Think about what you're doing here. In order to allocate space for an A, the compiler needs to know what sizeof(A) is - its size in bytes. Since A has a B member that means it needs to know sizeof(B) in order to calculate sizeof(A). B in turn has an A member, so to calculate sizeof(B) it needs to know sizeof(A) which... uh oh. Round we go. See how this doesn't make any sense?
With pointers on the other hand, the compiler knows that sizeof(<any type>*) will always equal N bytes for a given platform (4 for x86, 8 for x86_64). There is no circular dependency between the types.
With C/C++ it's important to remember that a declaration on the form "A variable;" will create a variable directly on the stack. Unlike C# or Java it will not create a reference to a variable on the heap. This means the type's size must be known at the point of declaration. Otherwise the compiler can't know how much space to allocate on the stack.
I can relate. While out biking today I saw some black specks on the gray tarmac in front of me and thought "ooh, coal".
If you actually think the time and skill required to do the updates currently going into Minecraft even remotely compares to the time and skill required to do race car physics right, you're seriously deluded. Which is what this whole thread is about isn't it? Ignorant people having very strong opinions about things they don't understand.
Judging by this forum, the "community" doesn't deserve respect. Respect is earned, not demanded.
If that'll stop people white as the driven snow from rapping or singing with a Jamaican accent if within 100 meters of a joint, I say go for it. I don't particularly give a **** either way, but the endless, smug blabbing about drugs drives me up the wall.
That is a thoroughly good read that applies perfectly to the "situation" LFS is in at the moment. Thanks for posting it. "Scawen is not your bitch", should be the default reply to anyone coming here to whine about progress being slow.
A discussion on the LFS-forums resolving itself and resulting in agreement... I think I just might cry.
A rule which is now ambiguous as demonstrated above. Giving Schumacher a penalty for something that is not illegal according to the rules, is monumentally stupid. The correct course of action is to withdraw the penalty and fix the rule. Not say "screw the rules, we decide!".
What's legal is defined by the rules and the rules state racing could continue from the safety car line to the start/finish line (as I think we all now agree). Hence the overtake is legal and the penalty is wrong.
Then we all agree?
That may have been the intention, but it has already been demonstrated to you that the rules do not say this, so why are you harping on about it?
It could before the rules changed concerning which line the race restarted at (and overtaking could happen after).
Before, when the safety car was called in, you could not overtake until after the start/finish line. This meant that if there was only one lap left, and the safety car was still out, it could pull in but there would still be no overtaking until the race ended at the start/finish line. Rule 40.13 was probably written with this in mind and would as such not be ambiguous.
Now, the rules have changed. When the safety car comes in, you can do a pass after the safety car line/pit line, but before the start/finish line. This means that if the safety car is still out on the last lap and is called in according to rule 40.13, and flags and lights change to green at the safety-car line/pit line, teams have no way of knowing if the safety car was called in because of rule 40.13, or because the track is safe and they can continue racing (until the start/finish line). Hence, Mercedes' interpretation of the rules is entirely valid. The rules are ambiguous.
The best way to resolve this would probably be to clarify rule 40.13 to simply state that "if the safety car is still out at the beginning of the last lap of the race, the race will not be restarted and the safety car will enter the pit-lane at the end of the last lap.".
Alternatively they could leave the rules as they are, but not show the green flags when the safety car enters the pit-lane. This would be unambiguous, though still a very round about way of doing it.
Last edited by wien, .
That not what the literal interpretation of the rules say, and if that is indeed the intention it's a ridiculously round-about way of saying it. Hence the confusion.
Sure but, as a team, how can you tell the difference between the safety car coming in "because the race is finishing under safety car" and the safety car just happening to come in on the last lap (in which case they could race to the flag)? If there is no clarification from race control, you wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
If the intent of the rule is to say that "if there is only one lap left of the race and the safety car is still out, the race will not be restarted (and the safety car will enter the pit on the last lap)", it is very ambiguous.
And, as Ross Brawn pointed out in the video above, the race did not finish under the safety car. It came in on the last lap, which mean the race was on from the safety car line/pit line until the finish line.
The move was completely within the rules as far as I can work out, so I don't understand shy he got a penalty for it.
EDIT: Unless race control were trying to follow that new rule you cited, but were numpties and notified the teams about the safety car coming in, thus leading the teams to think they could race the last corner.
Christ I feel old. There are actual people walking around and typing on the internet that were born after Warcraft was released.
Of course it can. Doubles as a handy lap warmer whilst your pants are around your ankles as well. Let's see your low-power, chrome-lined telephone pull off that trick.
No. You just pay way too much for crappy service and get ridiculous contract periods and completely locked down phones in the bargain. That way you can't switch providers when it turns out their service does in fact suck and cost too much.
See above.
Been some of that here as well. Yesterday I could even smell the sulphur outside. Amazing how far it spread, and how quickly it did.
I sure as hell hope they're engineered that way, anything else would be hugely dangerous.
These types of systems just fill me with paranoia considering all the time I've spent wrestling with broken computers.
Mechanical links fail as well of course, but they can usually be made to fail safe. I'm not sure that's quite as easy to guarantee once a computer is involved, though that may be my ignorance showing.If I'm going to be smeared across the mountain-side I want it to be because of something physical and real like a stuck throttle wire, not programming error.
How exactly does one switch into neutral or turn off the engine when both those systems are electric and the computer decides to just ignore your commands? I'm not saying that's what happened here, but the Prius does have an all-electric ignition and shifter as far as I've been able to work out.
Thank you for your feedback. Now please remove your emo self from this thread and grow the **** up. Damn child.
Hilarious innuendo aside, the sitting part here is critical as I once found out... One second I was standing in front of the bathroom mirror trying this very trick and the next I woke up slumped behind the toilet.
My face was indeed red.
Don't you remember the great Nintendo vs Sega wars of the late eighties?
Children always get caught up in this mindless tribalism around whatever their interests may be. These days it's mostly software (or hardware) products, so that's where you'll see the fanaticism. Add the wonderful Internet, where any annoying loudmouth can get his voice heard, and you get what this forum has devolved into.Aren't you people always saying that because of the lack of updates people are leaving LFS? Wouldn't that mean that by necessity the players keeping the stats up are new ones?
Or are you just bending facts the way you want to justify a good cry?
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG