Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | listeria's commentslogin

and risk having them interpret it as a declaration of war?

reply


may I introduce you to the nodiscard attribute[1]?

  enum (class)? [[nodiscard]] Error {
    Ok,
    NoMem,
    ...
  };
[1]: https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/attributes/nodisc...

reply


   C attribute: nodiscard (since C23)
[1] https://en.cppreference.com/w/c/language/attributes/nodiscar...

reply


FWIW I’ve been using warn_unused_result in both gcc and clang since about 2020.

reply


Yep, partial remedies are available for quite some time.

reply


Firefox will read it if it exists[1]. You could use the /usr/lib/firefox/distribution directory (or whatever the installation directory may be), but that may be overwritten by an update.

There doesn't seem to be any way to set per-user group policies, so unless you're installing firefox in a user-controlled directory, it will require elevated privileges.

[1]: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/customizing-firefox-usi...


> The books were translated years ago anyway.

Translated books lack the nuance or tone of the originals, which you would be missing out of, and most of the time you don't even realise.


  sh: 1: [[: not found


Forgot that was a bash feature..

  ls | xargs -I % bash -c 'cd %; pwd; [[ $(git status -s) ]] && echo WIP || echo clean'


I was immediately put off by the Spanish version when I saw it was called "rústico", which does not translate to rust at all, it means rustic. The Spanish word for rust would be "óxido".


"Rustic" is actually a very common term in the Rust community, though it's an obvious joke drawing on 'Pythonic'. But there's nothing inherently wrong with "Rústico" as a name for a programming language.


That's all well and good, except the README clearly states:

> rústico (Spanish for Rust)

which is plain wrong.


full list of signatories: https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mt...


Thanks, this should be added to the OP


What's the difference between this and the first link you shared?


That seemed to an EU thing

But I note the treaties.un.org link is signatories as of late 2024.

Why are they not publishing the current signatories? This is absolutely not something that should be murky.


you can see at the top of the page it says:

  STATUS AS AT : 30-10-2025 09:16:00 EDT
and the date of the signature says 25 Oct 2025.


in the b=2 case, you get:

  1 / 1 = 1 = b - 1
  1 % 1 = 0 = b - 2
they are the other way around, see for example the b=3 case:

  21 (base 3) = 7
  12 (base 3) = 5
  7 / 5 = 1 = b - 2
  7 % 5 = 2 = b - 1


In the b=2 case, 1/1 = 1 = (b-2) + (b-1)/denom(b) = (b-2) + (b-1)/1 = 2b - 3 = (b-1)*b^1 -1 (b-1)

In base 2 (and only base 2), denom(b) >= b-1, so the "fractional part" (b-1)/denom(b) carries into the 1's (units) place, which then carries into the 2's (b's) place, flipping both bits.


Maybe it should be called "lest"? As in a less/most replacement written in rust. Although it does divert from the theme of more/less/most.


> I wonder if an LLM would be up to the job of writing the assembly code from this?

I could see a compiler doing that.


I'm quite aware of the existence of compilers, having worked on bootstrapping a production LISP compiler in the past. My point being that this would be an interesting experiment to do this "naïvely", given how close C is to (for example) PDP-11 assembly code.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: