Sujet : Re: GIMP 3.0.0-RC1
De : tnp (at) *nospam* invalid.invalid (The Natural Philosopher)
Groupes : comp.os.linux.misc comp.os.linux.advocacyDate : 13. Feb 2025, 05:01:29
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A little, after lunch
Message-ID : <vojqqp$2klsq$2@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 12/02/2025 22:54, John Ames wrote:
On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 17:09:18 -0500
"WokieSux282@ud0s4.net" <WokieSux283@ud0s4.net> wrote:
As for including size info in arrays ... makes good sense to me. EZ
to know what you're dealing with. Liked the old short-strings in
Turbo - the first byte was the string length.
There's definitely an argument to be made for including bounds info as
part of the array structure. There's no argument (that I've ever heard)
to be made for making it part of the *type specification.* Any line of
reasoning that says a carton of six eggs and a carton of twelve eggs
are somehow different *kinds* of objects and their contents incomparable
is fundamentally deranged.
The problem with languages designed to let stupid people program safely is that as in the case with all highest common factor legislation, the majority suffers to protect the few idiots from themselves.
-- Any fool can believe in principles - and most of them do!
GIMP 3.0.0-RC1
Re: GIMP 3.0.0-RC1