junke

48 ms·

451.
by junke 10y ago
> The one downside that I've found is that it doesn't correspond to the hardware as much. The hardware keeps changing. What Lisp provides is a way to access low-level details when necessary, but with a default mode of operation
452.
by junke 10y ago
> Since 1979, Igor and Grichka Bogdanov have been widely known in France as television-show hosts. They recently had their own parodical song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbXj2OGXFjI This is about their supposedly ab
453.
by junke 10y ago
I am pleased this is not another Gorilla vs. Shark comparison. I like that the article focuses on the thing being developed rather than the tool being used.
454.
by junke 10y ago
> > Funny how taking things out of context can change the meaning. > Not really. I can assure you that it is indeed funny.
455.
by junke 10y ago
Funny how taking things out of context can change the meaning. If you look at the second sentence, you can infer what the first one is about.
456.
by junke 10y ago
> If you do that and get a panic down the line... No, you don't panic, you are most likely to corrupt your data and maybe continue working as if everything was fine. If you are lucky, your code panics. > ... you already know whe
457.
A mini-tutorial of ACSL specifications for Value(blog.frama-c.com)
1 points by junke 10y ago|0 comments
458.
by junke 10y ago
Ignoring on purpose is fine. The problem is when the only return value is an error which can be ignored simply by not assigning the result to a variable. Forcing the user to do: _ = f.Close() ... in order to explicitly ignore the e
459.
by junke 10y ago
Go forces you to use errcheck.
460.
by junke 10y ago
We are?
461.
by junke 10y ago
I used to Go, now I Have.
462.
by junke 10y ago
> A plugin is only initialized once, and cannot be closed. Why not?
463.
by junke 10y ago
The behavior is different if a panic occurs, isn't it? But is there any chance that this particular initialization code might panic in the first place?
464.
Fun vs. Computer Science(prog21.dadgum.com)
1 points by junke 10y ago|0 comments
465.
by junke 10y ago
Just to clarify: err = catch-all(expr) If your language does not provide a similar tool, you can't just use a function because "expr" is evaluated before the function is called. I had Lisp macros in mind when writing
466.
by junke 10y ago
> Wouldn't that basically be replicating a return value-error approach, in a more cumbersome way though? This would not be "replicating" anything, exceptions already are values in most languages. The only thing to do is wr
467.
by junke 10y ago
> This is a very interesting situation (and not a very common one for me) because it is where Go’s simple errors as values decisions shines. Doing this kind of thing with exceptions would be pretty clumsy, [...] Just because a language s
468.
by junke 10y ago
You surely know this but for other people interested: 1. You could add "using (hash-value v)" in the iteration clause to directly have the value (no gethash). 2. There is maphash too.
469.
by junke 10y ago
I remember that, it was fun.
470.
by junke 10y ago
Even more recursive ! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12496902
471.
by junke 10y ago
> Your thinking is correct and precise, but I hope you never take a job of documentation writer for any project I will ever have to work with :) I agree, that was terrible. > My example of documenting re.findall all would be smth like
472.
by junke 10y ago
And this one is special because?
473.
by junke 10y ago
Magit
474.
by junke 10y ago
This put this recent article in a new light: "Everything i am afraid might happen if i ask new acquaintances to get coffee." http://www.newyorker.com/humor/daily-shouts/everything-i-am-... https:/&
475.
by junke 10y ago
How come you know "foreach" in the first place, this is not even a correct english term? You learn it from another language? Wonderful, but why should every keyword from every programming language ever designed be present in the P
476.
by junke 10y ago
The documentation contains "for-each" and "for each", but sadly not "foreach". Why should "foreach" be in the documentation? There is no "foreach" keyword in Python. If you are looking for &
477.
by junke 10y ago
What is wrong with his docstrings?
478.
by junke 10y ago
Yes, but the parent comment said "creating sock puppet accounts", which is okay because there might be legitimate uses.
479.
by junke 10y ago
Indicative of what? Are you trying to say that a the docs should have "Python for X programmers" sections, foreach (no pun intended) X in {Perl, PHP, Haskell, Lisp, Go, Javascript, C++, ...}? That would be nice, but what is even b
480.
by junke 10y ago
> Also, while voting fraud is against the guidelines and actively countered, creating sock puppet accounts is not. You're right. For anyone interested here is the relevant post: http://meta.stackexchange.com/q/5

More ›