148

Well. That escalated quickly (feddit.uk)

submitted 4 days ago by Technoworcester@feddit.uk to c/programmer_humor@programming.dev

27 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 27 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] Technoworcester@feddit.uk 47 points 4 days ago

[-] Technoworcester@feddit.uk 48 points 4 days ago

[-] Technoworcester@feddit.uk 52 points 4 days ago

[-] Technoworcester@feddit.uk 54 points 4 days ago

[-] NullPointerException@lemmy.ca 12 points 4 days ago

Fuck. I’m having nightmarish flashbacks looking at this. Hell.

[-] otter@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 4 days ago

Hmm, "atomic office" you say?

[-] Unpigged@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 points 4 days ago

Lemma 1 mentions "definition of phi", but the phi is never defined. Wtf.

[-] NeatNit@discuss.tchncs.de 8 points 4 days ago

OP posted the two pages in the wrong order, so you (and I) saw page 2 before page 1.

[-] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 days ago

oh I thought it's a joke that things are defined, or others are "immediate from" something else, while actually not. like how they love to teach this topic without explaining what is necessary

[-] Technoworcester@feddit.uk 6 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Oops. Sorry.

[-] panda_abyss@lemmy.ca 10 points 4 days ago

It did bother me there was no fall through.

[-] otter@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 4 days ago

follow?

[-] panda_abyss@lemmy.ca 7 points 4 days ago

There’s no fall through case, it’s ambiguous what the room state should be

[-] otter@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 4 days ago

Oh, yes, sorry. Quick read. 🖖🏼

[-] lefixxx@lemmy.world 8 points 3 days ago

I can see why there are more pages with reworks

[-] TomMasz@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago

Thank you.

[-] themaninblack@lemmy.world 22 points 4 days ago

CVE score 9.9 vuln: slide sign halfway in between

[-] cypherpunks@lemmy.ml 22 points 4 days ago

TypeError: unsupported operand type(s) for &: 'str' and 'str'

[-] joyjoy@lemmy.zip 5 points 4 days ago

comparison chaining strikes again!

[-] lengau@midwest.social 2 points 4 days ago

Idk it works for me.

Also "8:00:00" > "10:00:00"

[-] cypherpunks@lemmy.ml 5 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Idk it works for me.

I don't think there is any possible value for the sign variable which would make that if statement do anything other than raise a TypeError.

Also "8:00:00" > "10:00:00"

but "08:00:00" < "10:00:00". comparing timestamps as strings is weird but actually works, as long as the hour is zero-padded :)

the problem with this code is that & (bitwise AND) has higher operator precedence than > and == do, so it is first trying to bitwise AND "10:00:00" with sign (which i'm assuming would also be a string) and that will always raise a TypeError.

to do what the author appears to have intended to do, they would either need use parenthesis around both comparisons to actually bitwise AND their results, or (better) to use the boolean AND operator (and) instead of &.

The boolean and operator is the right tool for the job, and since it is lower precedence it also wouldn't require that any parenthesis be added here.

[-] lengau@midwest.social 3 points 3 days ago

Heh you're right, I didn't catch the bitwise and, so I thought you were making a TypeError joke about comparing strings. Fixing the and though (which I did naturally when I typed it into my interpreter to double-check), we get the issue that they are just using a string for the time rather than a time object. "Too early" is also a valid entry that gets us an available office.