BREAKING: C++26 will introduce unsigned double
Uncategorized
11
Posts
8
Posters
29
Views
-
BREAKING: C++26 will introduce unsigned double
-
BREAKING: C++26 will introduce unsigned double
@vitaut Cool now we only have to wait for signed void.
-
BREAKING: C++26 will introduce unsigned double
@vitaut cant tell if serious
-
@vitaut Cool now we only have to wait for signed void.
@SonnyBonds @vitaut I imagine that's how the monkey paw would grant my regular void wish: void is now a real returnable value... But there's signed and unsigned versions. (And void is an impl defined typedef to one of these and the big 3 disagree to which)
-
BREAKING: C++26 will introduce unsigned double
@vitaut I would be more interested in `unsigned float`. We embedded developers could use the spare bit as additional bool (unsigned of cause).
-
BREAKING: C++26 will introduce unsigned double
I had students trying that well before!
-
I had students trying that well before!
@PeterSommerlad How did it go?
-
BREAKING: C++26 will introduce unsigned double
@vitaut This implies unsigned nan
-
@PeterSommerlad How did it go?
@vitaut they asked me why it doesn't compile in the lab exercise.
to be fair, their first two semesters where in Java and unsigned was something new in C++
-
BREAKING: C++26 will introduce unsigned double
@vitaut I'd perfer that it added signed pointers as standard feature
-
@vitaut I'd perfer that it added signed pointers as standard feature
@vitaut there's inconsistency when some implementations have them, and some don't
-
undefined oblomov@sociale.network shared this topic on
Gli ultimi otto messaggi ricevuti dalla Federazione
-
@glitchypixel I'm very interested to see where you go with this. I got really excited about VALA about ~15 years ago, and the unportability of glib to even things like wasm was one of the reasons I eventually fell off of it. I'd been hoping someone might come along and produce a middle ground between gobject and glib. It seems like that never shaked out, but patching over the deficits with a few choice libraries might actually work out really well.
-
@50Percent_Cooler LibreWolf Is a bit too opinionated for my taste
-
-
@evan I yelled at my company for this once upon a time: https://exple.tive.org/blarg/2019/04/17/why-dont-you-just/
-
@glitchypixel SDL has stuff for IO. I've never used it, so I can't vouch for it, but here's the docs https://wiki.libsdl.org/SDL3/CategoryIOStream
for math, I think your best bet would be to write vala bindings for the libc stuff you need.
containers is probably the trickiest one. there's probably a good C library I don't know about. otherwise you could probably lift implementations from https://github.com/electronicarts/EASTL and wrap them for VALA
-
@oblomov I'd highly recommend Librewolf for desktop, and Ironfox on Andriod
-
@evan The second thing I don't like about the reply is "just". It reduces every thing to one thing - "just" that. The world tends to look cartoonish when people use that word. If you want to force your opinion on someone, "just" makes sense. If your goal is to learn and get more wise, "just" gets in the way.
-
@evan I dislike this genre of questions too. I think the right category for it is a leading question. Which means that it is actually not a question, but an opinion packaged as if it was a question. Typically, people who pose questions like that are not really interested in the answer. So people like me, who live by the value that people who ask me something, all things being equal, I owe them an answer - we end up wasting a lot of time.
