barubary

My CGI script is a SaaS.

for (int i = INT_MIN; ; i++) {    ...    if (i == INT_MAX) break;}

Incidentally, this is an anti-pattern: http://mywiki.wooledge.org/BashPitfalls#cmd1_.26.26_cmd2_.7C.7C_cmd3

@Tangentism @Ephera Did you mean:

echo "${var:-empty}${var:+no it aint}"

?

Arguably, I never fully learned Bash syntax, but it also is just a stupid if-statement. There shouldn’t be that much complexity in it.

There isn't. The syntax is

if COMMANDthenCOMMAND(s)...elseCOMMAND(s)...fi

I believe, if you write the then onto the next line, then you don’t need the semicolon.

Yes, but that's true of all commands.

foo; bar; baz

is the same as

foobarbaz

All the ] and -z stuff has nothing to do with if. In your example, the command you're running is literally called [. You're passing it three arguments: -z, "$var", and ]. The ] argument is technically pointless but included for aesthetic reasons to match the opening ] (if you wanted to, you could also write test -z "$var" because [ is just another name for the test command).

Since you can logically negate the exit status of every command (technically, every pipeline) by prefixing a !, you could also write this as:

if ! test "$var"; then ...

The default mode of test (if given one argument) is to check whether it is non-empty.

Now, if you don't want to deal with the vagaries of the test command and do a "native" string check, that would be:

case "$var" in  "") echo "empty";;  *) echo "not empty";;esac

Isn't this COBOL or 4GL or something?

@racketlauncher831 As far as the C compiler is concerned, there is literally no difference between those two notations. If you declare a function parameter as an array (of T), the C compiler automatically strips the size information (if any) and changes the type to pointer (to T).

(And if we're talking humans, then char *args[] does not mean "follow this address to find a list of characters" because that's the syntax for "array of pointers", not "pointer to array".)

@affiliate Hey, you didn't even mention that char *args[] actually means char **args in a parameter list.

@stebo02 @Bogus5553 Neither of them require a return value, but void main isn't legal C++.

Strictly speaking, it should be

Unsafe block syntax in C++

{  ...}

... Perl, Haskell, Lisp, ...

That confirms exactly what tyler said. I'm not sure if you're misreading replies to your posts or misreading your own posts, but I think you're really missing the point.

Let's go through it point by point.

• tyler said "JSON Schema is not an ISO standard". As far as I can tell, this is true, and you have not presented any evidence to the contrary.

• tyler said "JSON Data Interchange Format is a standard, but it wasn’t published until 2017, and it doesn’t say anything about 1.0 needs to auto cast to 1". This is true and confirmed by your own link, which is a standard from 2017 that declares compatibility with RFC 8259 (tyler's link) and doesn't say anything about autocasting 1.0 to 0 (because that's semantics, and your ISO standard only describes syntax).

• tyler said "JSON Schema isn’t a specification of the language, it’s for defining a schema for your code", which is true (and you haven't disputed it).

Your response starts with "yes it is", but it's unclear what part you're disagreeing with, because your own link agrees with pretty much everything tyler said.

Even the part of the standard you're explicitly quoting does not say anything about 1.0 and 1 being the same number.

Why did you bring up JSON Schema (by linking to their website) in the first place? Were you just confused about the difference between JSON in general and JSON Schema?