Show newer

@monorail @vaporeon_ @aescling my only note is to use matches.at(-1) instead of matches[matches.length-1] at line 53 but even so, your javascript is clod-approved :clodsire_head::clodsire_tail:

@monorail @vaporeon_ @aescling I will support iife usage even if its stupid, iifes give me life

@vaporeon_ I love the ++i shit even though I try to get to cute with it and make mistakes so I'm not saying I agree with the opinion, but it is an opinion some people have.

Personally I think it is fine and cool to have strong opinions on things even when I disagree with them.

@vaporeon_ some people don't like the ++ shit because it leads people to make logical errors, which I will admit just happened to me in the recent holly for loop hellthread

@vaporeon_ @aescling @monorail also this thread makes me certain that "I'm not sure I would give enough of a shit in a code review because either way would look Weird" was the right answer all along

@vaporeon_ @aescling @monorail yeah that's what i would do (actually I would do ++idx, ++i but it objectively doesn't matter)

@monorail @aescling this thread is justifying my current software unemployment

@monorail anyway I was nice and comfy in my bed and this made me get up to use my computer so every one of my followers better favorite this

just found out about original sin 💀 come on man

@monorail here's my final answer:

let i = 0;
for (
let idx = currentSignal.length;
i < matches[0].length && matches[0][idx] === matches.at(-1)[idx];
idx += i++
);

@vaporeon_ I was not aware of this feature!

Apparently you can create "labelled statements" for anything considered a "statement", for which I believe include for, while, switch, and if/else if/else

Show older
📟🐱 GlitchCat

A small, community‐oriented Mastodon‐compatible Fediverse (GlitchSoc) instance managed as a joint venture between the cat and KIBI families.