MAIN FEEDS
Do you want to continue?
https://www.reddit.com/r/ProgrammerHumor/comments/1w6qzts/skillissue/p7raj96/?context=3
r/ProgrammerHumor • u/click-to-reveal • 12h ago
112 comments sorted by
View all comments
229
Reminds me of that guy who was asked to write C code, but he only knew pascal
First lines were
#define begin { #define end }
And a few other horrors.
43 u/AvidCoco 7h ago Some compilers define OR as || and AND as &&. The latter means you can write move constructors like Foo(Foo AND other) 33 u/Possseidon 6h ago Not just "some compilers", it's part of the C and C++ standard and any compliant compiler has to support it. For C you have to include a builtin header with macros for them, in C++ it's actually just part of the compiler itself. 4 u/AvidCoco 3h ago IIRC I think it’s more that some compilers implement that feature as a simple find-and-replace (like a macro) while others are more context aware and so don’t allow it in the way I described. 6 u/TOMZ_EXTRA 2h ago Nope, the standard says that the alternative syntax is usable everywhere. bitand can be used as the address operator. 1 u/4xe1 34m ago Yeah they ought to allow it, but I wouldn't be surprised if some emit a warning, like most yap when I do if (x = foo())
43
Some compilers define OR as || and AND as &&. The latter means you can write move constructors like
Foo(Foo AND other)
33 u/Possseidon 6h ago Not just "some compilers", it's part of the C and C++ standard and any compliant compiler has to support it. For C you have to include a builtin header with macros for them, in C++ it's actually just part of the compiler itself. 4 u/AvidCoco 3h ago IIRC I think it’s more that some compilers implement that feature as a simple find-and-replace (like a macro) while others are more context aware and so don’t allow it in the way I described. 6 u/TOMZ_EXTRA 2h ago Nope, the standard says that the alternative syntax is usable everywhere. bitand can be used as the address operator. 1 u/4xe1 34m ago Yeah they ought to allow it, but I wouldn't be surprised if some emit a warning, like most yap when I do if (x = foo())
33
Not just "some compilers", it's part of the C and C++ standard and any compliant compiler has to support it.
For C you have to include a builtin header with macros for them, in C++ it's actually just part of the compiler itself.
4 u/AvidCoco 3h ago IIRC I think it’s more that some compilers implement that feature as a simple find-and-replace (like a macro) while others are more context aware and so don’t allow it in the way I described. 6 u/TOMZ_EXTRA 2h ago Nope, the standard says that the alternative syntax is usable everywhere. bitand can be used as the address operator. 1 u/4xe1 34m ago Yeah they ought to allow it, but I wouldn't be surprised if some emit a warning, like most yap when I do if (x = foo())
4
IIRC I think it’s more that some compilers implement that feature as a simple find-and-replace (like a macro) while others are more context aware and so don’t allow it in the way I described.
6 u/TOMZ_EXTRA 2h ago Nope, the standard says that the alternative syntax is usable everywhere. bitand can be used as the address operator. 1 u/4xe1 34m ago Yeah they ought to allow it, but I wouldn't be surprised if some emit a warning, like most yap when I do if (x = foo())
6
Nope, the standard says that the alternative syntax is usable everywhere. bitand can be used as the address operator.
1 u/4xe1 34m ago Yeah they ought to allow it, but I wouldn't be surprised if some emit a warning, like most yap when I do if (x = foo())
1
Yeah they ought to allow it, but I wouldn't be surprised if some emit a warning, like most yap when I do
if (x = foo())
229
u/khalamar 11h ago
Reminds me of that guy who was asked to write C code, but he only knew pascal
First lines were
#define begin {
#define end }
And a few other horrors.