Underscore Pi (2017)
codeexplainer.wordpress.com
Underscore Pi (2017)
1–10 of 11 posts
Re: Underscore Pi (2017)
#2M_PI is not part of the C standard (it is part of Posix) so the title is awkward.
Re: Underscore Pi (2017)
#3M_PI is not part of the C standard (it is part of Posix) so the title is awkward.
I agree it's awkward, but not because of M_PI being non-standard. If history had lead to pi being defined in standard C, this code would still have been interesting. The title is awkward because it talks more about M_PI than about the content of the article.
Re: Underscore Pi (2017)
#4[deleted]
Re: Underscore Pi (2017)
#5We changed the title from "Underscore Pi – when M_PI from math.h is too mainstream; IOCCC winning entry".
This is a fine HN submission, but please don't rewrite titles to editorialize!
Re: Underscore Pi (2017)
#6links to sources on ioccc.org: http://ioccc.org/1988/westley.c | http://ioccc.org/1988/westley.hint
Re: Underscore Pi (2017)
#7Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to work in Clang because it doesn't support the -traditional-cpp flag. Make sure that you're actually using GCC if you're following along!
Re: Underscore Pi (2017)
#8M_PI is not part of the C standard (it is part of Posix) so the title is awkward.
I agree it's awkward, but not because of M_PI being non-standard. If history had lead to pi being defined in standard C, this code would still have been interesting. The title is awkward because it talks more about M_PI than about the content of the article.
I agree that the code is interesting. It was specifically the HN title I was talking about, which is not even the title of the original article. Sorry if I wasn't clear. Anyway, it's been updated now.
Re: Underscore Pi (2017)
#9In all its glory:
#define _ -FRe: Underscore Pi (2017)
#10We changed the title from "Underscore Pi – when M_PI from math.h is too mainstream; IOCCC winning entry". This is a fine HN submission, but please don't rewrite titles to editorialize! https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Could you maybe add something about it being an IOCCC winner back in?
(I generally read the comments first to decide if I want to read the article, and I wasn't going to bother reading this until I saw it had something to do with the IOCCC)