Live data from Hacker News

Viewing profile — markslicker

markslicker

HN member
Joined
Tue, Sep 17, 2019, 4:38 AM UTC
HN karma
4
Public activity
9 items

About markslicker

No profile information was provided.

Recent public activity

  1. comment
    Comment #27230524

    The main problem with undefined behavior is that the compiler does not produce any warning to that effect (in my case gcc). I've been caught by bugs that were truly puzzling until …

  2. comment
    Comment #21718620

    A copyright notice could be a single line in a source file, just mentioning the authors and the license that applies. It gets a bit complicated when you have many authors all contr…

  3. comment
    Comment #21706791

    I took a look. IANAL, however it is clear that they lift library sources and substitute their own LICENSE file to claim a copyright with different license terms. Just because the Z…

  4. comment
    Comment #21177630

    The above usage of -> is a syntax error in OCaml, -> can be used in the left hand side of a let expression, but only as part of a type expression. As you say the other usage is use…

  5. comment
    Comment #21175262

    It is quite common in SML/ML code I've encountered, probably not as common in modern OCaml. BTW, in OCaml let add ((a:int), (b:int)) : int = a + b Works just fine, whereas: let add…

  6. comment
    Comment #21174906

    You can certaintly have tupled function arguments in SML/Ocaml, in fact that seems to have been the more common style there, whereas Haskell uses curried functions more commonly. A…

  7. comment
    Comment #21174724

    In functional programming (the origin of this syntax), add(a: int, b: int): int can be read as a function 'add' when applied to the parameter tuple (a: int, b: int) has type int, I…

  8. comment
    Comment #20994769

    My other comment was censored, I just strongly disagree with the cancel culture that led to Stallman's resignation. The person Sarah Mei seems to be leading this fight against Stal…

  9. comment
    Comment #20991632

    I'd much rather cancel Sarah Mei than Richard Stallman, but why do we have to cancel any one?