Similarly, Perl lets you say
my $ret = do { if (...) { ... } else { ... }};
Similarly, Perl lets you say
my $ret = do { if (...) { ... } else { ... }};
To be fair, the C example could be detangled a lot by introducing a typedef:
typedef int Callback_t(int, int);Callback_t *(*fp)(Callback_t *, int);
Both of those declarations look weird to me. In Haskell it would be:
a :: Stringbob :: (String, Int, Double) -> [String]bob (a, b, c) = ...
... except that makes bob
a function taking a tuple and it's much more idiomatic to curry it instead:
bob :: String -> Int -> Double -> [String]bob a b c = ...-- syntactic sugar for:-- bob = \a -> \b -> \c -> ...
The [T]
syntax also has a prefix form [] T
, so [String]
could also be written [] String
.
OCaml makes the opposite choice. In OCaml, a list of strings would be written string list
, and a set of lists of strings would be string list set
, a list of lists of integers int list list
, etc.
Because let x: y
is syntactically unambiguous, but you need to know that y
names a type in order to correctly parse y x
. (Or at least that's the case in C where a(b)
may be a variable declaration or a function call depending on what typedefs are in scope.)
include Hebrew in their language, because I guess they were feeling kabbalistic
... or because the developers were Israeli: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zend/_(company)#History
Do you know the difference between a script and a program?
A script is what you give the actors; a program is what you give the audience.
I don't understand the complaint. What exactly is the issue?
I'll update my mems when Microsoft decides to implement C99. (Hey, it's only been a quarter of a century ...)
Yeah, just don't make any mistakes and you'll be fine. Come on guys, how hard can it be?
The same is true of std::endl. std::endl is simply defined as << '\n' << std::flush
; nothing more, nothing less. In all cases where endl gives you a "properly translated" newline, so does \n
.
std::endl provides zero portability benefits. C++ does have a portable newline abstraction, but it is called \n
, not endl.
Isn't that how B worked?