@[email protected] to [email protected]English • 9 months agoLua rulelemmy.blahaj.zoneimagemessage-square16fedilinkarrow-up1323arrow-down15file-text
arrow-up1318arrow-down1imageLua rulelemmy.blahaj.zone@[email protected] to [email protected]English • 9 months agomessage-square16fedilinkfile-text
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink1•edit-29 months agoWhy do you assume it was a pointer type? There’s no types. Why do you assume C either? This is pseudo code to illustrate pointer offsets
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink1•9 months ago Why do you assume it was a pointer type? Because afterwards you said arr[n]. By convention n is definitely an integer and if arr is also, say, an integer, you get error: subscripted value is neither array nor pointer nor vector Why do you assume C either? Because you didn’t write ^(@arr+0) (Not sure that’s even valid though my Pascal is very rusty). This is pseudo code to illustrate pointer offsets Granted. But then it’s still Pseudo-C, not Pseudo-Pascal or Pseudo-Whitespace.
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilink1•edit-29 months agoIt’s pseudo-nothing It conveys a point, which you got, and if you decide to invent a syntax and bicker on it it’s just you Really pointless discussion
Why do you assume it was a pointer type? There’s no types. Why do you assume C either? This is pseudo code to illustrate pointer offsets
Because afterwards you said
arr[n]. By conventionnis definitely an integer and if arr is also, say, an integer, you getBecause you didn’t write
^(@arr+0)(Not sure that’s even valid though my Pascal is very rusty).Granted. But then it’s still Pseudo-C, not Pseudo-Pascal or Pseudo-Whitespace.
It’s pseudo-nothing
It conveys a point, which you got, and if you decide to invent a syntax and bicker on it it’s just you
Really pointless discussion