Topic for #qi-hardware is now Copyleft hardware - http://qi-hardware.com | hardware hackers join here to discuss Ben NanoNote, atben / atusb 802.15.4 wireless, and other community driven hw projects | public logging at http://en.qi-hardware.com/irclogs
jurting has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
jurting has joined #qi-hardware
guanucoluis has joined #qi-hardware
<DocScrutinizer05>
larsc: wpwrak: pcercuei: I wouldn't know how T F to read this. The comment about code obfuscation contest was pretty much to the point
<pcercuei>
DocScrutinizer05: you program better when you understand things, that's why I asked
<DocScrutinizer05>
you program best when you avoid by all means that stuff that nobody understands
<pcercuei>
I disagree
<pcercuei>
you program best when you avoid that sort of stuff, but you should understand why
<DocScrutinizer05>
maybe because it's ambiguous nonsensical syntax?
<DocScrutinizer05>
I don't need to know what ما نكح means to avoid it
<pcercuei>
that's your opinion
<pcercuei>
the thing in question was ((-1) >> 1)
<DocScrutinizer05>
no, the ting in question been >>=
<DocScrutinizer05>
which might make a decent parser segfault
<pcercuei>
well that's the same
<DocScrutinizer05>
I doubt '>>=' has any reasonable meaning in any language other than c, and even there it's extremely obfuscated
<pcercuei>
why would it be?
<pcercuei>
it's not more obfuscated than x += 1
<DocScrutinizer05>
uhuh
<DocScrutinizer05>
aaah, well then blame it to my poor C skills, you're right
<pcercuei>
and as long as the Linux kernel's patch reviewing tool accepts it, I'll use it
dandon has quit [Quit: .]
<DocScrutinizer05>
anyway, the syntactical shortcut <var1> <operator>= <var2>, for <var1> = <var1> <operator> <var2> tends to look ill-formed for operators that don't consist of a single char
<wpwrak>
pcercuei: maybe C needs a unary >> and << as well ? like x = x+1; -> x += 1; -> x++; with shift x = x >> 1; -> x >>= 1; -> x>>; /* or similar */
<pcercuei>
I don't think that one exists
<wpwrak>
DocScrutinizer05: it's just a question of what you're used to. >>= and <<= are indeed relatively uncommon since incremental shifts often aren't expressed as such
<DocScrutinizer05>
x>>> then
<DocScrutinizer05>
or x>>>>
<wpwrak>
pcercuei: i just made it up :)
<wpwrak>
DocScrutinizer05: yeah, more consistent but a lot of >s
<DocScrutinizer05>
hmm, x»» then
<DocScrutinizer05>
makes for a nice x»=1 too
<DocScrutinizer05>
x»=7 ;-D
<wpwrak>
yeah. use a non-ascii character :)
<DocScrutinizer05>
well, iirc in some language *) been a transscription of }
<DocScrutinizer05>
pascal maybe?
<wpwrak>
yup
<DocScrutinizer05>
maybe /* is a transscription of italic-*
<DocScrutinizer05>
who knows, maybe >> is a transscription of »
<wpwrak>
to work around some ASCII-based character sets using { } [ ] etc. for umlauts or accented characters
<DocScrutinizer05>
;-P
<wpwrak>
this is in fact a common transcription
<wpwrak>
btw, C also has something like this. it's called "trigraph" and it's really pretty
* DocScrutinizer05
gasps
<wpwrak>
(-:C
<DocScrutinizer05>
I guess you learnt about that in your compiler building times?