avatar
Print the number made in sequence on each one. Make them non reusable so you make a billion dollars. I want one now now now please. Or I guess a bunch of em lol
avatar
It needs to have en eInk display to say 128, 129,…
avatar
I have some questions:
What is the damage? how many things can you recuperate from the «nuked» PC/Laptop.
If it's a PC, what's the damage there?
avatar
Very nice summary!
Here you can see more detailed i-python notebooks and associated video tutorials from one of the main contributors to the scikit-learn library:
www.cosmos.esa.int/web/esac-science-faculty/esac-statistics-workshop-2014
avatar
The following rule applies here: if types in the ternary operator are converted to the most common one, the ternary operator is rvalue.
Imagine a situation where both types can be converted to some common lvalue reference type. I speak types with user-defined conversion operators.
avatar
The author here is either unfamiliar with the practice of C++ or being somewhat dishonest. These examples are all very non-idiomatic C++. I have not used Rust yet, but I am fairly certain that if I have a task in and I do it the wrong way in Rust and then do it the right way in C++, I am going to get junk from Rust and what I expected from C++. This article is not going to convince an experienced C++ programmer of anything, but to those that do not know C++ beware.
avatar
Very nice — short, simple, direct.

Quick note for anyone who wants to try this using Python 2 (rather than Python 3): you'll need to insert

from __future__ import print_function

at the outset.
avatar
As John Regehr says in the article Compilers and Termination Revisited in the C 1999 standard it is unclear whether the as-if rule rule allows compilers to eliminate infinite loops or not. The fact that reasonable people can come to different conclusions says it is underspecified.

In the C 2011 standard this was clarified and it now forbids optimizing away an infinite loop if the control statement is a constant expression, for example:
while (1) { } 
is not fair game for optimization. You can find more detail in my Stackoverflow answer here
avatar
I don't understand the answer for Q1.

The two lines are an int definitions. One also has an initialize ruin, but they are both definitions all the same. A good compiler would yield a warning but it doesn't have to. At any rate this will not link, because of the one definition rule.
avatar
Siddhartha, 0:7 gives you 8 features (zero through seven).
avatar
I know C. 9/12 is good enough i think! :D
avatar
In Data Loading part,
instead of X = dataset[:,0:7]
shouldn`t it be X = dataset[:,0:8]
as there are 8 features?
avatar
Reasonable and funky title, me either! I don't know C.
avatar
I don’t mean to complain that ‘Someone on the Internet is Wrong’ (http://xkcd.com/386/) but hopefully this is informative to someone. I do also mean to make the point that, yes, I agree: I do not know C, you do not know C, and we do not know C, as it would seem C is unknowable… but then, the same could be said of JavaScript and of many other languages.
avatar
Regarding Q9, the answer is indeed 0, but note the words of the C99 standard: “For unsigned integer types other than unsigned char, the bits of the object representation shall be divided into two groups: value bits and padding bits (there need not be any of the latter).” I am not sure of the situation in C90.
avatar
(Sorry if this comment appears twice.)

I suggest using «int main(void)» rather than the old-style «int main()». Every C compiler I've seen will accept both, but I've argued that a strict reading of the C standard indicates that «int main()» has undefined behavior.
avatar
I know C.
avatar
I know C.
avatar
I do know C.
avatar
I know 1/4th C? Only 3 out of 12.