• How do you pronounce 'char'?
    270 replies, posted
"Car". The only other acceptable and logical way to pronounce it would be "care", like "character" shortened. Saying "char" as in "charcoal" completely disregards the original word it abbreviates.
[QUOTE=efeX;26196581]car [editline]21st November 2010[/editline] the real question is, boo-lean or boo-lian[/QUOTE] Bool nice and easy
[QUOTE=VoiDeD;26234750]Why not the nullsquared way: boo-yen?[/QUOTE] lol
Bull - ee - in Is how I pronounce boolean. And as I said, I pronounce char, car.
bouillon IsThisThreadRetarded; care YorN;
you people are weird
[QUOTE=NorthernGate;26273117]Except we're talking about care and cahr, not care and cah. The "cahr" still ends with the 'air' sound at the end, the only difference is there is a slightly increased emphasis on the "ah" sound in a lot of other accents.[/QUOTE] /kɑr/ v /kɛər/ right? I use /tʃɑr/ myself. (as in charcoal) I dunno, I also pronounce character as /ˈtʃærɪktər/...
Where do you learn how to pronounce that 'pronunciation notation' anyway?
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Phonetic_Alphabet_chart_for_English_dialects[/url] Good luck
[QUOTE=r4nk_;26284973]Where do you learn how to pronounce that 'pronunciation notation' anyway?[/QUOTE] it's arien...
[QUOTE=r4nk_;26284973]Where do you learn how to pronounce that 'pronunciation notation' anyway?[/QUOTE] Wherever language courses are given? IPA is pretty standard.
Chair.
Care. Now the question is, how do you say *?
star ch-ar-st-ar
Ass-ter-risk? :v:
char as in charmander
this thread will never die
post = NULL; I'm not allowed to change the contents, but I am allowed to change the pointer...
[QUOTE=Matthew0505;26351817]const car *post = "this thread will never die";[/QUOTE] char* new_post = (char*)post; strcpy(new_post, "const is a bit dumb really"); Of course that will seg fault because the text is in the code segment and therefore read-only. But my point still stands... I think... What was my point? Oh yeah, const is a bit dumb really
[QUOTE=st0rmforce;26355444]char* new_post = (char*)post; strcpy(new_post, "const is a bit dumb really"); Of course that will seg fault because the text is in the code segment and therefore read-only. But my point still stands... I think... What was my point? Oh yeah, const is a bit dumb really[/QUOTE] Except you just caused undefined behaviour. Why is that bad? Try it on a Linux machine, for example.
char as in Charmander.
I'm going to pronounce it as /xɑr/ from now on. Sorry, I had to use IPA, there's no way to express the /x/ sound in English. It's lo[b]ch[/b] and [b]Ch[/b]anukah, but in English those are usually replaced by /k/ and /h/ respectively.
[QUOTE=jA_cOp;26355526]Except you just caused undefined behaviour. Why is that bad? Try it on a Linux machine, for example.[/QUOTE] Well it would compile, which just shows what a waste of space const is. What's the point of defining something as non-editable if you can simply cast it? the point I was trying to make would probably be better shown by: [code] char* pointer; const char constchar = 'c'; pointer = (char*)&constchar; (*pointer)--; printf("character is %c\n",constchar);[/code]
-blah-
[QUOTE=st0rmforce;26355759]Well it would compile, which just shows what a waste of space const is. What's the point of defining something as non-editable if you can simply cast it? [/QUOTE] It would compile, but fail at runtime (not on Windows, though, but that's an implementation detail). Casting, especially a C-style cast, means you take responsibility for any error you make. It's a blunt tool and a warning sign to maintainers, but not always an error, for example, sometimes you have to cast away const to deal with older APIs which aren't const-correct. Const is meant to improve the maintainability of code and reduce bugs by clarifying code contracts. In your code, the explicit cast is the bug. Without it, the code will either not compile or issue a warning, and thus the error is caught at compile-time.
[QUOTE=st0rmforce;26355759]Well it would compile, which just shows what a waste of space const is. What's the point of defining something as non-editable if you can simply cast it? the point I was trying to make would probably be better shown by: [code] char* pointer; const char constchar = 'c'; pointer = (char*)&constchar; (*pointer)--; printf("character is %c\n",constchar);[/code][/QUOTE] int a; unsigned long b = *((unsigned long*)&a); What's the point of having any types when you can simply cast it :downs:?
I have searched all over the internet and the general consensus seems to be char as in charmander. Let it be known now and forever that it is most acceptable as such, but if said as "car" we will know what you are trying to say. (I have nothing to say to those who say "care" :P)
[QUOTE=bios_hazard;26356203]I have searched all over the internet and the general consensus seems to be char as in charmander. Let it be known now and forever that it is most acceptable as such, but if said as "car" we will know what you are trying to say. (I have nothing to say to those who say "care" :P)[/QUOTE] And what about /xɑr/?
[QUOTE=bios_hazard;26356203]I have searched all over the internet and the general consensus seems to be char as in charmander. Let it be known now and forever that it is most acceptable as such, but if said as "car" we will know what you are trying to say. (I have nothing to say to those who say "care" :P)[/QUOTE] We must revolt against the pronunciation king!
[QUOTE=sam6420;26363024]I don't pronounce it. I have nobody to say it to. :([/QUOTE] That is one of the saddest things I've heard all week. Every programmer should have somebody to talk to, even if it's against their will.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.