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.
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.
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.
Yes, of course. When you agree with the rant, the incorrect parts don't count.
Perhaps you could point out the funny bit.
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.
Comic Book Guy doesn't lisp like that; although his virtual twin, Go-Bots Guy from Robot Chicken, does.
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)
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.
I'm still looking for the part where he doesn't understand how const _works_.