An informal survey of z-index values found in the wild

Re:An informal survey of z-index values found in the wild by Haghn on Monday July 08, 2019 @06:15AM (#20381407)

From the article :

> Perhaps you will succeed where I failed, and find a way to include in a chart the largest z-index value I found, namely 10^1242-1.

> Yes, that’s 1242 times the number 9.

Come on, I know maths are no longer needed to be a developer, but this is ridiculous.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:An informal survey of z-index values found in the wild by cdirkx on Monday July 08, 2019 @06:51AM (#20381605)

Although the wording is ambiguous he probably (correctly) meant that the number is 1242 9's long: 999999... and not 9^1242 or 1242 x 9

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:An informal survey of z-index values found in the wild by ht85 on Monday July 08, 2019 @07:51AM (#20381911)

I can totally see myself type a bunch of "9", then copy paste them a bunch of times in a moment of CSS layout induced rage :)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:An informal survey of z-index values found in the wild by Haghn on Monday July 08, 2019 @06:55AM (#20381619)

Oh, I did not understand this way, but you are indeed correct. My bad.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:An informal survey of z-index values found in the wild by arantius on Monday July 08, 2019 @04:00PM (#20386220)

This is why I care so much about grammar. Author wrote "1242 times the number 9" but meant "the number 9 1242 times". A very minor difference, just the order of the words, but such a change in meaning!

[ Parent | on HN ]