If it’s like Lisp, then ? is just part of the symbol and doesn’t have any special syntatic meaning. In different Lisps it’s also convention to end predicate names with a ? or with P (p for predicate)
I’m a principal backend engineer routinely writing Ruby for my day job, so I’m familiar, lol. But you can’t do it for local variables and that just sucks. Definitely a +1 for Elixir.
that works for 2 word names eg is_open or is_file, but in this case is_dialog_file_open is structured like a question, while dialog_file_is_open is structured like a statement
Ok, I might be misunderstanding here, but since committing changes is allowed for everyone, doesn’t this mean fixing bugs is something you could do? You’d just be stuck with all the other rights as well until someone else makes a change.
The main dev made the last commit, so they dont have the right to make another commit, until they arent the last person to make a commit anymore (until someone else has made a commit). This makes sure that there are at least 2 people making commits but hopefully much more.
In other words, making a commit revokes your right to do so until someone else makes a commit.
Am I just bad at reading? It says the right to make changes is granted to everyone one Earth. That would include the last person to make a commit as well, assuming they’re a citizen of Earth. I’m sure what you’re saying is what it’s supposed to say, but it isn’t actually what it says.
You can’t just ignore the second part of that sentence which gives the right to make commits to all citizens of earth. That would include the person who wrote the last commit.
The fact that you have 38 upvotes with such an incorrect statement is mind boggling.
This is how politics works I supposed. Write something that sounds plausible but is completely incorrect, inaccurate or completely fabricated and stupid people applaud and follow.
A right not being reserved does not mean it is waived, only that it is not exclusive. The last person to commit still has the right to commit, as does everyone else.
Yeah, the problem with the proposition is that you have all rights and access to the code regardless of who made the last commit, unless the last person to commit revoked the HPL.
the fact that there are this many people having different interpretations shows that the license would need waaaaaay clearer wording to hold any sort of water.
this is why i hate licenses like WTFPL and its ilk, just saying “do whatever” cannot possibly be legally viable and thus using anything with such a license is impossible by anyone who cares about copyright law (such as say, companies).
If you want your creations to be free for all to use, just slap a fat CC0 on it.
What happen when the repository is getting forked? Goofing with the license is all haha fun till nasty lawyers get into the picture and you get all sort of liability claims
Ofcourse its legally binding. If you include a license text with your own code on a platform that doesnt have a clause to license your code under different terms, then that license is legally valid.
But writing the license yourself without making sure that it doesnt allow for any legal loopholes is a bad idea.
It’s strangely satisfying when the “this will probably never happen” test case finds a problem during development.
I had tests for deleting that were like
create item a
create item b
delete item a via the code under test
assert item a is gone
assert item b is still there
I thought maybe the whole bit with item b was excessive, but sure enough one day I accidentally fucked something up and deleted all the items, and the test pointed it out before the bad code left my local machine.
So I’m going to say what I always say when people complain about semantic whitespace: Your code should be properly indented anyway. If it’s not, it’s a bad code.
I’m not saying semantic whitespace is superior to brackets or parentheses. It’s clearly not. But it’s not terrible either.
As someone who codes in Python pretty much everyday for years, I NEVER see indentation errors. I didn’t see them back when I started either. Code without indentation is impossible to read for me anyway so it makes zero difference whether the whitespace has semantic meaning or not. It will be there either way.
Python decided to use a single convention (semantic whitespace) instead of two separate ones for machine decodeable scoping and manual/visual scoping. That’s part of Python’s design principle. The program should behave exactly like what people expect it to (without strenuous reasoning exercises).
But some people treat it as the original sin. Not surprised though. I’ve seen developers and engineers nurture weird irrational hatred towards all sorts of conventions. It’s like a phobia.
Similar views about yaml. It may not be the most elegant - it had to be the superset of JSON, after all. But Yaml is a semi-configuration language while JSON is a pure serialization language. Try writing a kubernetes manifest or a compose file in pure JSON without whitespace alignment or comments (which pure JSON doesn’t support anyway). Let’s see how pleasant you find it.
This leads to weird bugs when you change indentation and miss a line or reorder lines. The logic changes. Not too bad when you’re on your own, as Python seems to be intended for. Add multiple developers and git merges and it is a recipe for disaster. With end tags at least you just end up with poorly formatted working code.
It’s probably more prone to mistakes like that, true. But in practice I really never witnessed this actually being a problem. Especially with tests and review.
programmer_humor
Newest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.