GitHub | https://github.com/mattkretz |
ORCID | https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0867-243X |
Strava | https://www.strava.com/athletes/124318317 |
GitHub | https://github.com/mattkretz |
ORCID | https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0867-243X |
Strava | https://www.strava.com/athletes/124318317 |
I probably am not the only one that certainly will never travel to the US again as long as the @GOP is in power there.
The speed at which they destroy the foundations of US strength is mindboggling.
My bike must have missed me. It drove really fast through the 26β54 km/h wind. π
And we just renamed it again. Who would have thought that we can name something 'vec' when we already have 'vector' π
.
It'll be std::simd::vec<T, N> and std::simd::mask<T, N> in C++26.
Also vec and mask are (read-only) ranges now (range-based for works) and we got permutations, gather & scatter, compress & expand as well as mask conversions to and from bitset and unsigned. π₯³
Lot's of implementation and optimization work ahead for me now.
Why did IEEE specify sqrt(-0) to be -0?! That's β¦ surprising when applied to the interpretation of -0 in the context of complex numbers:
sqrt(complex{-0,+0}) is complex{+0,+0}.
And also pow(-0, 0.5) is +0.
If anything sqrt(-0) should be NaN, but why -0?
Excellent, excellent post: we must run governments--from local to federal--like households where everyone cares about everyone else (even when we don't fucking like them that much--we don't have to love or even like everyone we live in community with)
There's resistance against using the same name in a namespace and a type inside that namespace. Why? What is the actual problem with this code? Is the 'foo::foo' looking too much like a constructor definition (in that context)? Isn't it great how the call to 'bar' has a clear relation to 'foo'?
Why is it considered bad practice that shouldn't pass code review?