h a l f b a k e r y"It would work, if you can find alternatives to each of the steps involved in this process."
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
When someone asks you a question, what's missing is a succinct response that acknowledges the validity (or invalidity) of the question without answering it or providing further information, which may be misleading or misinterpreted. The response should be conversational, but neutral, so as to not insult
the person posing the query. So, the robotic "question valid" or "invalid question" won't work. "Let me think about it" and such implies that you don't know the answer. I propose "accord" and "discord". E.g.:
Q: "Wow is that your new spork?"
Thought process: yes, it is mine and yes it is a spork, but I do not wish to convey this information to this person at this time. However, I don't wish to appear rude.
A: "Accord." (short for granted it is an object that could be considered a spork and yes it could be owned by me, but I don't want to say)
Or, in the case where the question is invalid, such as if the object could not be considered a spork or spork ownership is not even a thing:
A: "Discord." (short for the question does not make sense, is based on false assumptions, or is irrelevant)
One advantage of this is in dealing with loaded questions.
Q: "Have you stopped beating your wife/husband?"
A: "Discord."
On the positive side, this idea lets you deal with niceties efficiently.
Q: "Want some cake?"
A: "Accord." (a pleasant substitute for not now, but maybe if there's a piece left over later and if I feel like it then, unless it would be rude to refuse now)
This is exactly and literally what every C compiler ever made does when compiling if/then flows in computer code.
Pathetic fallacy
https://en.wikipedi...ki/Pathetic_fallacy
An odd human trait. [8th of 7, Jul 18 2016]
What you say when you have nothing to add but don't want to be left out of the conversation
http://www.jkloor.com/demon.html
"Mumble," said one angel, which is what they said when they had nothing to say but didn't want to be left out of the conversation. [normzone, Jul 18 2016]
Head Bobble
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_bobble
[zen_tom, Jul 21 2016]
[link]
|
| |
So, what are the first two syllables of that musical
instrument you're carrying, the one with the bellows
and the keyboard? |
|
| |
// I imagine this is similar to what a compiler does when compiling if/then flows in computer code. // |
|
| |
It is painfully evident from that statement that you have no aquaintance whatsoever with the way compilers, interpreters, assemblers and linkers operate, and wouldn't recognise a Chomsky Syntax-free Grammar if you tripped over it in the street. |
|
| |
Get ye hence and learn whereof you speak; then return hither, and we will all look on while you shamefacedly strike your forehead repeatedly with a thick oak plank whilst chanting "Forgive me, for I have perpetrated the sins of ignorance, pride and failing to check my facts". |
|
| |
When you have done this, we will apply a healing ungent to your wounds, bandage them, give you a drink of strong alcoholic beverage laced with a powerful soporific, and lay you down on a soft bed to recover. |
|
| |
Once you are dozing, we will stuff you into the Wicker Man and burn you alive. It's for your own good, and by far the best thing in the long run. |
|
| |
[8th], I was just off to do that, as a matter of fact. Strange coincidence! |
|
| |
Anyhoo, what I meant was, rather simplistically, if your code says |
|
| |
and x isn't in scope, or perhaps if x and y are of different type, then your compiler may choose to inform you. |
|
| |
//and x isn't in scope, or perhaps if x and y are of
different type, then your compiler may choose to
inform you.// |
|
| |
In LabView, you can wire incompatible values (like a
number and a string) into a comparator. It will
indeed register the error and inform you that the two
things are incommensurable. |
|
| |
// Anyhoo, what I meant was, rather simplistically, if your code says |
|
| |
and x isn't in scope, or perhaps if x and y are of different type, // |
|
| |
That depends on the language, and the compiler. |
|
| |
In C and its derivatives, types can be "cast" from one type to another; it's also possible to compare, assign, or apply arithmetic and/or logical operators to rvalues of different types, relying on implicit casting or simply letting the compiler decide how to handle it (sloppy coding, tho). You might get a warning, but not a compile error. |
|
| |
Strongly typed languages like Pascal will complain bitterly if you try the same trick. |
|
| |
// then your compiler may choose to inform you. // |
|
| |
Compilers do not "choose" - that is a manifestation of the pathetic fallacy. They aren't heuristic. Their response is entirely deterministic- they produce predictable outcomes based on input data and some surprisingly simple underlying rules and algorithms; like geography teachers, only rather more sophisticated. |
|
| |
Your phallusy may be pathetic, [8th], but don't
generalize. |
|
| |
Pathetic fallacy?! That's crazy talk. Next thing you're going to tell me is that the computer doesn't actually go anywhere when I type goto! |
|
| |
We can tell you where you can goto ... you, and the horse you rode in on ... |
|
| |
"Yes, that one. It looks like a rope." |
|
| |
[8th], I've updated the compiler comment based on your critique. |
|
| |
Well done. Here, have this nice alcoholic beverage. |
|
| |
This sounds very much like a textual equivalent to the Indian head-wobble. |
|
| |
<surreal mental image of [zen_tom] performing the infamous
Wilson, Keppel & Betty "Sand Dance" to the strains of Native
American drums> |
|
| |