The correct spelling is "definitely".

Seriously? I pride myself on my good spelling, I can't believe I've been spelling that word incorrectly my entire life! Not to mention the fact that nobody has pointed it out to me on here before…

Actually the minimum and maximum guaranteed value for a signed int is the same as a signed short -32767 to 32767.

Yes, it was extremely stupid because Kavir created C. :cool:

On a side note, you have no idea what you're talking about in the first place. So by right, who are you to tell anyone they are incorrect or stupid? I know exactly who KaVir is and he is a cool guy. I don't tend to think the comment was being stupid because unlike you I do my research before asking the community. I take time to not be lazy and disrespectful to the 100's of thousands who took time to visit the book store and pick up a book on programming. Closing, the comment was not stupid because as David said it is the correct values. As for KaVir, he also correct and voicing on his professional experience but that's beside the fact on the reasoning behind my comment. :evil:

Forget my last post, you just made my entire argument void. :biggrin:

I'm having difficulty discerning the correct context under which you are rescinding your prior post in your current post. If you would explain yourself, I would appreciate it.

You're having difficulty discerning the correct context? Haha, okies you're one of "those" type of people. Please don't question the previous statement in your reply because I will have difficulty elucidating you in the future.

I will put this simple before you make it even more complicated or ignorant as possible. The point was to argue the fact that Igabond had no idea what he was talking about in the first place to even begin to post such a statement towards me. Then in reply, not know the English language like a simple word such as "definitely" nor show signs of any real education to figure it out. Thus making my reply void because it seems it is fact not opinion that he has no real clue what drips from the lips of his mouth like honey on any given day.

I hope the context of this reply satisfies your appetite. If it does not then oh well!

I'm not sure that the argument about who was being rude to whom really needs to continue, no? Sometimes a remark that somebody has been rude will provoke more rudeness than the original perceived rudeness… (EDIT: and it appears that I am too late… :sigh: was that really necessary?)

And yes, it is spelled definitely, although a very large number of people spell it "definately". (Never did understand why, since it's not pronounced def-in-ate-ly, but def-in-it-ly.)

Tyche also makes a good point about int being defined as the same as short. I never did understand why they bothered with int, short, and long, given that "int" is this funky type that is defined to be no less than short, but no greater than long. I prefer having primitive types defined extremely clearly as the number of bits used to represent them (modulo the noise you get from representational issues). Somewhere on these forums I have a rant about it, though: if you know that you need a specific range, use the types that guarantee size such as uint16_t or uint32_t. Only use the other types if you don't really care about the ranges because you just want an integral number.

I assume so, Lobotomy asked! I will be happy to drop it.

Yes, Lobotomy asked, but if you really needed to answer, you could have just stopped at answering the question instead of being so acerbic about the whole thing. :thinking:

Why stop there if someone took time to engineer such a question like that? I would hate for someone to waste time and effort just for me to not to answer it entirely.

I'm sorry but I have to ask because I'm having trouble reconciling your post now with your reply to Lobotomy. Are you being funny or do you really think your reply to Lobotomy's question was a useful, productive and helpful contribution to the conversation?

I appreciate you clarifying yourself, although not so much how you went about it. I merely wanted to be sure that you were in fact making your comment in regards to his English before continuing into my next point.

That said, you would in fact do well to tone down your rudeness a bit, Littlehorn, or at the very least have a leg to stand on when trying to point your finger at others. While Igabod did have a spelling mistake, the one in question resulted from misinformation rather than laziness (according to what he said, anyways). The distinction there is very important. As DavidHaley has said, definitely is a commonly misspelled word. There's no shame in being misinformed about something; it's merely a fact of life. The important thing is to learn from one's mistakes and then not repeat them in the future. Now that Igabod knows the correct spelling of definitely, it would be lazy of him to repeat the same spelling mistake in the future. He should not be berrated into feeling bad for having made the mistake in the past as a result of said misinformation.

Where this comes to being a matter of you not being in a position to look down at Igabod for his spelling mistake(s) also arises from your own English mistakes in your former post:


"Closing," should be "In closing,". "it is the correct values" should be "they are the correct values"; you're speaking about something that is plural (values), not singular.


"he also correct" should be "he is also correct" or "he's also correct". "voicing on his professional experience" should be "speaking from his professional experience". "beside the fact" should be "beside the point".

There are likely to be other errors in your text, Littlehorn, but I feel that the above is proof enough to support my point. Just please try and exercise a little more prudence and/or tact in the future.

We all make typo's, spelling errors and fubar our grammar every once and awhile, lets try not to pick one another apart for it, ok? Back to lots of hitpoints and sizes of integer values ;)

Oops, well spotted! I guess I'm getting rusty in my old age ;)

Oh man, I totally forgot to insert that in there:

"Lobotomy, I know your own reply would be to pick apart my sentence structure. I do tend to stereotype from time to time and you just proved it."



No, I didn't find it useful really but the effort alone made it worth the time. The question from Lobotomy was only a mere troll like attempt to obviously drag me into some type of response in which she can pick apart the structure in my grammar. It's really common on message boards, almost everyone has at least one of those smart-asses who thinks it's better to correct than actually post meaningful content. Thus tossing bait for the troll to feed on and begin the grammar check.

Anyways, despite the the grammar Nazi and the ignorance of a child I will drop the subject. Unless for some reason there are other questions on context that need to be defined for the observationally challenged. :evil:

There's a saying about pots and kettles and it involves the color black, but I can't quite recall what it was.

I have no idea what you felt was gained from this exchange. In the future it might be better for it to simply not start in the first place.

Yeah, I didn't help by tossing gas on the fire but I couldn't resist I tell you! I will only post context in which I need grammatical corrections by Lobotomy in the future. :lol:

Alright guys, drop it.

Yet another thread, derailed into tedium. By Egos.

Hey! Igabod, did you resolve your issue?