>>5
Doesn't char *argv[]
sound familiar? It's a pointer to an array of pointers to char (to strings of chars actually, but you obviously dont't point to an array containing a string, but rather merely to the first char of that array).
>>10
Yes, there isn't. Citing some stupid-ass question on a FAQ doesn't count. There's no such word as `decay' in the answer, too.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-28 3:02
>>11
While the term may not come from TEH STANDARD itself, it is quite commonly used (even if often put in quotes) and seems equally commonly understood. As such, calling someone an idiot for using it in that context honestly seem dubious at best.
Actually, the '*' character is the Star of David, concurrently serving as a pointer operator. '*' also looks like an anus. Just think of it - major Jewish symbol is an anus!
Wtf is a "pointer operator"?? * is the dereference/indirection operator, that's what it is. Will you call & a "pointer operator" as well, just because it has something to do with pointers?
As for other suggested similarities, depending on the font it may as well look like a five pointed star, so ymmv.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-28 14:30
>>16
In void * name; the symbol '*' acts as an operator on algebraic type "void" and symbol "name"
What particular version of the Standard is recommended to read? There's C89/C90 (ANSI), C90 with C94 updates, and ISO C99 and C11 - of which only drafts being available for free, the hardcopy of the final version of C90 seemingly out of print, and the final versions of C99 and C11 available from ISO for some serious amount of buck...?
why does a programming language standard cost money?
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-29 0:52
>>27
That's a draft from 2007 for what eventually became C11. There is a more recent version, n1548.pdf. Still, why would you rely on a draft when there's a final version that probably has some differences, kinda pointless imo. Secondly, it's C11, while the arguably most widely used and still most reasonable is C89/C90.
>>28
Good question - probably has something to do with policies of ISO who publish them. Your guess is as good as mine.
>>28 why does a programming language standard cost money?
Because C/C++ is so bad, its use should be restricted by Paywall.
We also need a paywall for PHP.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-29 10:09
>>35
Compare red bananas to yellow bananas. Red bananas are smaller, cost more, have awful resin taste and you have to leave them at sunlight for some time, else they will be like wood. So C/C++ is these red bananas you buy, when there are better and cheaper alternatives.
>>34-37
Dead link... on purpose. Filthy rat. You have that document but being nice and sharing it here would kill you. Oh, the double tripfagging, the use of memes that have absolutely nothing to do with your persona (seriously, cudders and satoris when your job is to repair controllers of washing machines) and that half-decade-long daily shitposting, that's being fresh.
>>38 use of memes that have absolutely nothing to do with your persona
Yeah. I too don't get why this faggot uses "cudder", when he hates Lisp and praises x86/C/C++ holy trinity.
I think he is just a successful troll. It became obvious in this IE demoscene thread.
>>37
I'm not surprised. Things like this don't last for long, not even if they're posted on an invite-only forum. >>38
The first thing you do is whine and accuse when someone tries to find something you want? Great social skills there, autist. I don't have the C11 standard nor am I particularly interested in it; I just found that link --- after a not-trivial amount of Googling and checking various sites --- to show that people do share these things just as they do anime, VNs, and movies. I could ask the guy who uploaded that to reupload it, but your ungrateful whining has made me decide otherwise.
>>40
And it seems you're too autistic to understand irony nor remember my gender.
Name:
Anonymous2013-06-30 10:28
http://www.cdecl.org/
>declare prog as const pointer to const pointer to const pointer to int
int * const * const * const prog
I have come to visit you for the first time in quite a while, and I must say that your board is dreadfully boring.
Name:
Anonymous2013-09-01 13:52
Since cardinality is such a common concept in mathematics, a variety of names are in use. Sameness of cardinality is sometimes referred to as equipotence, equipollence, or equinumerosity. It is thus said that two sets with the same cardinality are, respectively, equipotent, equipollent, or equinumerous.
Name:
Anonymous2013-09-01 16:10
Set theory as a foundation for mathematical analysis, topology, abstract algebra, and discrete mathematics is likewise uncontroversial; mathematicians accept that (in principle) theorems in these areas can be derived from the relevant definitions and the axioms of set theory.