Ontonator

For Bluetooth, you could of course use one or both of the runes upon which the logo was based: ᛡᛒ

Do you have a specific reference for this? I’d love to know more.

Be careful: it’s been a while since I used C and I haven’t used much C++, but I think forward progress is only guaranteed by C++, not C.

I’m not sure it can loop indefinitely, but it can block (e.g. if the reader of the pipe is not reading from it and the buffer is full).

> Somewhat expectedly, gcc remains faithful to its crash approach, though note that it only inserts the crash when it compiles the division-by-zero, not earlier, like at the beginning of the function. […] The mere existence of UB in the program means all bets are off and the compiler could chose to crash the function immediatley upon entering it.

GCC leaves the print there because it must. While undefined behaviour famously can time travel, that’s only if it would actually have occurred in the first place. If the print blocks indefinitely then that division will never execute, and GCC must compile a binary that behaves correctly in that case.

Would the DNA testing have revealed whether or not they were related, or would the DNA have been too damaged to work that out? (Of course, even if they were not related, they were still not necessarily lovers.)

Not relevant to C, of course, but Ruby supports something like this with `?a` being equivalent to `"a"` (both of which are strings, since Ruby doesn’t distinguish strings from characters). From what I’ve seen, it is recommended against in most styles, I assume because it is harder to read for most people.

I disagree. There may not be a keyword required to refer to `struct`s specifically, but the namespace that is searched when resolving a symbol is determined by the syntax used to refer to it. For example, in C++, you cannot determine whether `a` is a type or a value in the statement `a * b;` without knowing how it is declared, and C also has this ambiguity once `typedef`s are involved. In Rust, there are no such ambiguities (unless there's something I've missed).

On the point about semicolons in JavaScript, the logic I’ve heard is that if you consistently use semicolons, you can have a linter warn you if there is an inferred semicolon, so you know if you have made a mistake. If you don’t use semicolons and accidentally produce code with an inferred semicolon that should not be there, then there is no way for any tool to warn you. (Well, no general way; in your example with the return, many linters would warn you about unreachable code.)

The longer someone is at the counter, the more likely you are to see them. You’re biased towards seeing the relatively few people who take half an hour.