I don't recall which comment mode this works with, but also try <ecode> instead of <code>. This also makes it unnecessary to escape < and > between the tags.
VS2013 seems to understand a bit more or C99, but that isn't because Microsoft would suddenly have started caring about their C compiler. Their C++ compiler got a bit of an upgrade wrt. more recent changes to the C++ standard, and the C compiler understanding a few C99 idioms is largely a side-effect/waste-product of that process.
Not quite. VS 2013 actually saw a bunch of C-specific C99 features such as designated initializers for structs. The main reason why this was done is because there are now quite a few popular open source libraries that use those features, and VC is the only compiler that cannot handle them, which made it a pain to port them to Windows.
stdio.h and cstdio are both valid in C++. However, there is a slight difference - cstdio is only guaranteed to define the identifiers that it provides in namespace std, while stdio.h makes the same guarantee only for the global namespace. In practice, they are usually both backed by the same header that does both, so you'll get both - but relying on that is non-portable. Since he doesn't use std:: to refer to those identifiers, "stdio.h" is the correct header for him to include.
"stdio.h" searches the directory containing the current source file first, then the include directories.
The standard itself doesn't have any notion of "directory containing the current source file" or "include directories", actually. It just says that "..." does some form of implementation-defined search, which, if it fails, falls back to <...>.
OP is likely confusing the special exception that int main() gets for a general rule. For main, you can indeed return nothing, despite its return type, and that is equivalent to returning 0. This works in both C and C++.
It's still not the same thing. In C, you can declare a function without specifying the argument types, but then define it with specific types in a different translation unit. In C++, the definition and the declaration must match - if you declare it as int foo(...), then you must also define it in the same way (which renders it effectively useless, since without any named arguments you won't have anything to pass to va_*).
It isn't like any polynesians had a navy capable of transporting the people and resources needed to conquer the islands. Nor was there economic value in such an endeavor. Refugees and explorers showing up and assimilating? Absolutely. A conquering force? Not a chance.
Maori didn't quite conquer New Zealand that way (there was no-one to conquer it from), but they definitely did assemble a fleet large enough to be an invasion force.
Golden Dawn is by all accounts a neo-Nazi party (heck, all it takes is a single look at their official flag to confirm that). It's amusing when neo-Nazis refer to themselves as liberals, but don't expect anyone to be fooled.
Just FYI, Texas and its balls are largely a creation of a PR campaign. Even as far as "keep your guns" goes, Texas is not the most gun-friendly state in the union, nor the one with most people carrying. It's just the one that people think of first when they hear "guns", and vice versa.
Those "lynching parties" aren't actually legal, even under the strictest Sharia interpretation. They are just tolerated, similar to how lynchings of blacks were tolerated in the South despite being illegal by law.
Historically, it's actually the other way around - the reason why Islam (and other religions and cultures similar in that respect) has provisions for polygamy in the first place is because it started as a rather warlike religion with inevitable casualties among the young males who shoulder the burden of the war. It's also why polygamy is not generally encouraged in Islam, and was originally promoted by Muhammad as a means to ensure that all those widowed females have a caretaker. Of course, over time it simply evolved into more wives for richer people, but that's a different conversation.
You don't need to be writing software for airplanes to understand the notion of an overflowing counter, and why you'd want to use a 64-bit int for it just in case.
The main reason why people recommend it is because of what happens if you mix signed and unsigned. If they are of the same size (e.g. signed int and unsigned int), then according to the spec, the result will be unsigned. So you divide, say, -2 by 1u, and get something very unexpected. If you always use the same signedness, then you can dodge this problem, and in general you do want to represent negative numbers every now and then, hence the default is signed.
In practice it doesn't work so well simply because so much of the language and the standard library uses unsigned anyway. For example, sizeof is unsigned, and so is strlen(), and in C++, size() on all the standard container types, including string. So if you want to write C or C++, you have to deal with signed/unsigned mismatch anyway.
You want to play this game? Fine. I'm well within the 1% of US by income, and while the majority of my income isn't from capital gains, they are a sizable contribution due to stock bonuses and such. I'm quite okay with making personal income tax more progressive, and raising capital gains tax to match personal income, even though that would mean more money taken out of my pocket every year. Why? Well, perhaps because I don't want another Baltimore in my neighborhood?
He doesn't necessarily need to win to produce some tangible change. If he gets enough votes in the primaries, that alone will send a clear signal to mainline Dems that they should pay more attention to the left.
This implies that communists would be against worker cooperatives, which isn't true in general. Marxist-Leninists are, but there are other kinds of communists, including anarcho-communists and Luxembourgists who like cooperatives just fine.
The real difference is in the ultimate goal. Communists are a subset of socialists who believe that it is possible to create a classless society, thereby resolving the class conflict once and for all, and removing the need for any form of state and societal oppression (and hence the state itself - communism is supposedly a classless and stateless socioeconomic system). They typically believe that this is only possible by undergoing through a transitional socialist period, but how that period looks varies depending on the brand of communist, and pretty much any socialist form of organization is claimed as the best by some group somewhere.
Socialists who aren't communists don't generally believe in that future perfect society, and for them socialism is a way to achieve socioeconomic justice and fairness (as they see it) here and now more so than just a means to advance to the point where said justice and fairness is inherent and self-sustaining.
I'm a liberal here in US on an H1B visa, and I'd support Sanders if I could (obviously I cannot vote, and I cannot legally contribute to his campaign). I disagree with his position on the visas, but it's one thing out of many, and there is way more important fish to fry short term.
A big part of it is support for electoral reform. I may disagree with a candidate on 99% of his platform, but if his 1% includes making it easier for me to get the candidate that I actually like into office in the future, that's the 1% I'll care about most. And this usually comes from the fringes of both left and right, from people like Pauls or Sanders.
I think that the people who are actually doing the real work here (i.e. the scientists) all have fairly realistic expectations. The rest of us can party if it makes us feel better, and it won't hurt if the end result is increased funding for science in general. And if nothing happens in the end, well, there won't be any more articles, and in a month everyone except for those genuinely interested will forget it was even there (well, there will also be the occasional science freak posting about it on Slashdot in every future story on space propulsion, but that's what Slashdot is for).
Slashdot Mirror
I don't recall which comment mode this works with, but also try <ecode> instead of <code>. This also makes it unnecessary to escape < and > between the tags.
VS2013 seems to understand a bit more or C99, but that isn't because Microsoft would suddenly have started caring about their C compiler. Their C++ compiler got a bit of an upgrade wrt. more recent changes to the C++ standard, and the C compiler understanding a few C99 idioms is largely a side-effect/waste-product of that process.
Not quite. VS 2013 actually saw a bunch of C-specific C99 features such as designated initializers for structs. The main reason why this was done is because there are now quite a few popular open source libraries that use those features, and VC is the only compiler that cannot handle them, which made it a pain to port them to Windows.
stdio.h and cstdio are both valid in C++. However, there is a slight difference - cstdio is only guaranteed to define the identifiers that it provides in namespace std, while stdio.h makes the same guarantee only for the global namespace. In practice, they are usually both backed by the same header that does both, so you'll get both - but relying on that is non-portable. Since he doesn't use std:: to refer to those identifiers, "stdio.h" is the correct header for him to include.
"stdio.h" searches the directory containing the current source file first, then the include directories.
The standard itself doesn't have any notion of "directory containing the current source file" or "include directories", actually. It just says that "..." does some form of implementation-defined search, which, if it fails, falls back to <...>.
OP is likely confusing the special exception that int main() gets for a general rule. For main, you can indeed return nothing, despite its return type, and that is equivalent to returning 0. This works in both C and C++.
It's still not the same thing. In C, you can declare a function without specifying the argument types, but then define it with specific types in a different translation unit. In C++, the definition and the declaration must match - if you declare it as int foo(...), then you must also define it in the same way (which renders it effectively useless, since without any named arguments you won't have anything to pass to va_*).
Next time you see your great-granddad, ask him what he thinks about interracial marriages.
(That is basically the level of your argument, in case this isn't readily obvious.)
It isn't like any polynesians had a navy capable of transporting the people and resources needed to conquer the islands. Nor was there economic value in such an endeavor. Refugees and explorers showing up and assimilating? Absolutely. A conquering force? Not a chance.
Maori didn't quite conquer New Zealand that way (there was no-one to conquer it from), but they definitely did assemble a fleet large enough to be an invasion force.
The royal family of the Hawaiians may not even call themself so, it is illegal under the american constitution.
Care to cite the relevant part?
Golden Dawn is by all accounts a neo-Nazi party (heck, all it takes is a single look at their official flag to confirm that). It's amusing when neo-Nazis refer to themselves as liberals, but don't expect anyone to be fooled.
It's banned in Russia under the local laws on extremism.
Just FYI, Texas and its balls are largely a creation of a PR campaign. Even as far as "keep your guns" goes, Texas is not the most gun-friendly state in the union, nor the one with most people carrying. It's just the one that people think of first when they hear "guns", and vice versa.
Do you support the Golden Dawn?
Those "lynching parties" aren't actually legal, even under the strictest Sharia interpretation. They are just tolerated, similar to how lynchings of blacks were tolerated in the South despite being illegal by law.
Historically, it's actually the other way around - the reason why Islam (and other religions and cultures similar in that respect) has provisions for polygamy in the first place is because it started as a rather warlike religion with inevitable casualties among the young males who shoulder the burden of the war. It's also why polygamy is not generally encouraged in Islam, and was originally promoted by Muhammad as a means to ensure that all those widowed females have a caretaker. Of course, over time it simply evolved into more wives for richer people, but that's a different conversation.
Do you also get out of your car to defrost the rear window?
I thought it's outright illegal to ask age-related questions to candidates?
You don't need to be writing software for airplanes to understand the notion of an overflowing counter, and why you'd want to use a 64-bit int for it just in case.
The main reason why people recommend it is because of what happens if you mix signed and unsigned. If they are of the same size (e.g. signed int and unsigned int), then according to the spec, the result will be unsigned. So you divide, say, -2 by 1u, and get something very unexpected. If you always use the same signedness, then you can dodge this problem, and in general you do want to represent negative numbers every now and then, hence the default is signed.
In practice it doesn't work so well simply because so much of the language and the standard library uses unsigned anyway. For example, sizeof is unsigned, and so is strlen(), and in C++, size() on all the standard container types, including string. So if you want to write C or C++, you have to deal with signed/unsigned mismatch anyway.
You want to play this game? Fine. I'm well within the 1% of US by income, and while the majority of my income isn't from capital gains, they are a sizable contribution due to stock bonuses and such. I'm quite okay with making personal income tax more progressive, and raising capital gains tax to match personal income, even though that would mean more money taken out of my pocket every year. Why? Well, perhaps because I don't want another Baltimore in my neighborhood?
He doesn't necessarily need to win to produce some tangible change. If he gets enough votes in the primaries, that alone will send a clear signal to mainline Dems that they should pay more attention to the left.
This implies that communists would be against worker cooperatives, which isn't true in general. Marxist-Leninists are, but there are other kinds of communists, including anarcho-communists and Luxembourgists who like cooperatives just fine.
The real difference is in the ultimate goal. Communists are a subset of socialists who believe that it is possible to create a classless society, thereby resolving the class conflict once and for all, and removing the need for any form of state and societal oppression (and hence the state itself - communism is supposedly a classless and stateless socioeconomic system). They typically believe that this is only possible by undergoing through a transitional socialist period, but how that period looks varies depending on the brand of communist, and pretty much any socialist form of organization is claimed as the best by some group somewhere.
Socialists who aren't communists don't generally believe in that future perfect society, and for them socialism is a way to achieve socioeconomic justice and fairness (as they see it) here and now more so than just a means to advance to the point where said justice and fairness is inherent and self-sustaining.
I'm a liberal here in US on an H1B visa, and I'd support Sanders if I could (obviously I cannot vote, and I cannot legally contribute to his campaign). I disagree with his position on the visas, but it's one thing out of many, and there is way more important fish to fry short term.
A big part of it is support for electoral reform. I may disagree with a candidate on 99% of his platform, but if his 1% includes making it easier for me to get the candidate that I actually like into office in the future, that's the 1% I'll care about most. And this usually comes from the fringes of both left and right, from people like Pauls or Sanders.
I think that the people who are actually doing the real work here (i.e. the scientists) all have fairly realistic expectations. The rest of us can party if it makes us feel better, and it won't hurt if the end result is increased funding for science in general. And if nothing happens in the end, well, there won't be any more articles, and in a month everyone except for those genuinely interested will forget it was even there (well, there will also be the occasional science freak posting about it on Slashdot in every future story on space propulsion, but that's what Slashdot is for).