What DX said. The description on the profile page describes what folder the thread is in. If it's not in the Closed Folder (or the Site Admin folder), it's not going to say so.
Patron: That girl is a witch. Mal: Yeah, but she's our witch.
'Safe'
Buffistas Building a Better Board ++
Do you have problems, concerns, or recommendations about the technical side of the Phoenix? Air them here. Compliments also welcome.
§ ita § - Jul 24, 2005 9:19:45 am PDT #17 of 4671
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
Frankenbuddha - Jul 24, 2005 2:00:55 pm PDT #18 of 4671
"We are the Goon Squad and we're coming to town...Beep! Beep!" - David Bowie, "Fashion"
Where's the old thread? It's not in the closed threads link, so I'm just curious.
Topic!Cindy - Jul 24, 2005 2:07:52 pm PDT #19 of 4671
What is even happening?
buffistas.org/index.php
§ ita § - Jul 24, 2005 10:00:00 pm PDT #20 of 4671
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
Like DX said, it doesn't get moved to closed right away - it's in the main thread list.
Rob - Jul 25, 2005 7:23:36 am PDT #21 of 4671
It really should be named "++ Buffistas Building a Better Board".
tommyrot - Jul 25, 2005 7:27:12 am PDT #22 of 4671
Sir, it's not an offence to let your cat eat your bacon. Okay? And we don't arrest cats, I'm very sorry.
Yeah. But I think fewer people are familiar with that syntax.
§ ita § - Jul 25, 2005 7:29:11 am PDT #23 of 4671
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
Also, I think it's more important to have the basic thread name first than to have it be compilable.
amych - Jul 25, 2005 7:34:38 am PDT #24 of 4671
Now let us crush something soft and watch it fountain blood. That is a girlish thing to want to do, yes?
I think it's more important to have the basic thread name first than to have it be compilable.
That logic never worked on any of my CS profs. (Nor any of my compilers, for that matter)
t /natter
DXMachina - Jul 25, 2005 8:05:30 am PDT #25 of 4671
You always do this. We get tipsy, and you take advantage of my love of the scientific method.
It really should be named "++ Buffistas Building a Better Board".
I thought the whole idea was that it was supposed to be a riff off of the name "C++." t knows nothing about C syntax...
tommyrot - Jul 25, 2005 8:14:00 am PDT #26 of 4671
Sir, it's not an offence to let your cat eat your bacon. Okay? And we don't arrest cats, I'm very sorry.
I thought the whole idea was that it was supposed to be a riff off of the name "C++."
Yes. But the name "C++" is a riff off of incrementing variables in C, which can actually be done two ways - eg: x++ or ++x. Putting the '++' after the variable means the variable is "looked at" before it's incremented. So, if Buffistas_Building_a_Better_Board = 1, and you have the expression y = Buffistas_Building_a_Better_Board++, y will = 1, as Buffistas_Building_a_Better_Board is not incremented to 2 until after y is assigned. OTOH, the expression y = ++Buffistas_Building_a_Better_Board will result in y=2 (as well as Buffistas_Building_a_Better_Board=2).
OK, that was way too much explanation, right?