Editing Talk:1537: Types
|
Please sign your posts with ~~~~ |
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision | Your text | ||
| Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
:::Since this is a Programming language, it must be talking about RGB colors, where green is a base color and yellow is mixed using red and green. So a "yellowish blue" would contain all base colors, resulting in white – and that's propably why Randall's language returns NaN.[[Special:Contributions/141.101.92.42|141.101.92.42]] 08:39, 13 June 2015 (UTC) | :::Since this is a Programming language, it must be talking about RGB colors, where green is a base color and yellow is mixed using red and green. So a "yellowish blue" would contain all base colors, resulting in white – and that's propably why Randall's language returns NaN.[[Special:Contributions/141.101.92.42|141.101.92.42]] 08:39, 13 June 2015 (UTC) | ||
::The only {{w|color wheel}} I know has purple (not blue) opposite yellow and orange (not yellow) opposite blue. If that is incorrect, then wikipedia needs some serious editing. [[User:Djbrasier|Djbrasier]] ([[User talk:Djbrasier|talk]]) 02:31, 13 June 2015 (UTC) | ::The only {{w|color wheel}} I know has purple (not blue) opposite yellow and orange (not yellow) opposite blue. If that is incorrect, then wikipedia needs some serious editing. [[User:Djbrasier|Djbrasier]] ([[User talk:Djbrasier|talk]]) 02:31, 13 June 2015 (UTC) | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
:It's a lot simpler than that. Perceptually there is no yellowish-blue, one would never describe a blue as being yellowish. If you add yellow to blue you get greenish-blue, add more and you get green, then yellowish-green, then greenish-yellow. At no point would you describe the colour as either yellowish-blue or bluish-yellow. This is why it's the equivalent of NaN, you can use the language to tell the machine you want the result of "2/0", or you want the result of "blue with a yellowish tinge", but in either case it is not possible to represent the result. {{unsigned ip|141.101.98.154}} | :It's a lot simpler than that. Perceptually there is no yellowish-blue, one would never describe a blue as being yellowish. If you add yellow to blue you get greenish-blue, add more and you get green, then yellowish-green, then greenish-yellow. At no point would you describe the colour as either yellowish-blue or bluish-yellow. This is why it's the equivalent of NaN, you can use the language to tell the machine you want the result of "2/0", or you want the result of "blue with a yellowish tinge", but in either case it is not possible to represent the result. {{unsigned ip|141.101.98.154}} | ||
| Line 49: | Line 46: | ||
:I haven't noticed it until I saw your comment. It seems deliberate to me. Hard not to notice that when writing the fourth line. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.48|108.162.221.48]] 19:24, 13 June 2015 (UTC)BK201 | :I haven't noticed it until I saw your comment. It seems deliberate to me. Hard not to notice that when writing the fourth line. [[Special:Contributions/108.162.221.48|108.162.221.48]] 19:24, 13 June 2015 (UTC)BK201 | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
Note that some programming languages avoid the problem of overloaded '+' operator between operands of vividly different types by using other symbols for string concatenation (be it "a"~"b" or "a"."b") and numerical addition. The real WTF is abusing '+' for string concatenation, which has very different properties from numerical addition, not being symmetrical for example: concat("aa", "bb") == "aabb", while concat("bb", "aa") == "bbaa" != "aabb". --[[User:JakubNarebski|JakubNarebski]] ([[User talk:JakubNarebski|talk]]) 17:38, 12 June 2015 (UTC) | Note that some programming languages avoid the problem of overloaded '+' operator between operands of vividly different types by using other symbols for string concatenation (be it "a"~"b" or "a"."b") and numerical addition. The real WTF is abusing '+' for string concatenation, which has very different properties from numerical addition, not being symmetrical for example: concat("aa", "bb") == "aabb", while concat("bb", "aa") == "bbaa" != "aabb". --[[User:JakubNarebski|JakubNarebski]] ([[User talk:JakubNarebski|talk]]) 17:38, 12 June 2015 (UTC) | ||
| Line 68: | Line 63: | ||
The joke on line [10] really doesn't seem to be a Chinese/Japanese language joke. We can see that the language interacts much more directly with line numbers from the inter-line joke between lines [11] and [14], where line [12] becomes [14] because the value of 2 has become 4. This is provable by observing that the line after [14] is [13], showing that the previous line really is still line [12], it simply displays as [14] because the value of 2 has changed. This absurdly direct interaction between the code and its line number makes the joke on line [10] make a lot more sense, as a Chinese/Japanese language joke here seems much too contrived and out-of-place considering the nature of the other jokes in the comic. Not to mention, if the joke on line [10] was really concerning the code's interaction with its line number, it would set up nicely for introducing the inter-line joke between lines [11] and [14].[[Special:Contributions/188.114.106.89|188.114.106.89]] 03:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC) | The joke on line [10] really doesn't seem to be a Chinese/Japanese language joke. We can see that the language interacts much more directly with line numbers from the inter-line joke between lines [11] and [14], where line [12] becomes [14] because the value of 2 has become 4. This is provable by observing that the line after [14] is [13], showing that the previous line really is still line [12], it simply displays as [14] because the value of 2 has changed. This absurdly direct interaction between the code and its line number makes the joke on line [10] make a lot more sense, as a Chinese/Japanese language joke here seems much too contrived and out-of-place considering the nature of the other jokes in the comic. Not to mention, if the joke on line [10] was really concerning the code's interaction with its line number, it would set up nicely for introducing the inter-line joke between lines [11] and [14].[[Special:Contributions/188.114.106.89|188.114.106.89]] 03:35, 13 June 2015 (UTC) | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
As a speaker of Japanese, the explanation "[In the Japanese number system] the plus sign is instead the symbol 十" sounds even more absurd than if someone said that English speakers use the small letter "t" as an addition symbol. "十" (ten) and "＋" (full-width plus) are different glyphs and using them interchangeably would certainly not be useful. Although depending on language skill and display font they may visually seem more equal than they're supposed to. 08:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC) | As a speaker of Japanese, the explanation "[In the Japanese number system] the plus sign is instead the symbol 十" sounds even more absurd than if someone said that English speakers use the small letter "t" as an addition symbol. "十" (ten) and "＋" (full-width plus) are different glyphs and using them interchangeably would certainly not be useful. Although depending on language skill and display font they may visually seem more equal than they're supposed to. 08:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC) | ||
