News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Zed Shaw on C++ by lanstein on Thursday July 15, 2010 @11:08PM (#1520089)
> You remember that Zed Shaw couldn't figure out how const works in C++, and once wrote a funny email about it.

source?

Re:Zed Shaw on C++ by timr on Thursday July 15, 2010 @11:21PM (#1520120)
Uh...I'm talking about the content of the post to which this thread is attached, so:

http://librelist.com/browser//mongrel2/2010/7/15/c-verses-c+...

Re:Zed Shaw on C++ by lanstein on Thursday July 15, 2010 @11:28PM (#1520134)
"You'll find crap in C++ like const *const char &, and hell if anyone knows what that really means since even though the pointer to a const to a const reference is consted to hell and back, oh look you can still increment it."

I'm still looking for the part where he doesn't understand how const _works_.

Re:Zed Shaw on C++ by tedunangst on Thursday July 15, 2010 @11:50PM (#1520195)
"const *const char &" is not valid C++ syntax, so I'm pretty sure you can't increment it. Therefore, anyone saying you can increment it doesn't understand it. QED.
Re:Zed Shaw on C++ by houseabsolute on Friday July 16, 2010 @12:23AM (#1520275)
There's this thing called a joke . . . I believe that's waht Zed is making here.
Re:Zed Shaw on C++ by zedshaw on Friday July 16, 2010 @01:08AM (#1520350)
You Sir, win a dollar! I think to make the joke really clear I'd have to add a few more consts and some pointers in there.
Re:Zed Shaw on C++ by slpsys on Friday July 16, 2010 @11:13AM (#1521369)
No, that's just what you'd need to make it compile
Re:Zed Shaw on C++ by steveklabnik on Friday July 16, 2010 @02:24PM (#1521992)
You should head over to Reddit and see how bad that one statement managed to keep up your perma-trolling. It's pretty intense.
Re:Zed Shaw on C++ by timr on Friday July 16, 2010 @12:51AM (#1520322)
Yes, of course. When you agree with the rant, the incorrect parts don't count.
Re:Zed Shaw on C++ by GreenMan on Friday July 16, 2010 @12:45AM (#1520313)
Perhaps you could point out the funny bit.
Re:Zed Shaw on C++ by zedshaw on Friday July 16, 2010 @01:39AM (#1520390)
Oh, you have to read that in the voice of The Comic Book Guy. Then it's fucking hilarious. Here try it:

"You sthee const const &const char[const ] is the proper way to make a thruly safe reference to a conthst char array conthst pointer conthst."

See, prime comedy gold there.

Also, 'cause you guys think the internet should be nothing but a massive academic white paper curated by Knuth, so any amount of hyperbole sends you into a literalism hissy fit.

Re:Zed Shaw on C++ by bitwize on Friday July 16, 2010 @10:36AM (#1521253)
Comic Book Guy doesn't lisp like that; although his virtual twin, Go-Bots Guy from Robot Chicken, does.
Re:Zed Shaw on C++ by sgift on Friday July 16, 2010 @01:59AM (#1520420)
He mocks that you can attach const nearly anywhere in c++ and it seems to do something different. (Note: This is a generalization, an important aspect of many jokes)
Re:Zed Shaw on C++ by mfukar on Friday July 16, 2010 @02:40AM (#1520486)
That explanation was so Sheldon Cooper-y. Kudos.
Re:Zed Shaw on C++ by houseabsolute on Friday July 16, 2010 @09:06PM (#1523076)
You'd have to use C++ to understand.