4 ms·
Nah, that's the sarcasterisk and should replace /s in modern communication.
by redog 2y ago
Nah, that's the sarcasterisk and should replace /s in modern communication.
- DonHopkins 2y agoIt also means three pointer dereferences in C++.
- ale42 2y agoLooking forward to write such code: ⁂data = 42;
- actionfromafar 2y ago(⁂^3)data = 42;
- actionfromafar 2y ago: droooop droop droop ;
- DonHopkins 2y agoOr the PostScript equivalent: /poop { pop pop } def % number two /pooop { poop pop } def % number three /poooop { poop poop } def % number four Inspired by graaand tradition of Lisp: http://clhs.lisp.se/Body/f_car_c.htm http://clhs.lisp.se/Body/f_car_c.htm
- account42 2y agoPlease submit a proposal for this.
- DonHopkins 2y agoOnce Bjarne Stroustrup's "Generalizing Overloading for C++2000" proposal is accepted, they won't be able to say no to moving beyond the PDP-11 instruction set and directly supporting tri-dereferences. https://www.stroustrup.com/whitespace98.pdf https://www.stroustrup.com/whitespace98.pdf >Instead, it was decided to by default limit identifiers to a single character: int xy; // error: two-character identifier >This may seems Draconian at first. However, since we now have the full Unicode character set available, we don't actually need hard-to-read long names. Such long names only make code obscure by causing unpleasantly long lines and unnatural line breaks. Multi-character names are a relic of languages that relied heavily on global name and encouraged overly-large scopes.
- tsimionescu 2y agoOnly acceptable if you can also spell it "cdddar".
- emmet 2y agoHonestly explicit sarcasm indication should just die out entirely. Might as well be writing it longhand as "Just in case you missed it, this is a joke haha." every time you tell a joke.
- bmacho 2y agoThis reasoning is nonsensical. There is nothing to refute in it, but, just to prove it wrong: sarcasm is commonly denoted in spoken English by intonation.
- emmet 2y agoAnd as we all know, it is impossible to imply tone in written text.
- medstrom 2y agoExactly, it is the illusion of transparency. Have someone read something you've written out loud, you'd be surprised how often they use a different tone than you had in mind. Add to that a variety of cultures and backgrounds.
- quietbritishjim 2y agoThe comment you're replying to was being sarcastic. (I'm not sure about you!)
- incognito124 2y agoIronically, proving the (wrong) point
- medstrom 2y agoYes, I read it that way too. Which meant that they were under the impression that it is easy to infer tone, so I replied with a serious explanation why it may not be.