Peter da Silva writes:
> Just so long as you don't try and argue that [...] just increasing
> sizeof(char) wouldn't be infinitely less hateful.
It would be pretty hard, though: in C, sizeof(char) is 1 by definition.
Or, to put it another way: sizeof measures in multiples of char.
--
Aaron Crane
Anyway, if you look at alphabets and languages as software they are
all hateful. Unfortunately sacrificing backwards compatibility to
resolve the problems in this sphere is completely nonviable. :-)
Just so long as you don't try and argue that the pile of crap that's
come out of the political p
I have a simplistic understanding of, for instance, how one can define
control structures within the language, rather than having to
hard-code them
into the parser. I just don't understand how one can easily recognize
whether a language supports this feature.
It's pretty easy. If the control
Which reminds me. Some people do "quoted" text ``like this''. Which is
one
of the most moronic things in the world. It crops up a lot in UNIX-type
system documentation, which says a lot.
That's because on a C/A/T phototypesetter back in the '70s when most of
the documents that people have been
