When ChatGPT can and does hallucinate information it disqualifies itself as a reliable source. Citing it as a source is exactly the same level as "my mate Keith said", even if it's more reliable on average than Keith.
SleepyHarry
And ironically enough they have more in common with the Persian "soldiers" which are just fodder for their God King.
The syntax strikes me as a little clunky, but I do like the idea. Coming from Python I've used generators a lot (which in my obviously biased opinion is a clearer name that "iterator" here) so recognise the value in having something like that in the language.
Not sure if you know this but on the off chance, that's a deliberate choice by the devs, so it really won't ever be on sale.
Trigger warning: r*ddit link
Same feelings / background here. Navigation will take me a little to grok, but I'm liking it so far.
Why would it be illegal? It's shitty and it's obvious what they're trying to do, but I can't fathom what law from any jurisdiction this would violate.
I'm very much up for bringing
þ
back, but you're misusing it. It's a softer "th" sound than is used in "the". You should use something likeð
instead.þ
is more appropriate for words like "thing".