Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon.

Pages: 1-4041-8081-

VB's not equal operator <>

Name: Anonymous 2008-02-12 15:50

What the fuck Microsoft, why must everything you do be non-standard?

Name: Anonymous 2008-02-12 16:00

<=>

Name: Anonymous 2008-02-12 16:01

because its logical.

Name: Anonymous 2008-02-12 16:11

Believe it or not, you can use <>, !=, ~= in Oracle

Name: Anonymous 2008-02-12 16:47

Gentlemen, behold type-strict check and Python quotes!:

===
"""truly faggot quotes"""

Name: Anonymous 2008-02-12 17:38

>>1
It's standard in SQL.

Name: Anonymous 2008-02-12 17:39

And standard in the original BASIC from Dartmouth.

Name: Anonymous 2008-02-12 19:20

>>6
Pronounced SEQUEL.

Name: Anonymous 2008-02-12 19:28

>>8
SQUALL

Name: Anonymous 2008-02-12 19:36

>>9
SCHQIIIIILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL

Name: Anonymous 2008-02-12 19:41

>>10
Skel

Name: Anonymous 2008-02-12 19:50

>>11
Ha?

Name: Anonymous 2008-02-12 22:55

< less than
greater than
= equal
<= less than or equal
>= greater than or equal
<> less than or greater than (ie, not equal, fuckhead)

Name: Anonymous 2008-02-12 22:56

>>13
Fuck you, BBCode.

Name: Anonymous 2008-02-13 0:00

>>13

Forgetting Space ship operator.

<=> Less then, Equal to, or greater then.

Name: Anonymous 2008-02-13 0:04

>>13
>> greater than
greater than

now i know how to quote

Name: Anonymous 2008-02-13 0:28

>>16
That's just the BBCode pipe operator.

Name: Anonymous 2008-02-13 0:33

>>15
greater then.
greater then.

> > > > FAIL

Name: Anonymous 2008-02-13 0:45

FAIL
FAIL
FAIL
FAIL
FAIL

Name: Anonymous 2008-02-13 0:57

>>19
Try doing it without the blank space between lines.

Name: Anonymous 2008-02-13 4:21

>>20
Now that's a challenge, but I think that BBCode is not recursive.


fail
> fail
> fail


Name: Anonymous 2008-02-13 4:22

Forget it, it's NP-complete.

Name: Anonymous 2008-02-13 5:33

I solve NP-complete in linear time.

Name: Anonymous 2008-02-13 6:04

fail
> fail

Name: Anonymous 2008-02-13 6:10

\> NIGGERS

Name: Anonymous 2008-02-13 6:27

// quote matching ... three times! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
$_POST[mesg] = preg_replace("/\n&gt; (.+)/i", "\n<span class='quote'>$1</span>", $_POST[mesg]);
$_POST[mesg] = preg_replace("/^&gt; (.+)/i", "<span class='quote'>$1</span>", $_POST[mesg]);
$_POST[mesg] = preg_replace("/<span class='quote'>&gt; (.+)/i", "<span class='quote'><span class='quote'>$1</span>", $_POST[mesg]);
$_POST[mesg] = preg_replace("/<span class='quote'>&gt; (.+)/i", "<span class='quote'><span class='quote'>$1</span>", $_POST[mesg]);

Name: Anonymous 2008-02-13 6:39

<> less than or greater than (ie, not equal, fuckhead)
O RLY?

(/ 0. 0.)
+nan.0
(define NaN (/ 0. 0.))
(or (> NaN NaN) (< NaN NaN))
#f
(not (= NaN NaN))
#t

Name: Anonymous 2008-02-13 6:40

NaN is Not a Number

Name: Anonymous 2008-02-13 6:46

NaN a Number

Name: Anonymous 2008-02-13 7:14

NaN a Number

Name: Anonymous 2008-02-13 7:49

>>27
That's what we have <=> for

Name: Anonymous 2008-02-13 10:46

My Nan has no number.
How does she participate in arithmetic?
Terrible!

Name: Anonymous 2008-02-13 10:47

>>32
I actually laughed out loud

Name: Anonymous 2008-02-13 11:42

>>15
Also known as the vacuously true operator.

Name: Anonymous 2008-02-13 12:33

>>34
It's not always true.

Name: Anonymous 2008-02-13 12:38

>>13
! not
= equal

!= not equal

Name: Anonymous 2008-02-13 13:12

>>7
Dartmouth is my favorite supervillain.

Name: Anonymous 2008-02-13 13:47

>>35
... yes, it is, provided we are dealing with finite numbers.

Name: Anonymous 2008-02-13 14:58

>>38
We're not talking mathematically here.

IEEE-754 floating point's NaN is one example where <=> can return false.

Name: Anonymous 2008-02-13 15:00

>>39
s/We're/I'm/

Name: Anonymous 2008-02-13 15:33

>>36
¬ not
= equal

≠ not equal

Name: Anonymous 2008-02-13 16:04


! factorial
= assignment

!= factorial assignment?

Name: Anonymous 2008-02-13 16:55

>>42
! is of the form
N!
Assignment requires lvalue = rvalue
N! is rvalue, therefore N!=val is incorrect.

Name: Anonymous 2008-02-13 16:58

>>40
Do you not realise that this is a programming board and this thread is about the <> operator as implemented in a programming language?

Name: Anonymous 2008-02-13 17:01

>>43
greedy parser is greedy

Name: Anonymous 2008-02-13 17:23

>>43
In a logic-based language, n!=69 might read as "n is some number such that its factorial is 69."

Name: Anonymous 2008-02-13 18:06

>>44
Do you not realise that this is /prog/ and that you have been trolled.

Name: Anonymous 2008-02-13 18:35

>>47
NO U

Name: Anonymous 2008-02-14 0:50

>>43
N!=val makes perfect sense as factorial assignment.  For instance, N!=3628800 sets N to 10.

Name: Anonymous 2008-02-14 1:47

>>49
usability over form

n!=3

what now faggot

Name: Anonymous 2008-02-14 2:10

>>50
?ILLEGAL ARGUMENT  ERROR
READY.
_

Name: Anonymous 2008-02-14 2:19

Name: Anonymous 2008-02-14 5:34

>>50
N = NaN
NaN a Number

Name: Anonymous 2008-02-14 10:41

>>39
NaN is obviously not finite.

Name: Anonymous 2008-02-18 1:13

≶ and ≷ are obviously the correct operators to use. And possibly ≹.

Name: Anonymous 2008-11-10 0:15

>>43
N! is rvalue, therefore N!=val is incorrect.
in some languages everything is an lvalue.

Name: Anonymous 2008-11-10 0:48

>>1
Um, not every language takes after C's shitty wanna-be APL syntax.  <> has existed as BASIC's not-equal operator since like 1969; has been so throughout all the ROM and floppy disk based BASICs in the 70's and 80's, was that way in GW-BASIC, BASICA, and early + late versions of Qbasic.

Name: Anonymous 2008-11-10 20:19

> (number? (/ 0. 0.))
#t
(= (/ 0. 0.) (/ 0. 0.))
#f


Same fuckup as in JS. Oh well, at least equal? works.

Name: Anonymous 2008-11-10 23:12

= equal
/= not equal

Guess the language.

Name: Anonymous 2008-11-10 23:48

>>60
uhhhhhhhhh, Haksell!!!!

Name: Anonymous 2008-11-10 23:57

/= is better than <>

Name: Anonymous 2008-11-11 5:32

>>39
AIEEEEEE IT'S SO WRONG MY HEAD HURTS

Name: Anonymous 2008-11-11 6:19

>>59
( scratchpad ) 0. 0. / number? .
t
( scratchpad ) 0. 0. / dup = .
t

but then there's this...
( scratchpad ) 0. 0. / dup <=> .
+gt+
( scratchpad ) 0. 0. / dup > .
f

Name: Anonymous 2008-11-11 7:01

Why is there so much fuckup with NaN? NaN should be a value such as Python's None or Scheme's #f, without operator gotchas. Moreover, NaN should be consistent with its semantics as a non-number.

Name: Anonymous 2008-11-11 14:07

>>65
Have you read your IEEE 754?

Name: Anonymous 2008-11-11 14:14

>>5
not === """feels good man"""

Name: Anonymous 2008-11-11 15:00

>>66
A summary (with gory details nonetheless), and I know. But I'm using a high-level language, I want all of that abstracted and fixed in my Satori type system.

Name: Anonymous 2008-11-11 16:02

>>66
This may surprise you, but I actually wrote part of the IEEE-754 binary floating point standard.

Name: Anonymous 2008-11-11 19:05

**** COMMODORE 64 BASIC V2 ****

 64K RAM SYSTEM  38911 BASIC BYTES FREE

READY.

Name: Anonymous 2008-11-11 19:43

Some of you are huge faggots.

The operator originated in 1964. It is standard.

In no other place does ! mean not except for faggy C syntax and those that copied it.

In VB Not is the operator for not. Why? Because that makes fucking sense.

Not a = b is the same as the faggy a != b.

Of you can do the a <> b because a cannot be greater then AND less than b.

Fucking stupid faggots.

Name: Anonymous 2008-11-11 19:57

>>71
After having browsed Reddit for a while, I felt the need to downmod you.

In any case, insert "No, you're the faggot" Banderas pic.

Name: Anonymous 2008-11-12 0:28




     **** COMMODORE 64 BASIC V2 ****

 64K RAM SYSTEM   38911 BASIC BYTES FREE

READY.
10 LIST
RUN
10 LIST
READY.

Name: Anonymous 2008-11-12 0:52

EXTENDED COLOR BASIC 1.1
COPYRIGHT (C) 1982 BY TANDY
UNDER LICENSE FROM MICROSOFT

OK

Name: Anonymous 2008-11-12 1:15

Microsoft Windows XP [Version 5.1.2600]
(C) Copyright 1985-2001 Microsoft Corp.

C:\Documents and Settings\James>

Name: Anonymous 2008-11-12 1:51

>>73
Oh boy, a C64 BASIC quine.

Name: Anonymous 2008-11-12 16:07

Hornet man

Name: Anonymous 2009-04-20 12:49

Splashwo Man

Name: Anonymous 2009-04-20 13:09

NaN ain't NaN.

Name: Anonymous 2009-04-20 13:30

<=> is better

Name: Anonymous 2009-04-20 16:54

none of the BASIC implementations follow the BASIC standard.

Name: Anonymous 2009-04-20 17:07

>>79
NaN's Not a gNu

Name: Anonymous 2009-04-20 17:07

>>80
/= is better

Name: Anonymous 2009-04-20 22:29

When I use a not equal operator, I don't want one EXTRA CHARACTER of worthless
semantics and parser helping cues!  I just want an OPERAtor!!
Not a "!=".  Not a "<>".  Those aren't even CHARACTERS!!!!
≠! ≠! IS THE STANDARD!!!

Name: Anonymous 2009-04-21 0:54

>>84
1/10. Nice try though, don't be discouraged.

Name: Anonymous 2010-12-14 14:42

>>28-30
Fuck I laughed.

Name: 2010-12-14 14:42

Name: Anonymous 2010-12-14 14:52

(define (<=> . a) (ormap (lambda (f) (apply f a)) (list < > =)))

Name: Anonymous 2010-12-14 14:56

>>16
>>greater than
>greater than
``greater than"
Now I know how to faggot quote.

Name: Anonymous 2010-12-14 15:06

>>11
Oracle Skøl

Name: Anonymous 2010-12-15 0:38

>>40
No, it is "we". >>39 has been samefagging this thread.

Name: Fuck off, !Ep8pui8Vw2 2010-12-15 1:38

>>94
Fuck off, ``faggot''.

Name: Anonymous 2010-12-15 2:58

>>93
Now you've hurt my feelings.

Name: Anonymous 2010-12-15 3:09

>>94
Now you've hurt my    anus   .

Name: Anonymous 2010-12-17 1:40

Erika once told me that Xarn is a bad boyfriend

Name: Anonymous 2010-12-21 19:02

Name: 2011-03-25 19:07

Name: 2011-03-25 19:08

<---- check 'em

Name: Anonymous 2011-03-25 19:08

one hunddub

Name: Anonymous 2011-03-25 19:08

one hunddub and one

Name: Anonymous 2011-03-26 7:31

one hunddub and dub.

Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List