« first day (2846 days earlier)      last day (2372 days later) » 
01:00 - 19:0019:00 - 00:00

19:22
Is there an exclamatory phrase for when it takes you by surprise to see somebody yuo know somewhere you didn't expect to see them?
> What are you doing here!
Something like that?
But that's more of a literal question.
19:42
.
Wha?
Throttling dissenting voices and upsetting and overthrowing movements and governments in Middle and South America, Africa, and Asia who wanted to cut the exploiting hands left over from the colonial rule has a long undeniable history, but I hadn't heard of a subsidy so huge flowing uphill from the (so-called) Third-World to First-World countries (here, namely, from Africa to France) at the present day. I need to get to the bottom of this.
@Færd I can't think of a stock phrase.
@Færd Now that's a big noun phrase :-)
-1
Q: Single word for someone you hate and like at the same time?

Robin BhattaIs there any single word for the feelings: hate and like a person at the same time? I ___ Gru in Minions. I can't think of any words which have both of these feelings or may be awesome villain, but it is not single word.

@MetaEd Thanks.
@MetaEd haha I guess so! I suck at clarity.
20:22
@Cerberus Or copy the input string to the tag variable, eliminate the if AND the switch, and just use substitution.
Because after all regex is just if statements.
20:44
ETHICS FINAL EXAM

This test only has one question, but it's a very important one.

By giving an honest answer, you will discover where you stand morally.

The test features an unlikely, completely fictional situation in which you will have to make a decision.

Only you will know the results, so remember that your answer needs to be honest.

THE SITUATION:

You are in Florida, Miami to be specific.

There is chaos all around you caused by a hurricane with severe flooding.

This is a flood of biblical proportions.
Hello @Robusto long time no see, lol.
Hullo, Jasper.
@tchrist: The above ethics question involves photography, so I think you might want to weigh in.
People come and go, but I come and go and come and go and...
@Robusto I read the news every day to see when impeachment will happen.
Don't hold your breath.
Yes, he is a very lucky man. It seems he is infallible.
The Guardian was making a fuss out of Melania's Be Best, saying it should be Be The Best.
My immediate answer to them would be that the slogan is not meant to be a complete sentence, so I don't see what the fuss is all about.
They should spend more time fixing the spelling mistakes in their articles instead.
21:02
I'd say "Be Your Best" would be better. "Be Best" means only one person can do that, which may be what she really means.
21:18
sigh This is why I hardly ever post on this site anymore:
@WeatherVane: Sounds like your beef is with the language, not with my answer, which is accurate as hell. — Robusto 51 secs ago
So I give a good answer and immediately get two downvotes for telling the truth, which is not what certain people want to hear.
Fuck. This. Shit.
You've got a thing for hell. But I'll upvote that answer.
Beef and hell in the same sentence.
And I think you could convert any color pic into a black-and-white one? So the previous puzzle is also solved.
What I don't really know is if I would save the man.
Yes, indeed, the Windows 10 Photos app lets you remove the colour so that you get a B and W.
Yo Jasper!
21:23
Hiii @Færd long time no see.
How've you been?
Same, still trying to get well.
Hope you are.
I see you still have the crow and the ae.
21:53
@JasperLoy Yeah, it helps peeps remember me!
@Robusto The OP obviously has issues of their own.
Don't let it get to you.
And to be fair, there's some beef to be had with languages, English included.
Only a bunch of weirdos would come up with these complex and nonsensical systems of communication.
I mean, look at the other animals. They seem alright, right? How often do you think they misunderstand each other?
Out for the night.
22:23
@MetaEd Yes, indeed not.
@MetaEd ? : should be easy, at least conceptually. Maybe it's something whose details one would get bogged down in.
The same applies to Regex match or replace.
State machines I do not know.
@Cerberus The real challenge is to eliminate the if or switch statement and just use regex.
Yes, but that shouldn't be so hard?
Just chain a couple of replaces.
A single regex can do it.
Yes, but that would be more complex.
And less overzichtelijk—a word English should really adopt.
I don't think it has to be any more complex than the if or switch statement.
22:27
Like a dictionary regex.
@MetaEd Because you'd use a flavour that can use if statements inside the regex?
Everything in a regex is an if statement.
But explicit if statements.
If I were doing it, there would probably be "|" alternation.
Conditions.
No doubt!
Which would be basically in lieu of elseif or case.
Overzichtelijk. I like the sound but when I run it through gtranslate I get "clear".
22:29
I remember there are ways to have conditional replacements.
@MetaEd Yes, but it's more than that!
Literally: "overviewable".
The single greatest innovation in regex is the "x" flag.
Such that one can easily see it all, comprehend it, and deal with it if necessary.
Instead of a string of characters, suddenly you have a nice language where you can indent, align, and so on and the expression becomes readable.
And put in comments.
Comments and white spaces? But Javascript doesn't have that...
@MetaEd In JS, I do that with \
It looks neat enough.
No comments, though.
And you can't copy-paste it to a regex editor.
And you can't use /regex/.
So you have to escape \\.
This (?=.*[A-Z])(?=.*[a-z])(?=.*[0-9])(?=.*[~!@#$%\^&*()\-_=+\|\[{\]};:'",<.>/?])
becomes this
(?x)         # extended syntax
(?=.*[A-Z])  # look ahead for at least one upper case
(?=.*[a-z])  # look ahead for at least one lower case
(?=.*[0-9])  # look ahead for at least one numeral
(?=.*[~!@#$%\^&*()\-_=+\|\[{\]};:'",<.>/?])
             # look ahead for at least one of the listed symbols
And suddenly the regex is "overviewable".
22:34
Yes, much better.
This is another possibility. But it's more work.
That's JS?
I bet JS supports the x flag / extended syntax
so you don't have to do that
Yes, it is.
@MetaEd I'm afraid that's not in normal JS.
Ok, so a few years ago it didn't support it.
Poor JS developers :-(
There is a library you can use.
You can also do this.
But no comments.
Indentation is possible, though.
You should be using the plugin
22:38
I tried it once.
And?
But I don't like being dependent on libraries.
But I still have it in the back of my mind.
I may use it.
I've made a debugger for Autohotkey that marks in your editor where the error in your regex is.
Latest Mozilla docs still say nothing about the x switch.
It's nice. I'm glad Autohotkey uses PREC.
Or whatever it is.
So switch to Perl. The other nice thing is that in Perl arrays number from 1.
22:40
Ah, so you like that, too!
I really hate 0 indexing.
I hate that. Except in the most recent Perl program I wrote.
Hmm.
That sounds like vacillation?
I wrote something that was all about die rolls and character positions. Totally 1 based data and the code became much clearer when I used 1 based arrays and substrings.
I had to strongarm the interpreter, actually. 1 based is deprecated in modern editions of the language.
Probably I did it just to troll @tchrist.
@MetaEd Right, exactly.
@MetaEd That sounds like...a lot of work.
Actually, @tchrist -- serious question. Do you know a way I can execute $[ = 1 in the context of a no warnings 'deprecated' where the no warnings is temporary but the effect of the assignment is permanent?
Do I have to localize it within a context block?
Create a closure maybe.
I was hoping to avoid bracketing the assignment with 'no warnings' and 'use warnings' just on general principles that I'd prefer to simply let scope restore the prior value of warnings.
Hey, look. Perl has "fatal warnings".
22:56
@MetaEd kinda
Which version are you running?
local $] = 1 is "temporally" scoped.
I thought I should be able to assign a new value to $[ in a block, and since I'm not using local, the new value should persist out side the block.
Yeah.
But for some versions it doesn't do anything I though.
So I could just introduce the block with no warnings 'deprecated' and then set $[.
There's a new "feature" I thought for that.
looking
But the value of $[ is getting restored by the } anyway.
22:58
> The 'array_base' feature

This feature supports the legacy $[ variable. See "$[" in perlvar and arybase. It is on by default but disabled under "use v5.16" (see "IMPLICIT
LOADING", below).

This feature is available under this name starting with Perl 5.16. In previous versions, it was simply on all the time, and this pragma knew nothing
about it.
Possibly there's a bug in that new library.
Did you say use feature "array_base" or are you running < v5.16?
I'm running 5.26.
Yeah ok, you'll need that pragma and it's lexically scoped.
So only array indexing within its lexical not dynamic scope counts.
Setting $[ is still supported automatically. As long as you don't use a Perl version.
Or, I suppose, you use a version before 5.16.
But if I were to use v5.26 then I'd have to use the pragma.
23:01
I think what you're saying is right, but I haven't put it through its paces.
Well, there's no question it's working.
Then what is the current sadness?
{
$[ = 1 ;
}
print $[ ;
prints 0
Now I can understand that happening if I used local.
Because the smart way to use this, a deprecated feature, would be:
{
no warnings 'deprecated' ;
$[ = 1 ;
}
This is an attempt at "I know what I'm doing, give me a break".
Hey hey
I know what it is.
The scope of the "no warnings" is the block, so I don't get a warn on the use of the feature but I do get warnings anywhere else.
23:05
I have a shaggy dog story for you.
Uh oh.
Run perl -MO=Deparse,-p,-q,-x9 on your little demo code.
{
    use arybase ();
    BEGIN {
        $^H{'$['} = '1';
    }
    ($arybase::leftbrack = 1);
}
print($[);
That's what the compiler does to your pretty source. And the brick the dog had in its mouth.
Isn't that special?
Stultification is not an unexpected reaction to this.
Oh god.
God dog it.
23:08
Yep.
Never trust a compiler.
Sorry.
It has optimizations the likes of which you've never imagined in your wildest nightmares.
But do they still manage to optimise things?
Oh yes.
Looks like I could just set a bit in $^H and avoid the need for the pragma, the warning, and the scope issue completely.
23:11
On %^H, but yes.
Scary, eh?
This variable is strictly for internal use only. Its availability, behavior, and contents are subject to change without notice. is just like waving a red flag at a bull.
What I want to know is why it sets it to a string '1' not numeric 1. :)
Your hint-bits are tied to your lexical scope.
So I'm going to say that I was right to expect what I expected. The behavior after $[ was reimplemented as arybase is just ... stoopid.
It can be implicitly diddled by scope exit.
So it's a bad dog, but not a useless one.
23:13
@Robusto The truth is overrated;
@MetaEd They were going to take it away altogether. This was a compromise.
But I will get nowhere complaining about. Yes, and that's why.
At least you're no longer allowed to set it to 42. I think.
@JasperLoy mmm...tasty.
Maybe so, not sure.
23:14
Why not?
Prior to Perl v5.10.0, assignment to $[ could be seen from outer lexical scopes in the same file, unlike other compile-time directives (such as strict). Using local() on it would bind its value strictly to a lexical block. Now it is always lexically scoped.
It's even worse than I imagined. They did this to me on purpose, in 5.10.
mac(tchrist)% perl -X -le '$[ = 42; @a = ("many"); print $#a'
42
yokay
I can in fact set it to 42.
Yes.
So I can bracket it with no warnings/use warnings.
mac(tchrist)% perl -X -le '$[ = 42; $a[++$#a] = "many"; print $#a'
42
mac(tchrist)% perl -X -le '$[ = 42; $a[++$#a] = "many" for 1..5; print $#a'
46
Call it push à la pdp11 asm
++sp and sp-- stuff
Works great.
For strings too.
shudders
23:20
Modification of non-creatable array value attempted, subscript -40 at dwrpg.pl line 90.
Playin' with fire
mac(tchrist)% perl -X -le '$[ = -42; $a[++$#a] = "many" for 1..17; print $#a'
-26
You must have tried to go the wrong way.
mac(tchrist)% perl -X -le '$[ = -42; $a[--$#a] = "many" for 1..17; print $#a'
Modification of non-creatable array value attempted, subscript -43 at -e line 1.
Exit 2
my $deprecated = warnings::enabled( "deprecated" ) ;
no warnings 'deprecated' ;
$[ = 1 ;
use warnings 'deprecated' if $deprecated ;
So ugly compared to if I could use lexical scope.
Um
I think there's a warnif you want there
something like that
you can't have a postfix if on a use
Well, "can't".
True. It's a pragma.
And yes, it's way gross I agree.
23:24
So I simply turn it off and back on around the call and forget about restoring a prior value.
The problem is that you need a BEGIN
And here I was trying to be socially responsible.
The use is a BEGIN
But the my assignment is too late
So it gets even worse.
Yes. I am so sorry.
I had no part in this
23:25
Are you guys talking about computer stuff?
he he he.
bleepb;loop bleep
@Mitch !yes
You obviously know what you're doing and how to do it, given your check for warnings::enabled; it's just sick though.
seg fault
23:26
@Mitch core dumped: your fault
I'm watching the Spanish Tour de France
Ask me how it's diffferent.
You probably shouldn't.
El Tour de Francia (oficialmente Le Tour de France), también conocido simplemente como el Tour, es una vuelta por etapas profesional de ciclismo en ruta disputada a lo largo de la geografía francesa. Se celebra en julio y pertenece al calendario UCI WorldTour, máxima categoría de las carreras profesionales Considerada la carrera más importante del mundo,[1]​ el Tour se disputó por primera vez en 1903. Desde su creación, la carrera se ha visto interrumpida en dos ocasiones debido a las dos guerras mundiales: desde 1915 hasta 1918 y desde 1940 hasta 1946.[2]​ Es la más antigua de las conocidas tres…
Well, I think I'm done poking myself in the eye. Might learn how to do it right later.
@MetaEd OMG. Use a sharp stick. get it over with in one try
23:32
Why is this question still open? : Isn't there a simple adverb for the opposite of 'loudly'? ... and answered by a moderator nonetheless.
@Mazura Because it has become impossible to stem the tide of the unlettered majority who think that we're the first place to ask anything and everything without ever doing any research. They consider pulling our chain their research.
@Mazura I'm seeing all the SWR requirements being met by the asker.
Research has never been a formal SWR requirement.
Research, sample sentence, exact part of speech needed, etc.
Unfortunately.
23:36
@tchrist I think research is right in the tag. And of course also a requirement for all questions, not just SWRs.
Yes right in the tag wiki: " Questions that show no research are likely to be closed. "
Followed by "how to do research".
Please speak softer.
It's just that it's deeply buried. New users won't see it.
Okay, really leaving now. Thank you
@tchrist I'm going to quote you on that when I come for your diamond ;)
JK ... you couldn't pay me to take it!
The opposite of speaking loudly is speaking softly. That's a matter a general reference.
Well, maybe comfortably.
> Speak ye comfortably to Jerusalem...
@OP, is there a not-so-simple device in your pocket that you could have asked this question?
01:00 - 19:0019:00 - 00:00

« first day (2846 days earlier)      last day (2372 days later) »