Text 41131, 84 rader
Skriven 2006-10-11 21:48:05 av mark lewis (1:3634/12.0)
  Kommentar till text 41099 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Ärende: pi
==========
 MvdV>> Let me put it in a way that you may understand. Consider the
 MvdV>> following line in a computer programme written in C:

 MvdV>> if ((2+2)==5) printf("pi equals 3.12415");

 MvdV>> What value of pi will it print?

 ml> it won't print anything at all ;)

 MvdV> Right! It will not print anythingh at all! If it is a smart
 MvdV> compiler - and some are - it won't even make it into the object
 MvdV> code.

that's interesting... wonder what it (the smart compiler) would do if the
"short-circut boolean" flag was tripped the other way?

 MvdV> But since nothing is ever printed, the actual value in the source
 MvdV> code is irrelevant isn't it?

that depends on the "short-circut boolean" setting ;)

 ml>   "do you want beef or chicken for dinner?"

 ml> how would you answer the above if you had no preference?

 MvdV> I used to drive my mother crazy by answering "yes, I'd like that"
 MvdV> when asked if I wanted coffee or tea...

as said before, we're not so different ;)

 MvdV> By adding the "if you had no preference" however you show that
 MvdV> you have not entirely understood it. 

no... i added that just to ensure that my statement was understood... and that
you and others who might want to jump in wouldn't take that track in the
course...

 MvdV> Answering "yes" is logically correct even if there is a 
 MvdV> preference. It is even correct if I do not want chicken at all. 
 MvdV> When I only want beef and no chicken, it is still correct to 
 MvdV> answer "yes".

but i didn't exactly count on this track being taken since it was one of the
points i was trying to make...

 MvdV> I know that this is not what the average English reader would
 MvdV> agree on, but logic says that (chicken or beef) evaluates to TRUE
 MvdV> if only beef is TRUE. 

that's "short circut boolean" logic... in my code, as well as many other
places, i look to test everything and not just the first one...

 MvdV>> We are talking about a right in front of everybody's eyes
 MvdV>> obvious typo that someone tried to turn into me coming to the
 MvdV>> false conslusion that pi equals 3.12415.

 ml> well, i can't say who saw the message you wrote first

 MvdV> It was Bob Klahn who pointed out the typo. I acknowleged by
 MvdV> quoting the first 1500 or so digits of pi.

right, but did anyone else _see_ it before bobK did? they didn't/don't have to
have answered ;)

 MvdV> Then after the typo was pointed Roy jumped in and twisted it into
 MvdV> me actually having meant to say that pi equals 3.12415....

hehe... sad to say, michiel, he didn't twist it... the statement said that all
on its own...

 ml> that i deleted my first reply which covered this exact same... i
 ml> deleted it because i didn't want to play on that merry-go-round and
 ml> didn't have time to even try...

 MvdV> But then you jumped on the band wagon anyway...

afterward and not as any kinf of attacker... remember, there are at least two
sides of the fence... i sometimes thing that the (american?) english language
has close ties to quantum physics because things may be more than one thing at
the same time O:)

)\/(ark

 * Origin:  (1:3634/12)