Where did I scream to change the law? I didn't take a position on the issue one way or another. I just said his argument is full of tripe.
You might want to work on those reading comprehension skills, buddy. I happen to think that we should restrict the number of people immigrating into my country. I just don't think circular, reactionary arguments like "It should be illegal because they're ILLEGAL!" are particularly useful as part of any policy discussion.
This is not an insightful post. Screaming ILLEGAL! doesn't get you anywhere when, you know, we're talking about changing the law.
Activist: We should decriminalize medical marijuana! You: BUT THAT'S ILLEGAL!
Grandma: I should be allowed to take Nexium for my chronic heartburn without paying a fortune to go get my prescription renewed You: BUT ITS A PRESCRIPTION DRUG! THAT WOULD BE ILLEGAL!
White Woman: I am really in love with Denzel Washington. I would definitely marry him. You (a generation ago): BUT THAT'S ILLEGAL!
Next time you might want to try NOT spewing nonsense. "[A]llowing illegal aliens into this country" indeed. Hint: if the government "allow[s]" them in, it's not illegal.
If C++ programmers prefer ++i over i++ when the two are semantically identical, it's because they have a fundamental misunderstanding of what is going on.
And you and anyone else who honestly believes there's a context switch involved in i++ needs to get off Slashdot. Now.
If the Democrats had a supermajority in both houses you might be able to say that... but since they only have a bare majority in the House and not even a majority in the Senate... I'd say no.
Erm. The DMCA came to being under a Republican Senate and Republican House, and introduced by Republican Rep. Howard Coble. The only major part the Dems played was Clinton signing it into law, and his State Dep't helping to negotiate the treaties it's related to.
Yeah... because we never got any benefit out of wasteful government programs like the search for a polio vaccine, or the integrated circuit for NASA, or the Internet.
I know people are complaining about the resolution, but honestly, the only time I want a bigger screen than my monitor is to play huge Quake III Arena on my wall.
(Yes, I know, but it suits my gaming needs. So sue me.)
The first example is different because pow() has no side effects and because pow()'s result will change depending on the order of evaluation. In addition, the order doesn't matter at all.
The second example is different because the storage space of a[i] changes depending on the value of i; however, the storage space of i does NOT change depending on the value of i. a[i] = i++ could be a buffer overflow, but i = i++ can NEVER be a buffer overflow. *(a + i) evaluates to different things depending on the value of i, but *(&i) does not.
julien:~ torstenvl$ gcc -W -Wall -Werror -ansi -pedantic test.c -o test cc1: warnings being treated as errors test.c: In function 'main': test.c:5: warning: operation on 'i' may be undefined test.c:5: warning: operation on 'i' may be undefined julien:~ torstenvl$
A compiler that turns three assembly instructions using one register into three assembly instructions using THREE registers as a way of optimizing is hardly the kind of place you'd want to look for authoritative answers.
Seems like if i = 6, then i = ++i + ++i would result in 16. The assembly would look something like this:
add %l0, 1, %l0 ; this increments our first operand register
add %l0, 1, %l0 ; this increments our second operand register
add %l0, %l0, %l0; add them together and assign them to the original register
The + operator won't operate until both of its operands have been evaluated, at which point i = 8. I feel like someone who thinks the answer would be 15 (or, heaven forbid, something else) is mistaking the prefix increment operator for a function with a return value, rather than an operand with side-effects.
Slashdot Mirror
hahahahahahahahahahahahahah
(breath)
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
my flagship state university's tuition for my degree program is close to $40,000 a YEAR
Economic theory is almost always wrong when it predicts individual human behavior.
Where did I scream to change the law? I didn't take a position on the issue one way or another. I just said his argument is full of tripe.
You might want to work on those reading comprehension skills, buddy. I happen to think that we should restrict the number of people immigrating into my country. I just don't think circular, reactionary arguments like "It should be illegal because they're ILLEGAL!" are particularly useful as part of any policy discussion.
No, it does not. It restricts the Federal government, the state government, and all local governments.
This is not an insightful post. Screaming ILLEGAL! doesn't get you anywhere when, you know, we're talking about changing the law.
Activist: We should decriminalize medical marijuana!
You: BUT THAT'S ILLEGAL!
Grandma: I should be allowed to take Nexium for my chronic heartburn without paying a fortune to go get my prescription renewed
You: BUT ITS A PRESCRIPTION DRUG! THAT WOULD BE ILLEGAL!
White Woman: I am really in love with Denzel Washington. I would definitely marry him.
You (a generation ago): BUT THAT'S ILLEGAL!
Next time you might want to try NOT spewing nonsense. "[A]llowing illegal aliens into this country" indeed. Hint: if the government "allow[s]" them in, it's not illegal.
If C++ programmers prefer ++i over i++ when the two are semantically identical, it's because they have a fundamental misunderstanding of what is going on.
And you and anyone else who honestly believes there's a context switch involved in i++ needs to get off Slashdot. Now.
If the Democrats had a supermajority in both houses you might be able to say that... but since they only have a bare majority in the House and not even a majority in the Senate... I'd say no.
Technically true, but disingenuous.
Not true, much of the work done to find the vaccine was at public universities and private universities receiving government grants.
Without NASA's deep pockets and absolute need for the IC, less private incentive would have existed to develop it.
The Internet would not have been possible without the years of Federally-funded network research.
Erm. The DMCA came to being under a Republican Senate and Republican House, and introduced by Republican Rep. Howard Coble. The only major part the Dems played was Clinton signing it into law, and his State Dep't helping to negotiate the treaties it's related to.
Yeah... because we never got any benefit out of wasteful government programs like the search for a polio vaccine, or the integrated circuit for NASA, or the Internet.
You're being sarcastic... right?
Yeah, my reply was to the idiot who said:
Make a text file containing those two lines and show me a c compiler that actually compiles that. I seriously doubt it.
Somehow the threading got messed up.
PS - You might wanna work on that whole thinking-of-machine-instructions-as-encoded-OOP-operations thing.
....this is the most insanely idiotic thing in the world.
OOP gets translated to machine instructions, not the other way around.
You cannot talk about classes when imagining how i++ actually runs.
i++ is add %l0, 1, %l0. That's it. There is nothing else.
10100000 00000100 00100000 00000001 on a 32-bit SPARC machine. One machine instruction. FAAAAAAST.
Script started on Mon Sep 15 07:59:50 2008
./test
bash-3.2$ cat test.c
#include <stdio.h>
int main(void) {
int i = 0;
i = i++;
printf("i = %d\n\n", i);
return 0;
}
bash-3.2$ gcc test.c -o test
bash-3.2$
i = 1
bash-3.2$ exit
exit
Script done on Mon Sep 15 08:00:04 2008
Yeah... unfortunately, that's the opposite of what you want in a software developer.
I know people are complaining about the resolution, but honestly, the only time I want a bigger screen than my monitor is to play huge Quake III Arena on my wall.
(Yes, I know, but it suits my gaming needs. So sue me.)
Neither of those address the issue though.
The first example is different because pow() has no side effects and because pow()'s result will change depending on the order of evaluation. In addition, the order doesn't matter at all.
The second example is different because the storage space of a[i] changes depending on the value of i; however, the storage space of i does NOT change depending on the value of i. a[i] = i++ could be a buffer overflow, but i = i++ can NEVER be a buffer overflow. *(a + i) evaluates to different things depending on the value of i, but *(&i) does not.
Hmm.
julien:~ torstenvl$ gcc -W -Wall -Werror -ansi -pedantic test.c -o test
cc1: warnings being treated as errors
test.c: In function 'main':
test.c:5: warning: operation on 'i' may be undefined
test.c:5: warning: operation on 'i' may be undefined
julien:~ torstenvl$
I'd still like to see what makes this true.
splint is a program, not a standard, and is just as susceptible to bugs as any other program.
can you provide an actual citation to the standard or a discussion of it?
A compiler that turns three assembly instructions using one register into three assembly instructions using THREE registers as a way of optimizing is hardly the kind of place you'd want to look for authoritative answers.
WWARD?
So make an independent program that modifies the user style sheet.
Shouldn't be too hard.
The hard part would be integrating it with Chrome itself -- adding it as a button or menu item or what have you.
i = ++i + ++i results in undefined behavior.
Link?
Seems like if i = 6, then i = ++i + ++i would result in 16. The assembly would look something like this:
add %l0, 1, %l0 ; this increments our first operand register
add %l0, 1, %l0 ; this increments our second operand register
add %l0, %l0, %l0; add them together and assign them to the original register
The + operator won't operate until both of its operands have been evaluated, at which point i = 8. I feel like someone who thinks the answer would be 15 (or, heaven forbid, something else) is mistaking the prefix increment operator for a function with a return value, rather than an operand with side-effects.
45kg is (just under) 100lbs.