Oriel Jutty :hhHHHAAAH:

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

I am 100% confident that your claim is factually wrong.

I agree with your core point, but no software is intuitive.

POV: You open vim for the first time.

b == 7 is a boolean value

Citation needed. I’m pretty sure it’s an int.

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.

My CGI script is a SaaS.

for (int i = INT_MIN; ; i++) {    ...    if (i == INT_MAX) break;}

Incidentally, this is an anti-pattern: http://mywiki.wooledge.org/BashPitfalls#cmd1_.26.26_cmd2_.7C.7C_cmd3

@Tangentism @Ephera Did you mean:

echo "${var:-empty}${var:+no it aint}"

?

Arguably, I never fully learned Bash syntax, but it also is just a stupid if-statement. There shouldn’t be that much complexity in it.

There isn’t. The syntax is

if COMMANDthenCOMMAND(s)...elseCOMMAND(s)...fi

I believe, if you write the then onto the next line, then you don’t need the semicolon.

Yes, but that’s true of all commands.

foo; bar; baz

is the same as

foobarbaz

All the ] and -z stuff has nothing to do with if. In your example, the command you’re running is literally called [. You’re passing it three arguments: -z, "$var", and ]. The ] argument is technically pointless but included for aesthetic reasons to match the opening ] (if you wanted to, you could also write test -z "$var" because [ is just another name for the test command).

Since you can logically negate the exit status of every command (technically, every pipeline) by prefixing a !, you could also write this as:

if ! test "$var"; then ...

The default mode of test (if given one argument) is to check whether it is non-empty.

Now, if you don’t want to deal with the vagaries of the test command and do a “native” string check, that would be:

case "$var" in  "") echo "empty";;  *) echo "not empty";;esac