|Syntactic Confectionery Delight|
Re^5: Why is const x const not a const?by BrowserUk (Pope)
|on Jan 22, 2012 at 20:39 UTC||Need Help??|
No. You are absolutely wrong on all counts!
First. Look at the post I was responding to. The premise was, that it is much clearer from '=' x 80 that there are 80 '=' than if you used
so your 'correction' is wrong in context.
Secondly, your assumption that that string is a "SECTION_SEPERATOR" is wrong. It cannot be right, because you have no basis upon which to reach that conclusion.
But mostly, trading use constant for that vacuous, puerile, slow, stupid, braindead, idiotic, stupid -- did I say stupid already? -- worthless, pathetic, fscked-up, oxymoronic piece of crap is ... um .. oh dear, I seems to have run out of appropriate adjectives.
Update: Oooh. OOoh! I thought of one: fatuous. ( I didn't use that already did I? )
With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
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.