I dunno, I've never done what TFA suggests, but it makes sense to me. The idea isn't that your new foo.go file would be ignored by default; it's that your Go project's repo's .gitignore file would start with * and then !*.go , so that your new foo.go file would show up as untracked-and-unignored but your new foo.go.sav~ and .DS_Store and .foobarrc files would not.
Maybe that's more ergonomic than forcing all users to learn about ~/.gitignore or manually adding .DS_Store *.sav~ et cetera into your Go project's repo's .gitignore.
What is this AI-generated gobbledygook actually trying to say? That there are infinitely many pairs of primes p,q with q=p+186?
The first equation under "The result" seems to be saying they found an infinite sequence of primes whose density is forever greater than 1/186, which doesn't match my understanding of how prime density works.
The problem is that "predictable reliable NRVO" is still a research problem. Real-world compilers do NRVO a lot but not in a way that is perfectly predictable — that is to say, not in a way that could be standardized across all compilers (or even between different releases of the same compiler).
A "perfectly predictable" algorithm was proposed in Anton Zhilin's P2025, back in the year 2021:
https://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2021/p20...
but unfortunately it had some subtle corner-case problems (which I do not remember), so it was sent back for revision, and never returned with a fix. (Maybe because a fix wasn't possible; again I don't remember what the deal was exactly.)
The Right Path Forward would be for MSVC, GCC, and Clang all to try implementing P2025's algorithm in their front ends. Either something concrete breaks (reminding me what the problem was), or else all three mainstream compilers gain predictable NRVO and then we can "standardize existing practice." But the Right Path Forward requires tedious work by at least three people, which is hard.
Douglas Hofstadter, Le Ton beau de Marot (1997), pages xviii–xix:
> Because I have always had a very clear sense of how thing should look on a page, I dearly wanted to be able to control every tiny detail of my book's overall look, ranging from the cover art to the typefaces used to the size of the pages to the way displays are indented, and so on. Fortunately, the people at Basic Books have grown used to me and my idiosyncrasies over the years I have worked with them, and they assented to my unusual request.
> [new page] Consequently, I have enjoyed total control over such things as line-breaks, page-breaks, hyphenations, widows, orphans, density of word spacing within lines, fine-grained intercharacter spacing ("kerning"), and so forth and so on — things that most people usually are unaware of and simply leave to their publisher or their word processor. I am a fanatic, though, and these things matter a great deal to me. Not only do they matter to me, they have had an overwhelming impact on this book from start to finish. This may sound crazy, but it is the gospel truth.
> [section heading] Who Is Really Controlling Whom?
> Above, I very casually remarked that I have enjoyed total control over page-breaks and such things; yet the truth of the matter would be far more accurately captured by turning the phrase around and saying that the page-breaks and word spacing and such things have enjoyed total control over me! By this, I mean that I have been forced to rewrite and rewrite and rewrite passages in order to make a page boundary come out exactly where I wanted it. It is not just by some happy accident, for instance, that the poems inside chapters are never, ever broken across page boundaries.
> The amount of influence exerted on my text by concerns of purely visual esthetics is incalculable — and by "my text", I don't merely mean how I wound up phrasing my ideas, I mean the ideas themselves. Content has been determined by considerations of elegant form so often that I couldn't begin to imagine it. Every single line of text, for instance, is characterized by its spacing — how wide the blanks between words are. I can clearly see the spacing as I type on my screen, and I rewrite and rewrite in order to make sure that no line is too tightly or too loosely spaced. In the course of such rewritings — here extracting a word, there using a shorter or a longer one, elsewhere inserting a word where none was — words and phrases that I would otherwise not have thought of pop to mind, suggesting ideas I would not have thought of, and those ideas suggest unexpected paragraphs, and those paragraphs are in turn linked to other ones, and so on...
Yes. This is what one wants, since if you have recently rebased it, you're clearly doing work with it. Meanwhile, branches you don't care to touch sink to the bottom of the list.
> One speculative interpretation treats these numbers as a distorted memory of prehistory. Under this hypothesis, the reign boundaries encode real climate shifts...
"One theory" implies that someone somewhere has ever claimed this. But has anyone? TFA gives no source for the claim, AFAICT (although I skimmed a bit).
Because English. If you're writing a data file and one row of data elements is like "one, red, 3.14, Tuesday," why wouldn't you write exactly that in your ASCII text file? And when you do, that's CSV!
https://archive.org/details/chineselanguagef0000defr/
reply