hvdijk

6 ms·

1.
by hvdijk 4y ago
Except that the HTML spec explicitly states just before that regex that what it checks is not whether it's a valid e-mail address, and that it intentionally rejects valid e-mail address.
2.
by hvdijk 4y ago
> The right to free speech does not protect your right to commit crimes or [...] If hate speech were to be made a crime, your exact same argument "the right to free speech does not protect your right to commit crimes" could an
3.
by hvdijk 4y ago
The US First Amendment does not say anything about libel or calls to violence. I am not aware of other amendments doing so either. What is the rationale for allowing these limitations on speech that cannot equally be applied to hate speech?
4.
by hvdijk 4y ago
True. And that still doesn't mean the behaviour is undefined, that just means the construct is not useful except on two's complement implementations. Which, even before C23, was all of them: the C23 change to require two's co
5.
by hvdijk 4y ago
Are they UB? What rule says they are? I would not be surprised by such a rule, but I am not aware of one.
6.
by hvdijk 4y ago
> You really just want the calculation to be settled with some well-behaved result like wrapping, or else to raise an exception. Perhaps you do, but others don't. This compiler behaviour isn't done just for the hell of it, it&#
7.
by hvdijk 4y ago
Correct, and the article does consistently spell it 3DO, it's only the link title here that uses 3D0.
8.
by hvdijk 4y ago
The Wikipedia article you link to also claims that the 1882 Oxford Etymological Dictionary of the English Language said that one meaning of gender was sex. Other dictionaries from well before 1955 also support this. In fact, the 1828 Webste
9.
by hvdijk 4y ago
> I thought trans was about changing gender, not changing sex. Mostly true, but it's confusing. Historically, sex and gender have been used interchangeably. That is slowly changing. There are a lot of places that refer to "sex&
10.
by hvdijk 4y ago
If you know it's controversial, we now know "not one that would generally be considered offensive for others to mention" was, at best, being disingenuous. Is there anything else?
11.
by hvdijk 4y ago
That explanation is directly ruled out by GP's comment: the GP doesn't think this is controversial.
12.
by hvdijk 4y ago
The lawyer did work, thankfully.
13.
by hvdijk 4y ago
It isn't guilt by association when the article directly uses anti-trans rhetoric.
14.
by hvdijk 4y ago
I'm glad your experience was better than mine. I had to get a lawyer involved after the Dutch support told me I would be refunded if I returned an item, and then after I sent it back, denied the refund.
15.
by hvdijk 4y ago
There's no "could be seen as", the phrase "sex realist" makes it clear beyond any doubt that the author does support the activities of Colin Wright.
16.
by hvdijk 4y ago
That's fine if the script only runs on shells that behave the same way, but the script runs under bats, which runs on bash and appears to not change its xpg_echo shell option. This shell option controls echo's behaviour on bash an
17.
by hvdijk 4y ago
The script does echo variables: echo "banned command $cmd: $output" This is non-portable if there is any possibility that these variables contain backslashes.
18.
by hvdijk 4y ago
And flagged this for it. No tolerance for this kind of crap, the guidelines are clear, the original title being false or misleading is when you shouldn't use the original title. The author took a calculated risk. Without the clickbait,
19.
by hvdijk 4y ago
That's a bug, there is no such thing as an invalid trigraph. ?? followed by any character other than =, /, ', (, ), !, <, >, or - is not a valid trigraph, but that doesn't make it an invalid trigraph, that just mak
20.
by hvdijk 4y ago
Ah, thanks for the clarification, I think we've been talking about two slightly different things, then. For you, std::optional would have to make C++ more memory-unsafe than it already is in order for "anti-memory-safety" to
21.
by hvdijk 4y ago
> But your "facts" are "if I use the API wrong, it behaves wrong." Kind of, yes. That is what memory safety is about, isn't it? If I look for definitions, I find for instance < https://hacks.mozilla.
22.
by hvdijk 4y ago
Sure, std::optional<int> is unlikely to result in such behaviour in practice, and std::optional<int*> is likely to "only" result in such behaviour if the result of operator*() is dereferenced again, despite both alread
23.
by hvdijk 4y ago
std::optional can be described as memory-unsafe because indirection when an optional is empty has undefined behaviour rather than deterministically throwing an exception or aborting the program, and may misbehave in all sorts of spectacular
24.
by hvdijk 4y ago
More to the point, as usually happens in India.
25.
by hvdijk 4y ago
The only reason the article gives for using this over using the signing with GPG keys is that you will have an SSH key already. If you need to create a new key, are there any reasons for going for an SSH key over a GPG key?
26.
by hvdijk 4y ago
Even /bin/sh is not guaranteed to exist, and when it does exist, it is not guranteed to be useful. It is not a location specified by POSIX, and implementations exist that do not place the standard sh utility in /bin. The big
27.
by hvdijk 4y ago
> famously ij in Dutch ij is considered two letters in Dutch, although they go by special rules: https://onzetaal.nl/taalloket/ij-plaats-in-alfabet
28.
by hvdijk 4y ago
Labels would be more readable for that IMO: outer: for (...) for (...) if (...) break outer;
29.
by hvdijk 4y ago
It turns out it's actually pdpmake-build-time-configurable. If you build with -DENABLE_FEATURE_MAKE_EXTENSIONS -DENABLE_FEATURE_MAKE_POSIX_202X, extensions are enabled by default, and .POSIX only flags non-POSIX-202x extensions. I don&
30.
by hvdijk 4y ago
It depends on the package. As far as Autotools itself are concerned, yes, users are free to choose whether to do in-tree or out-of-tree builds, but some packages require one or the other.

More ›