'\\1' becomes '\1', the backslash is called as 'escaping' in this case, because backslash is already part of special characters (for \n, \t, ..). So when you want a backslash alone, you do \\
It allows also to insert quotes '\'' is valid and is ', it's like "'". And you can also use backticks, which is a more powerful feature to include variables more nicely
"\t" is a tab character, "\n" is a newline, "\0x20" is character with character code 20 in hex, aka 32 ASCII (UTF8) aka space character. Similarly, "\1" is character code 1 (aka SOH, a control char which is unprintable).
So if you want your string to include the two visible characters \ and 1 and not just the one non-printable character SOH, then you need to escape the backslash, using another backslash, as in "\\" which produces \ (just as "\t" produces tab), followed by "1" to produce "1", thus "\\1".
The slashes appear to work as they do in Perl, granting a different interpretation of backslash escapes within their bounds.
@DanBron Actually, this is complicated. Something like /(foo)\1/ has the \1 as a backreference to the first capture group, not an octal escape like "\01" would be. In Perl it depends on whether it's in slashes or double quotes.
But really, it is more complex than this, since [\1\2] are always octals not backrefs.
@tchrist Yeah, I was speaking only of string literals, not regex syntax. Using \1 in the LHS side of a s/// and $1 in the RHS bugged me for like two weeks in 1999 when I was learning Perl, but it stopped when I recognized regexen have a grammar separate from the grammar used in string interpolation.
@Cerberus In Perl6, these things are rationalized as "modifiers" or "adjectives" which semantically are named arguments to functions, but syntactically operate as postnomials /
instead of foo(1,2,global=true), you'd say foo(1,2) :global (I'm hand-waving but that's the idea)
so you get the convenience of the old /g but the rationality of function prototypes
user208178
@Cerberus Do you have anything in Dutch like the“f” word in English that people can use it to modify any word under the sun when they want to express anger, excitement, joy etc.?
@Mr.ShinyandNew安宇 Hm.. that does make sense. I'd rather cut off fours toes, than both my thumbs.
user208178
3:57 PM
I asked because I can’t think of a similar word in Urdu which can be used with like every other word. I don’t know about other languages. For example “fucking annoying” etc. in English. It is not like we don’t have swear words, but they are just not that compatible with other words.
@Cerberus The normal (positional) parameters to the function. Like function quotient(float dividend, float divisor, bool integral = false) { z = dividend / divisor; if not integral then return z else return round(z) end }.
@Arrowfar dunno about Dutch but there are equivalent universal modifiers in Greek (κώλο-), Spanish (puto- or X de mierda, both are essentially the same in Catalan) and French (putain de) at least.
@DanBron Ah OK. Then I'm not sure what the advantage is, but I really don't know Javascript or Perl or the significance of such differences. But I believe you!
English is highly irrational: Fuck is used to do almost everything except signify its literal meaning, which is probably why it was considered a bad word in the first place. However now, in its void everybody uses euphemisms in its place to refer to that meaning with ubiquity and yet...
In an "interesting" thread of comments we began to look at the word fuck in several different uses. Most of them were interjections and verb uses as would be expected.
But, perhaps dialectally, the word can easily be used as a noun, and even an adjective.
I would like to see how many different...
You'd use the word "sex" more often these days because it is somehow considered more polite. That was never a meaning of the word sex until the 1920s...
Anyway, the reason I knew it is because of the older dictionaries I prefer generally tend to lack this meaning, which leaves me in a bit of an odd spot since I am trying to make my vocabulary comply to those.
I wonder how many people would understand the words "carnal knowledge" upon first utterance.
So is sexual intercourse apparently but I have reason to believe Webster's definition is broader.
Hmm, it's difficult to explain here on Stack Exchange. I'd need to monologue too long for Chat to properly explain the concept, and my personal opinions are certainly off topic elsewhere.
in J, you can specify any base for numeric literals, though it only has symbols for the first 36 digits (0-9 + a-z lowercase), as in 22b1m0i4 which is (1*22^4)+(m*22^3)+(0*22^2)+(i*22^1)+(4*22^0) = 468,912 where m has the value 22 (just a coincidence) and i isn't sqrt(-1) but 19.
if you need more place-values than 36, then instead of numeric literals, you can calculate numbers in any base with J's built-in #. operator, as in 22 #. 1 22 0 18 4 (same as before).
I don't want to specify codepoints or code units, I want to type or copy/paste characters.
I'm with the guy who asked the Unicode question you famously answered, @tchrist: someone who knows better than me should package this all up and just hand it to me.
@tchrist I think at this point it's a form of identification, but I'm not entirely sure myself. Marasay used to make Youtube videos out of his home and there it was being used as a decoration. I suppose the monkey might be a sentimental childhood toy but I have no idea if my guess is correct, since I can not read Japanese, unfortunately.
I don't like the pipe notation for a PL either. That was a concession to the pre-existing needs of the shell. Chaining / pipelining functions is too common in programming to ask the users to employ special syntax / glue every single time. Again, unless doing so provides some amazing grammatical tradeoff.
Ken Iverson made some strong arguments for retaining the RTL chaining in APL and its successors
partly, that was based on the idea that the leftmost thing,t he thing you encounter first, should be the "big idea", followed by less and less salient details
I suppose you could say I'm a bit of a cute-ist myself tchrist, so to suggest that it's that immature is perceived as a slight personal slight. I also supposed that the word hobby would be apt, since we're talking about a toy animal here, even if it is a monkey rather than a horse.
@cerebrus The O.E.D. thought so too. It's their first attested quote for it, although the original publication was in 1816. Based upon Noah Webster's definition of the word tilt provided some 12 years later, I think it means weaponize.
A hobby is a fairly small, very swift falcon with long, narrow wings. There are four birds called hobby, and some others which, although termed falcon, are very similar. All specialise in being superb aerialists. Although they will take prey on the ground if the opportunity presents itself, most prey is caught on the wing; insects are often caught by hawking, and many different birds are caught in flight, where even the quick maneuvering swifts and swallows cannot escape a hobby.
The typical hobbies are traditionally considered a subgenus Hypotriorchis due to their similar morphology: they have...
The Australian hobby (Falco longipennis), also known as the little falcon, is one of six Australian members of the family Falconidae. This predominately diurnal bird of prey derives its name ‘longipennis’ from its long primary wing feathers. It occurs throughout Australia and other neighbouring countries with migrating individuals found on the islands of Indonesia and New Guinea
== Description ==
Smaller than other falcons, the Australian hobby is relatively slender and long winged. Its plumage varies in colour depending on sex, age and environment with a darker form in humid areas and a lighter...
Another example is with the word "rank". I know A.R.T.F.L. Project's edition of the dictionary, when it was available online, was missing an entry for the word.
It's tricky answering questions because it means I have to search multiple websites sometimes.
@tchrist I don't have access to the triage queue on SO, I'm <2K there, but the front page does seem somewhat less completely godawful to me in recent months.
@tchrist I was thinking more along the lines of a question-asking wizard, with some prompts like "would you like to check the correctness of a phrase? if so paste it here", then on "next", say "this site does not offer proof-reading services"
another option is "do you want to know what a word means?" which makes you type in the word, and the next step in the wizard makes you quote, with attribution, a dictionary definition, and the following step forces you to elucidate exactly what that didn't answer
similarly for etymologies, for "how does X differ from Y?" for "help me name this thingy", etc.
I do also think there should be a requisite questing-asking bootcamp / exam which must be passed before asking your Nth question, with N low.
Just in general teaching people how to ask questions clearly and considerately, irrespective of subject matter.
Would be good to have badge incentives for these things too, like after the "general question asking exam", one for "demonstrating knowledge of general references and resources applicable to this discipline"
@Tonepoet That's how it's worded now, but I quibble with it: we do not offer proofreading services, and if you identify some small, clearly-defined, and objective scope in which you have doubts, giving your own reasoning & research ... that's not proof-reading any more.
But no matter what you do, the norm for first-time posts is that they fail to meet the quality standards consistent with the goal of providing a lasting repository of high-quality answers to domain-specific questions.
@MετάEd I was trying to keep it general. The ideas specific to EL&U are just that, instances of the more general template specific to our site. Similar wizards and exams could be constructed for each site.
@tchrist That would not be the norm if the bar were set much high for first-time posts. Of course quantity would drop, as would site visits, content created, ad revenue, and visibility for SE, Inc.
Moreover this is not peculiar to ELU. It occurs throughout the network. My perception is that it becomes worse as a function of that site's success as measured by traffic. The more abstruse and rarefied sites with more of a culture of patient scholarship may be less prone to this than sites like ELU, but the tragedy of the commons awaits all uncurated content.
We also suffer <the psych/cogsci term I can't remember> fatigue, because we've been around enough to have seen it all before, and we treat each guy who asks the same old question as if he's the same guy who asked last time
@tchrist I mean if I could pick and choose from a list, rather than be force to flag or dismiss all of the questions sequentially, I'd be able to flag the posts I know are problematic without passing judgment on posts I merely doubt. I suppose that part of the purpose of the skip button but still...
Yeah I'd rather not say "no action needed" and be wrong about that personally. I've never used that button in the review queue. However if you use the skip needed button, you can't review the question again later if you realize what's wrong.
I find 'skip' unsatisfying anyway. it's like more chocolates moving past me on the conveyor belt at the candy factory
Yeah..I'd like the review button right on the question that is problematic, rather than having to go through a long queue just to find that single one that needs 'no action needed' or 'keep open'