LadyButterfly she/her@piefed.blahaj.zone to Science Memes@mander.xyzEnglish · 2 days agoI dunnopiefed.cdn.blahaj.zoneimagemessage-square320fedilinkarrow-up1744arrow-down167
arrow-up1677arrow-down1imageI dunnopiefed.cdn.blahaj.zoneLadyButterfly she/her@piefed.blahaj.zone to Science Memes@mander.xyzEnglish · 2 days agomessage-square320fedilink
minus-squareExtremeDullard@piefed.sociallinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up66arrow-down1·2 days ago5 isn’t a valid function name, is obviously the right answer.
minus-squareTheRedSpade@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up16·2 days agoHow can you be sure it’s not defined when we only see one line?
minus-squareVoroxpete@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up8arrow-down1·edit-22 days 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-22 days agoIt could be a Church Numeral
minus-squaremarcos@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·2 days 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.
Depends on the language.
It could be a Church Numeral
I’m pretty sure that’s a module operator…