Like DX said, it doesn't get moved to closed right away - it's in the main thread list.
They should film that story and show it every Christmas.
Xander ,'Same Time, Same Place'
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 10:00:00 pm PDT #20 of 4671
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
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?
amych - Jul 25, 2005 8:17:53 am PDT #27 of 4671
Now let us crush something soft and watch it fountain blood. That is a girlish thing to want to do, yes?
OK, that was way too much explanation, right?
Yep, and it also perfectly matches the explanation I was given of why it really ought to be ++C
Topic!Cindy - Jul 25, 2005 8:21:26 am PDT #28 of 4671
What is even happening?
There should be more math. This could be mathier.
tommyrot - Jul 25, 2005 8:22:09 am PDT #29 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.
Yep, and it also perfectly matches the explanation I was given of why it really ought to be ++C
OTOH, if the variable only needs to be incremented, not "looked at," then the convention seems to be putting the ++ after the variable - eg, for-next loops are usually done like this:
for(x = 1; x < 10; x++){
blah blah;
}
eta: Don't ask me what "blah blah" does, or I shall be forced to make something up....