LadyButterfly she/her@piefed.blahaj.zone to Science Memes@mander.xyzEnglish · 1 month agoI dunnopiefed.cdn.blahaj.zoneimagemessage-square340linkfedilinkarrow-up1804arrow-down179
arrow-up1725arrow-down1imageI dunnopiefed.cdn.blahaj.zoneLadyButterfly she/her@piefed.blahaj.zone to Science Memes@mander.xyzEnglish · 1 month agomessage-square340linkfedilink
minus-squareExtremeDullard@piefed.sociallinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up67arrow-down1·1 month ago5 isn’t a valid function name, is obviously the right answer.
minus-squareTheRedSpade@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up16·1 month agoHow can you be sure it’s not defined when we only see one line?
minus-squareVoroxpete@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up8arrow-down1·edit-21 month agoThey didn’t say it’s not defined, they said it’s not a valid name. Most languages don’t allow function names to start with a number, so 5 literally cannot be a function if that’s the case. But that’s assuming this isn’t some really obscure language.
minus-squaregnutrino@programming.devlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3·edit-21 month agoIt could be a Church Numeral
minus-squaremarcos@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·1 month agoI’m pretty sure that’s a module operator…
5 isn’t a valid function name, is obviously the right answer.
How can you be sure it’s not defined when we only see one line?
They didn’t say it’s not defined, they said it’s not a valid name. Most languages don’t allow function names to start with a number, so 5 literally cannot be a function if that’s the case.
But that’s assuming this isn’t some really obscure language.
It could be a Church Numeral
I’m pretty sure that’s a module operator…
Depends on the language.