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
You know what the chain of command is? It's the chain I go get and beat you with until you understand who's in ruttin' command here.
Jayne ,'The Train Job'
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.
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?
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....
Laura - Jul 25, 2005 9:44:25 am PDT #30 of 4671
Our wings are not tired.
head explodes
§ ita § - Jul 25, 2005 9:57:49 am PDT #31 of 4671
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
Unrelated to syntax, I have to say I hate the changes that mean a marked post is the first one displayed on the page. I liked being able to mark or unmark a post without changing what I'd "read" and what I hadn't "read." Same with blocking, etc.
Rob - Jul 25, 2005 10:12:30 am PDT #32 of 4671
Did we consider "Buffistas Building a Better Board += 1"? Actually, "Buffistas Building a Better Board << 1" would have been the nerdiest.
Edited because it's hard to type <.
Topic!Cindy - Jul 25, 2005 10:21:42 am PDT #33 of 4671
What is even happening?
Unrelated to syntax, I have to say I hate the changes that mean a marked post is the first one displayed on the page. I liked being able to mark or unmark a post without changing what I'd "read" and what I hadn't "read." Same with blocking, etc.
I would agree, except I hated much more what happened the old way. All my scrolling was undone, and I'd have to scroll back through what I'd already read, to find out where I was. If it could be leave me at the same point on the page, like a refresh does, I would like the old way better.
§ ita § - Jul 25, 2005 10:23:48 am PDT #34 of 4671
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
If it could be leave me at the same point on the page, like a refresh does, I would like the old way better.
That's between you and your browser, mostly. I mean, we could put something in that puts the post you just marked at the top of your window (not page), but if you had marked it while it was at the bottom of your window, you're still shifted around.
Topic!Cindy - Jul 25, 2005 11:25:11 am PDT #35 of 4671
What is even happening?
I mean, we could put something in that puts the post you just marked at the top of your window (not page)Sorry, that is what I meant. But that isn't how it used to work, at least not for me. Before it was the way it is now, it would bring me back to the top of the page I had loaded, even if the post I marked wasn't anywhere near there. So if I was in natter, and loaded the page starting with post #51 to post #100, and then I read down to and marked post 72, it would bounce me back up to post 51. I hated that. Just sayin'.
DXMachina - Jul 25, 2005 11:26:24 am PDT #36 of 4671
You always do this. We get tipsy, and you take advantage of my love of the scientific method.
t Stands in the old way hatin' corner with Cindy.
Also, still hatin' Verdana.