The way I do it, patches are backward-compatible bug fixes. Minor versions are additional features that don’t change existing functionality. Major versions include breaking changes. I totally get that it seems crazy to bump to another major version just over a string format change. But overall the philosophy works well IMO.
IMO it doesn’t really matter what you said the method was for. If you change the format of a string that is returned by a method that returns a string, there’s a risk of breaking user code, even if it’s just in the context of their dev environment.
Philosophically, whether or not the behavior of your API has changed is completely disconnected from whether or not others are using it “right”. If I can depend on a function to return a certain type of value when given certain arguments, and if it doesn’t produce other side effects, then it doesn’t matter what the docs say or what the function is named, I can use it in any context where I need that type of return value and have this type of arguments available. This type of function is just mapping data to other data. If you modify the function in such a way that the return value changes after being given the same arguments, that’s a breaking change in my book.
He also played John Rolfe in “The New World”, meaning he’s also been a boatman.
I think it’s one of those “probably close enough to random” type things. I found this: https://quantumbase.com/sse/lottery/
I think that’s only true if the lottery numbers you end up with are truly the result of random selection in infinite universes.
Ok, that makes sense. I would agree that for any truly random circumstance, when given infinite iterations, all possible combinations will eventually occur.
I agree with all of that. But the bigger point is that there are things that can’t/won’t happen that we can’t predict, so this means we can’t assume that “there must be a universe in which X happens to me”.
Well, but if there are other “me”s, then there must be some set of common events that must occur in each universe containing a copy of me in order for that individual to qualify as me. In that case, isn’t it entirely possible that those particular things that must be in place preclude certain other possibilities that make it such that there is no chance that some otherwise conceivable events could occur?
But what evidence is there for this being true?
I think Cantor would say you need a proof for that. And I think he would say you can prove it via generating a new real number by going down your set of real numbers and taking the first digit from the first number, the second from the second, third from third, etc. Then you run a transformation on it, for example every number other than 1 becomes 1 and every 1 becomes 2. Then you know that the number you’ve created can’t be first in the set because its first digit doesn’t match, and it can’t be the second number because the second number doesn’t match, etc to infinity. And therefore, if you map your set of whole numbers to your set of real numbers, you’ve discovered a real number that can’t be mapped to a whole number because it can’t be at any position in the set.
Some will say this proves that infinities can be of unequal sizes. Some will more accurately say this shows that uncountable infinities are larger than countable infinities. But the problem I have with it is this: that we begin with the assumption of a set of all real numbers, but then we prove that not all real numbers are contained in the set of all real numbers. We know this because the number we generated literally can not be at any position in the set. This is a paradox. The number is not in the set, therefore we don’t need it to map to a member of the other set. Yet it is a real number and therefore must be in the set. And yet we proved it can’t be in the set.
I’m uncomfortable making inferences based on this type of information. But I’m also not a mathematician. My goal isn’t to start an argument. Maybe somebody who’s better at math can explain it to me better.
Serious question: Can somebody explain to me, if an infinite number of universes exist, why do we assume that every possibility must exist within the set? Like, why can’t it be an infinite number of universes in which OP does not win the lottery?
Yeah these are two very different pronunciations in Standard American English. /æs/ versus /ɑrs/
As a result there is a difference in severity as well, akin to the difference between “damn” and “darn”.
Yeah it’s interesting because JS is interpreted, not compiled. The proposal allows for type annotations in the syntax but no actual interpreter consequences. On the one hand that makes sense because otherwise you’re in the territory of runtime type-checking which would be a huge performance hit and would sort of defeat the purpose of static types anyway. But that means you still have to rely on your IDE or a linter for this to be useful.