Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Keep It Simple, Stupid
 
PerlMonks  

Re^10: Win32, fork and XS globals

by ikegami (Pope)
on Oct 03, 2011 at 03:18 UTC ( #929257=note: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??


in reply to Re^9: Win32, fork and XS globals
in thread Win32, fork and XS globals

No. I said: "an almost invisible _"

Why did you mention it if it's not a problem? Why did you agree with me that it's not a problem if it is a problem?

I can't see any possible reading other than it's suffering from visibility issues. If you meant something else, you need to be clearer.

saying that 0.00001 is smaller than 0.0001, doesn't make the latter not small

It does if 0.0001 is considered not small. "_" stands for ",", and "," is not considered invisible, almost invisible or in any way visibility-impaired in that same situation.

But of course, you already know this even though you argue against it.

Here you go: static int var[NO_OF_THREADS];

That's completely wrong. Threads are just one form of interpreter. You'd need a dynamically sized array, so static storage is impossible.

But of course, you already know this even though you argue against it.

No. I said: "stupid, bordering on criminal".

If being "stupid, bordering on criminal" is not a problem, we're not talking the same language.

Your opinion does not override, negate or change my opinion.

Please note than when I provided my opinion in turn, you berated me for stating it. If you want respect, show some yourself.


Comment on Re^10: Win32, fork and XS globals
Download Code
Re^11: Win32, fork and XS globals
by Anonymous Monk on Oct 03, 2011 at 06:18 UTC

    Stop trolling

Re^11: Win32, fork and XS globals
by BrowserUk (Pope) on Oct 03, 2011 at 06:28 UTC
    Why did you agree with me

    I never did. Anywhere. Not once. So, Just stop.


    Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
    "Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
    In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

      I never did. Anywhere. Not once

      "cos I already know this stuff". I mean, the whole reply was "Why not address your replies to the person asking the question, cos I already know this stuff." so I don't see how you missed it. Why are you playing dumb?

      Are you now going to try to pretend you can know a tidbit without believing a tidbit?

      "I know the sky is blue" == "I believe the sky is blue"
      "I know some think the sky is blue" == "I believe some think the sky is blue"

      If you weren't agreeing with me, what did you mean to say this time? You gotta start being clearer.

        Just stop!

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://929257]
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others meditating upon the Monastery: (9)
As of 2014-11-26 20:48 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    My preferred Perl binaries come from:














    Results (173 votes), past polls