Actually, forget Lacan. He's just nuts.
Actually, forget Lacan. He's just nuts.
*commentary about how off-topic I am
*more commentary about how excuses don't make good programming
*more tedious commentary about the definition of 'validity' and how meaning means something and you're wrong and I'm right
Read up on C's "rules of scope"... which governs where and for how long a variable is valid...
This is garbage code but it should give you the idea...
And you throught all those braces were just for show, didn't ya???Code:int dummyfunc(int x) // x is valid only in this function { int z = x; // z is valid throught the function x = 3 + x; { int y; // y is valid only until the closing brace y = x + 2; } while (z > 0) { int q = x; // q is valid only in the while loop q += x; z--; } return x; }
I'm curious why a final project is accepted without modular code or good format, but eh.
You only posted your prior homework with one or two lines of bull........ dude, come on. I don't really want to understand your ........ philosophy. If you want to help people who've almost got it you could actually bother to explain exactly what they did wrong, like we do all the time. That way if you make a mistake in your code you at least look like you know what you're doing.
And... when his teacher checks here --and they do-- it's just as easily equated with cheating on homework... and the grade that gets you.
You didn't help him... you may well have sabotaged him.
And what do the studies say about nonsense? I'm thinking you're something of an expert on that topic.I guess you could make the case that he would learn more on his own, but I think that's just a romantic myth of independence that misunderstands how human beings work -- I recommend reading from Saussure to Lacan before basing your anger on sweeping assumptions about the human condition you probably aren't aware that you're making. Edit: Sweeping assumptions made in the folk-privacy of one's mind that don't consider how many years of epistemological study have gone into how annoyingly coercive "common sense" is.
The following words are vaguely insulting: "bull", "philosophy", "bother to explain", "like we do", "look like you know","nonsense".
"sabotaged" - I'm sure whoever checks here will contemplate whether raising the "cheating" flag is 1) worth his time (based on the performance of both studentEdit: s thus far, etc.) and 2) whether it's accurate to use the word "cheating" when the code I put up could easily have been found on the notes of a study group or in the book or with a google search and probably understood, since Edit: 3) whoever checks here and has an impact on grading will remember something about every resource, including the internet, being included in the information available for project completion.
"nonsense" - Well, I could say the very idea of "nonsense" is an imperialistic language-game, but you'd probably say that's "nonsense". Then we can talk about fear and castrated masculinity, which I think is applicable outside Lacanian psychoanalysis, frankly. Probably even outside the set of nonsensical things. That seems like a suspiciously infinite set, if I do say so.
Last edited by galvadon; 12-12-2011 at 05:12 PM.
Also, it looks like "string2" is "valid" from 18 to 30.
Unfortunately, taking words apart like that destroys meaning, and in fact you have lost complete track of who's said what. So I suggest, if you have anything else to say, that you read my post again. And really, thank you but I don't need any book recommendations at this time. I can't work in any more reading time.
Well, I haven't lost track of who said what, and nothing I typed implies that. The quotes function like quotes generally do: they refer to a context of usage where the meaning, in this case, is clearly ..............ry. More specifically, it's an ad hominem that attacks my ability to read and comprehend without actually dealing with what I said .... and accuses me of cheating. It also claims I'm an expert on nonsense, which could be the same as saying I'm an expert on something lots of people don't understand, something that is therefore hard, therefore making me a genius, which I am. Or it could mean I'm an expert on things that don't syntactically obtain, which would be false - and a tired criticism based on a lack of exposure which a few moments of self-reflection would reveal, provided one isn't developmentally arrested. <<and that, sir, is an ad hominem
Also: Oh man, what are you reading?!?!?!?! I'm reading Harry Potter!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
So this is a philosophy thread... well then,
"If it is correct, it will compile. If it runs, it compiled. If it doesn't run, it is not correct." Oh yawn, formal logic is so dreary.
Just because it compiles, doesn't mean it will run, and just because is runs, doesn't mean it works, and just because it works, doesn't mean it is correct.
@galvadon
And your code, my friend, was anything but correct. Which is fine, you're learning, and we've all learned by making mistakes. But then, how do you think you are helping anyone learn programming by simply posting your program, if learning requires making mistakes and figuring them out? (I know, I know... a slight stench of hypocrisy surrounds me as I handed you your corrected code in your thread, which you seem to have ignored /shrug). So, even if your code was correct and you were the Guru of C, you haven't helped the OP in any way.
Last edited by Tclausex; 12-12-2011 at 06:55 PM.
It wasn't any more "correct" than what I had. You're just defining "correct" however you feel like it.