Shamar @Shamar@qoto.org

@newt

Uhm.. I'm arguing that calling a bounded type as "int" is a design error.

Take Wirth's Oberon: it uses INTEGER. At compile time you can specify the actual size.

Yet, it's NOT really an integer because it's bounded.

So if it's not a integer why calling it so?

@newt

Too late... too many typo... sorry.
s/bade/base

@newt

Uhm... no. You are not "right".

You are technically right because you narrowed the discourse on standard C. Then, speaking of one specific language (standard C), you are right that int64_t is not a ring.
(And I do the worst possible things with computers... things you can't even imagine... so start looking if you dare to know... 😉).

But I'd argue that the Rust choice is... arguable.

I mean, it's a choice, legitimate for its authors. BUT calling the same time Ring64 AND giving it ring semantics would be an equivalent design choice.

The point: is it better as a bade type in a language, a limited integer that throw an exception in some conditions, or a ring that consistently works as a ring and let people build on top of its clear and predictable semantics?

I'd say the second.

It's a simpler solution, faster to learn and predictable.

(It's worth noticing that I'm wondering about an hypothetical language that is as simple and consistent as possible)

@newt

Never trust non-GPL code... 🤣

You are technically right, but i think they SHOULD be rings (and named accordingly). So that programmers would learn from the beginning to live with the clear semantics of rings, always aware of the risk of overflow.

@newt

This however is NOT a good objection: it takes 10 minutes to understand rings building on insight from primary school.

@newt

It IS a ring on most implementations, but there were good flexibility (and portability) reasons behind all behaviours left undefined in C.

Yet this is a good objection... for standard C.

@MisakaMikoto

He is, if the contributors:

1) signed a CLA
2) were doing paid work for him.

Otherwise he cannot relicense the contributions (but he can remove them).
And if he try to, he is going to lose the right to even use such contributions (and the plugin containing them), but only a court could enforce such license termination.

In any case the copyright holder cannot "remove AGPL" from code that was released as such.

@MisakaMikoto

There is a lot of confusion in that thread. The copyright owner can always relicense his own work under any license it want, so the trolls were wrong. OTOH, the #copyright owner CANNOT retire the #AGPL license from his own software, once people received it under such license.

People should read licenses.
And should NOT annoy programmers.

@iron_bug

The endianness and the sign bit are implementation details: the point of my insight (which could be wrong, btw) is that the working of fixed width integer types is that of a ring of bit sequences of such widyh, not that of N or Z (that's what people would expect from something called "integer").

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_(mathematics)

@namark

What do you mean by "is not allowed to overflow"? Afaik (~0LL)+1 actually overflows...

Unpopular opinion: i64, int64_t, Int64 and similar types should be named according to their actual meaning, Ring64.

Even better, all programming languages should have a Ring[N] type that provides unit, zero addition and multiplication over a domain of N-bit strings, with the compiler applying proper optimizations when available (and requested).

Guidelines 4/2019 on Article 25 Data Protection by Design and by Default

https://edpb.europa.eu/our-work-tools/our-documents/guidelines/guidelines-42019-article-25-data-protection-design-and_en

A fundamental read for #privacy advocates in #Europe (and elsewhere).

It provides a short in depth explaination of practical aspect of the legal responsibility of data controllers under #GDPR.

For example it clarify that data protection measures (both tecnical and operational) must be designed to be EFFECTIVE and to be effective BY DEFAULT.

It also specifies that the cost of data-protection measures cannot be used to justify their lack of effectiveness, but only to peek the cheapest one among the effective ones.

And, obviously, the data controller is always accountable for such effectiveness.

@drwho

Guys, I've seen my daughters during the italian lockdown, at home for 3 months... believe me: it's a wise long term choise.

I'd even say it's better to close every other non essential service and company but the schools.

@Gargron