Gollum to Programmer [email protected] • 8 months agoI mean it could be righti.imgur.comimagemessage-square19arrow-up1274arrow-down116
arrow-up1258arrow-down1imageI mean it could be righti.imgur.comGollum to Programmer [email protected] • 8 months agomessage-square19
minus-square@[email protected]linkfedilinkEnglish1•edit-28 months agoOh good call! What I was trying to do is more complex than I was thinking. Hmmmmm. int f = TRUE; for (int y = MIN_INT; f || y - 1 < y; y++) { f = FALSE; if (y == x + 1) { x = y; } } (I should just test my code to make sure it works, but I haven’t. Heh.) Also, Lemmy escaped your angle bracket too. Back ticks don’t seem to do the trick. Block: < Inline: < Or were you suggesting back ticks for some other purpose? (I did use back ticks in my first post in this thread.)
minus-square@xthexderlinkfedilink2•8 months agoThe backticks worked in the preview, and showed up correctly to start, but there must be a bug in the lemmy ui, since now it’s double-escaped. No idea /shrug
Oh good call! What I was trying to do is more complex than I was thinking.
Hmmmmm.
int f = TRUE; for (int y = MIN_INT; f || y - 1 < y; y++) { f = FALSE; if (y == x + 1) { x = y; } }(I should just test my code to make sure it works, but I haven’t. Heh.)
Also, Lemmy escaped your angle bracket too. Back ticks don’t seem to do the trick.
Block: <Inline: <Or were you suggesting back ticks for some other purpose? (I did use back ticks in my first post in this thread.)
The backticks worked in the preview, and showed up correctly to start, but there must be a bug in the lemmy ui, since now it’s double-escaped. No idea /shrug