16
xnor
7y

I would like to add a new word to the devrant glossary, next to !rant

Recursive rant - rant about another rant

Any one interested in building a devrant glossary with me? Comment the words you like to add 😅

Comments
  • 7
    Im more for Meta rant.
    Mainly because this'd be a Meta Meta rant, cause you stole my idea.
  • 1
    Cool! What might be the syntax for a recursive rant?
  • 7
    A rant about another rant is not recursive...
    Try ranting about the rant itself.
  • 4
    What about one of these:
    GOTO 0
    rant(rant())
  • 2
    @kunashe something like this should be fine
    new rant(rant x);
    😂
  • 1
    @PonySlaystation it would end up in an infinite recursion
  • 2
    @Raamakrishnan Read this comment. 😉
  • 6
    @Raamakrishnan infinite rantcursion*
  • 1
    @PonySlaystation recursive rants the way I say can have some use. What possible use can there be for yours?😄
  • 1
    @PonySlaystation you beat me to it
  • 0
    @theScientist I'm sorry. I really didn't know someone already talked about this!
  • 3
    I thought @TheAngryDev had a good idea, why don't we just put
    'Rantcursion'
    At the start of the post?

    Not really syntax, but easier to remember.

    We could use
    '&rant'
    But it could look like a reference from C.
  • 1
    @coolq rantcursion does look good. If you want to go C style then maybe
    &rant = <link to other rant>
  • 2
    @Raamakrishnan looks good, maybe you could make a GitHub repo for your book of syntax?
  • 1
    Also personally, I prefer rantcursion 😉
  • 2
    @rantOverflow

    That would work too, only for developers that know something about bash scripts, but I guess that goes for C too, anyway.
  • 0
    @coolq I don't remember any other than !rant. I though we all can discuss on new tags here
  • 1
    @Raamakrishnan
    Me neither, but if you get that repo started, then people can add to it 😉
  • 0
    @coolq devrant is trying to bring something naively. So, maybe we can let them take care of it
  • 1
    @rantOverflow

    True, true. 😉
Add Comment