They also write laughter the way an English speaker writes, like “haha” or “ha, ha”.ĥ - English : the most typical way to transcribe laughter in English is “haha”. To laugh a lot you will see 55555555+(+) adding the “+” sign.Ģ - Portuguese: In both Portugal and Brazil, laughter is written “kkkkk” but you will also find “rsrsrs” (abbreviation of “riso”, meaning “laughter”) and the ironic “rarara”.ģ - Turkish: "hahaha", "ahahah", "jsjsjsjs", "weqeqwqewqew" or, the funniest option, random letters like: "dksajdksajdoşad" (which is the most common) are used to laugh.Ĥ - Malay: because “ha” x 3 times equals “hahaha”, Malay speakers write “Ha3Ha3Ha3” or “Ha3”. How to laugh online in 26 languagesġ - Thai: “55555” is the most curious graphic representation and the reason behind it is because the number 5 in Thai is pronounced “haa”. Chaining comparison operators are popular in more dynamic languages like Python or Perl, and also provide a slight performance benefit as the middle value only needs to be evaluated once.But, what language uses the funniest onomatopoeia to write laughter on the internet? Have you ever wondered how laughter is written in other parts of the world and in other languages? Read on and learn how to crack up correctly in 26 different languages. Operators Why does D not support chaining comparison operators?įirst off, what are chaining comparison operators? The term refers to a certain way that comparison operators behave in various languages, which allows for writing multiple comparisons without using logical and between them. The reason is that before nogc was introduced, some existing code may have used identifiers called nogc if it were suddenly regarded as a keyword now, that code would no longer compile, and the author would need to revise all parts of the code that used that identifier. However, since the language has been around for a while, it is deemed undesirable to introduce new keywords. Ideally, if the language were designed from scratch, nogc would be made a keyword. When the alternatives are considered, the simple rule is not that bad of an option. Now the rule is "Use an symbol if the word not a keyword, except when you are using the keyword as. The current rule is "Use an symbol if the word is not a keyword". Even worse, you've now made the rule more complex. See the inconsistency? Then you might say, let's make some attributes require an and some not, but how does that solve the original problem? You've just moved some keywords into the bin and some into the "no bin.
If D allowed non-keyword function attributes, then "safe" and "T" would be considered attributes of the function by the parser and the error would not be found until the '=' character.Įrror: expected ' ' or ' It should have ended with a semi-colon or a function body. This is an error since the function definition is not finished.
0 kommentar(er)
