before (ironically) spouting your own brand of bullshit. I looked a the list of groups in the coalition and I can't find one that doesn't self-identify as liberal
For all practical purposes, the far left doesn't differ from the far right. They're both the same - a bunch of prudes who want to restrict other peoples activities on the basis that anyone, anywhere, enjoying their limited time on earth is an evil that must be stopped at all costs.
...old talent doesn't understand the new stuff."
I have never understood that. Some people seem to reach a point in their professional lives where they stop bothering to learn new stuff and just expect to allowed to vegetate away in their jobs for the last 15-20 years until retirement. I've been coding since around the time than many of the younger developers I work with were still a twinkle in their father's eyes and I still manage to keep up with new developments.
Maybe because the "new stuff" is only superficially new and the old fogeys have seen it before with a different name. It gets really tiring to see the wheel reinvented for the nth time, sometimes discarding a lot of good ideas learned from previous wheels.
The other reason could simply be that your time is worthless. It has no value, not to you nor anyone else. When your time is worthless then you can spend as much time as you want learning "new" things that aren't, really. My time is valuable. My rates reflect that.
You still can't deny the fact that the r9k murders happened. If you head over to that board right now, you can see it is full of anti-feminists who blame people like Sarkeesian and Harper for making women hate men and preventing them from getting laid. That's their actual argument - feminism has turned women against men, and so they are forced to be involuntarily celibate.
That's one weird-ass argument there. I'm not saying that I don't believe you (I do), just that *that* is a stupid argument. Once upon a time, way back when I was but a young man, I had to work hard to get sex. I had to impress a woman, dodge her brothers and fathers and be absolutely certain about her in the long term.
Now, thanks to the feminists' continuous message of "you're just like a man, you can act like one too" means I can have sex with her and she will not expect any commitment from me! I don't have to support her just 'cos we had sex. I don't have to stay with her. Any children she has will be tested for paternity, and I'll happily pay the maintenance for the child. Hell, if she claims too much I'll just get custody with "Too financially irresponsible for custody" (yes, it works) argument.
This is the best that men have ever had in terms of sex: DNA studies have found that only half as many men as women procreated; now thanks to an equality message (which I fully support, BTW) just about all men can have sex without needing to give any resources in return.
The type of twat that says feminists spoiled his chances for sex is the type that wouldn't get laid anyway. Thanks to feminists just about every woman will put out these days. No need for commitment.
Problem is now it's open season on drones. "He's coming right for us.... I mean under the tree line!"
I don't see the problem, frankly. It should be open season on any drone sent into your yard. Don't have birdshot? Use a bat, hose, whatever.
Who cares about that argument? I'm more interested in the case where willful damage of another person's property is justified because someone makes an assumption that it infringes their right to privacy.
An assumption that was later found to be correct. You seem to be under the belief that it's all still "assumed" or "alleged"; it's not - there's a judgement. A court found that there was a privacy invasion. *You* are saying that there is an *assumed* privacy invasion while a court has decided that there is no "assumed" about it.
Normally when someone invades your privacy you call the police, take them to court, get a restraining order, etc.
"Normally", yes. It appears though that in this case the shooting and destruction of property was justified, and a court judgement backs that up.
In my view the correct justice would have been the person doing the shooting have to pay for the damage to the drone. Then the person infringing the privacy get hit with a fine for doing so.
That is far more consistent than having a "right to shoo a drone"
A court agreed that it was the "right" thing to do - get over it. The "right" to trespass via remote control is not a right that anyone should ever get: if you willingly invade someones privacy *repeatedly* and intentionally then expect to lose your remote control viewing privileges.
however his privacy and property was threatened
His privacy was no more threatened than it is by aviation; anyone who files a flight plan can legally overfly him, and nothing prevents them from taking pictures as they go.
They cannot legally fly below the treeline, which, if you read even the summary, you'll find was a major point of the judgement.
And his property was not threatened; he shot down the drone, it was not revealed to be a firebomb.
Whether it was threatening or not is irrelevant. You don't get to invade my backyard and then cry about how you aren't threatening.
Now if there was a person who got shot the justice system may have tilted the other direction.
There is a public interest in restricting the use of firearms within city limits and the like to actual emergencies. This wasn't one of those.
Unfortunately for you you're wrong: it was found that the downside of firing birdshot into the air is less than the downside of allowing drone operators to film someone else's backyard. Both are downsides but a court felt that the value of having one outweighed the value of having the other.
... as if million of douchebag hipsters cried out all at once and were suddenly silenced.
(Yeah, birdshot is safe to fire into the air, so there goes *that* argument)
...despite massive investment. No surprises here: social engineering has very low success rates.
If inside doesn't have an ambulance, you need to call 911 first. Then, when 911 is called, and the "real" response is on the way, call the security and let them know 911 is on the way for a medical emergency. They can send something too, or not. But delaying an ambulance response to satisfy security's power trip is a bad decision.
I actually have been in an emergency at work; the primary pain was so bad that I only realised a few days later in hospital that I had also broken one of my fingers. I shudder to think what would have happened if external EMTs were called before security.
I was later told (I, of course, don't actually remember what happened as I was passed out) that security was on the scene in about 20 seconds (a guard was walking past at the time), security located the nearest first aiders ten seconds later and within a minute of me hitting the ground a first aider was beside me administering first aid (bleeding, etc). EMTs were on the scene about 15 minutes later.
Those first few seconds are vital, and calling external responders wastes valuable time while perfectly trained medical personnel are sitting around, unaware that someone is bleeding out...
You've ignored the question - how would you rewrite the given function, which does not return allocated memory, without using goto's? Consider it a challenge: you said it could be done after all :-)
There are systems of public transport which are very good at reaching out into the environs around towns and cities, and linking them all together. Not all public transport is as crappy as your have experienced it. Your arguments would make sense if that was the case, but it simply isn't. You are arguing against what public transport was like in the 70s and 80s, not what it is today.
I'm arguing against what it is right now, which is damn slow in low-density areas. From the outskirts you take a bus. From the bus destination you take a train. From the train destination you take another bus, walking the last ten minutes to your final destination. Covering 20km - 25km like this can take anything from 50m - 90m. OTOH, using a car takes less than 30m at a relatively slow 40km/h - 50km/h.
That extra 65 minutes is better spent at home, with my family, not on public transport doing the crossword or reading the internet.
Like I said before, when I was young and didn't have any reason to be home much I didn't care, *and* I lived in high-density apartments. There the bus goes by every five minutes. Where I live now, bus goes by every 15 minutes (maybe... my gardener complains that it sometimes takes a good 35 minutes for a bus some days) if at all. Some suburbs don't even have that - it's a ten minute walk to the nearest bus route, maybe more.
Frequent buses in a suburb doesn't make sense - they'd run empty most of the time because there simply aren't enough residents, even if every resident used the bus exclusively. High-density areas make sense for buses: they have around 100 times more people per square kilometre.
I sorta figured you'd say that - I *have* seen this argument before, you know, and it still doesn't fly: moving around *where* allocation is done doesn't make the cleanup code go away. Even if we followed your software engineering principles the caller still faces the same problem.
Let's look at an example of a caller-allocated memory function: IOW the caller preallocate memory for whatever foo/bar/baz needs. If any errors occur then you *still* need to have cleanup code. Here's an example with (as you insist) caller-allocated memory. Let's see how you rewrite this without gotos:
// foo(), bar() and baz() needs buffers to fill, the caller allocates those buffers. // foo() fills in buffer 'one' // bar() fills in buffer 'two', using contents of 'one' // baz() fills in buffer 'three', using contents of other buffers
int func (void) {
char *one=NULL, *two=NULL, *three=NULL;
if ((one = malloc (10))==NULL) goto errorexit;
if ((two = malloc (10))==NULL) goto errorexit;
if ((three = malloc (10))==NULL) goto errorexit;
if (!foo (one)) goto errorexit;
if (!bar (one, two)) goto errorexit;
if (!baz (one, two, three)) goto errorexit;
if (!correct (three)) goto errorexit;
free (one);
free (two);
free (three);
return 0;
errorexit:
free (one);
free (two);
free (three);
return -1;
}
The problem remains whether or not you have a higher software engineering standard or not. You, personally, cannot make that code any clearer than it is right now. If you feel any use of malloc is wrong, then feel free to replace all occurrences of malloc() above with a file_open() type function. The problem of cleanup still remains.
"..while also letting you save videos to watch offline on your phone or tablet and play videos in the background." I am already doing that before viewing any lengthy video to avoid any interruptions, I wonder if they will change the way playback is working to prevent that, rigth now I just open page info->media and viola!
It plays a sound recorded from a stringed instrument? :-)
IQ tests measure how good you are at doing IQ tests. They don't necessarily correlate to an individual's abilities in all areas.
They (IQ scores) correlate very strongly with success. They've always correlated very strongly with success.