On Tuesday, 8 March 2016 at 00:47:10 UTC, Mike Parker wrote:
On Monday, 7 March 2016 at 20:54:22 UTC, Patience wrote:
On Monday, 7 March 2016 at 15:09:48 UTC, Lass Safin wrote:
On Monday, 7 March 2016 at 05:56:54 UTC, Patience wrote:
int[size] <- creates an integer of size bits.
You declare arrays of integers with int[size], you know that,
right?
No, not right. Think again. Get your mind out the gutter.
Making your own assumptions about what I am talking about can
get you in to trouble. Only in programming languages were
int[size] is interpreted as an array does it mean that.
To be fair, this is a D newsgroup and you did not specify that
you are talking about this as a general concept rather than
something for D. My first reaction was the same. It's only
natural to assume you are talking about this as a part of D.
Yes, but that isn't the point. The point is that only retards
such as Bob takes abstractions literally.
Why does it matter if I used [] or {} or . or \ or <> to
reference something doesn't exist yet and hence could be defined
any way one wants? Then be told it is a total waste by someone
that clearly doesn't have the basic intellectual ability to
understand abstractions?
Basically: If someone can't understand that a new
concept/proposition is malleable and not fixed then they really
shouldn't be discussing it, They need to go back to their 0's and
1's.
That is, I except someone to have to think about what I'm saying
and interpret it properly instead of just adding there 2 cents
and pretending like it's a dollar.
