Gregory's Server@ollej @blogdiva @promovicz I think we’re on to something here - maybe the way to easily express precision accuracy preferences is with the number of Os and As in “float”? If we only care about large numbers, declare a floooooaat but if you need precision in very small numbers, just declare a flooaaaaaaat.
|
8 comments
@ollej @mhoye @blogdiva @promovicz one could write [int, int, int] as a type, at which point (int, int, int) and [int, int, int] read kind of similar and one might as well abandon fixed-size arrays in favor of tuples.  @ollej @blogdiva @promovicz think of the convenience, how suddenly easy it is to declare an aaaaarraaaaay of floooooaaaats. @ollej @blogdiva @promovicz tired: syntactic sugar. Wired: syntactic high-fructose corn syrup. @mhoye @blogdiva @promovicz Also, why only have ++ increment operator for adding one, just add more plus signs to increment with that amount. So +++ adds two and +++++ adds four. @mhoye @blogdiva @promovicz Lets bring an end to the discussion of using keywords or braces for blocks, we can use this instead dobegin{: }end And also requiring indentation with alternating tabs and spaces for each level of nesting.  @mhoye @ollej @promovicz i ought to snitch on you to Eric Meyer (he's here but won't tag him because he doesn't need this nightmare scenario seared on his retinas) @blogdiva @mhoye @promovicz Who is he? And why wouldn’t he want a nightmare scenario seared into his retinas? |
@mhoye @blogdiva @promovicz Sounds incredibly practical! How about declaring the length of an array? How about out multiplying the number of a’s in the first position with the number of a’s in the second position?
aaaarraay = an array of length 8.