7 ms·
Next RFC: replace true/false with nocap/cap
by wonderbore 4y ago
Next RFC: replace true/false with nocap/cap
- blindseer 4y agoAnd `unsafe` with `yolo`.
- collegeburner 4y ago`sus` fits with unsafe better I think.
- gpderetta 4y agoalso three letter shorter, so a definite improvement.
- viraptor 4y agoThis is getting into Lolcode territory. I HAZ A var ITZ A BUKKIT OF YARN
- Tuna-Fish 4y agoCurrently the term "unsafe" is overloaded, as both the keyword used to mark definitions of things that require manual verification, and as the keyword used to mark a block to acknowledge that such verification has been done. The correct approach is obviously to separate these two terms, and use "sus" to mark items that require verification, and "yolo" to mark that such verification has been done. Or: sus fn dangerous() { ... } yolo { dangerous() } // can only call dangerous inside a yolo block
- blindseer 4y agopog
- collegeburner 4y agoChange panic! to yikes! when?
- sundarurfriend 4y agopanic! should just become Panik
- bitwize 4y ago'unsafe' should be 'problematic'
- UncleEntity 4y agoor ‘prophylactic’…
- atoav 4y agoif/else with consider/tho
- monkeybutton 4y agoassert with fr
- fhakker 4y agoI do not think we can trust a computer to decide whether something is true or false. These kinds of august deliberations are best left to the new Disinformation Governance Board!
- jeroenhd 4y agoAll programs contain bugs and cosmic rays can flip bits at any time so it's nonsensical to trust boolean expressions. Therefore we should rename true/false to likely/unlikely.
- wonderbore 4y agoliterally/idk