you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 225 points 2 years ago (32 children)

Just look at those nested parentheses. A true sign of (pedantic) greatness, when a person needs to clarify something in their earlier clarification.

  • source
  • hideshow 32 child comments
  • [–] 104 points 2 years ago (12 children)

    I love it™ (The nested parentheses are one of the greatest tools known to mankind (And to all other creatures))

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 93 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    To paraphrase an old tweet: "parentheses - for when every thought comes with bonus sub-thoughts".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 19 points 2 years ago (7 children)

    I have been stopping myself from using those and instead restructure my sentence. But if people like it, guess I can start keeping it.

    I do find it more useful, however, to have a kind of a reference to the thing written at the end instead [1], but markdown doesn't seem to have anything for that, and using the syntax for Markdown references, is only useful for hyperlinks, or if the reader is willing to read the hover text 2.

    [1]: Like This. I would love it if the markdown viewer would link the above [1] to this line. Maybe with a scrolldown effect.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 2 years ago (6 children)

    Lemmy's markdown does actually have footnotes!^[they work like this: ^[text here]]

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    Eh, Lemmy Connect does not format it properly.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago

    Well ain't that some shit. It would make my comments more readable to a degree^[not that I'd ever use it]. I also like how they have return links for when you have some monster text wall that nobody would ever read in the first place on this platform.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago

    And automatically numbered too! Nice.

    Though for me, instead of a scrolldown effect, it reloads the page on clicking the link. Trying a second time, it does the scrolldown properly. Weird
    But that's just an implementation detail and as long as this is standard, I'll just start using it.

    Thanks

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 22 points 2 years ago (6 children)

    I've had a teacher in elementary school scream at me for doing so. (Nesting parentheses is forbidden. [You are supposed to use brackets.])

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    I had a teacher that screamed at me for “taking the lords name in vain…” They’re definitely wrong from time-to-time ;-)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 2 years ago (7 children)

    Some of those parens could've been replaced with commas and retain their meaning (that's what I do to avoid nesting, so that it doesn't get confusing).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (3 children)

    Or he could have used brackets.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    I've never seen that being used, but it seems it's a thing in English. What if you wanna best deeper? Do you go {}? Then <>? «»?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Not really an English thing so much as a math thing that makes too much sense to not use elsewhere. For instance, in math you might have x[3 - 7{3y + (a * b)}]. I haven't actually seen them go deeper than three sets, though, so I'm not sure what would be next.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago*

    at that point I start recycling them, and go back to parenthesis.

    so when bp = 300x - 3, this:

    4( 4[ 4{ 15bp + 10 } - 375 ] - 2250 ) - 15000

    would turn to

    4( 4[ 4{ 15( 300x - 3) + 10 } - 375 ] - 2250 ) - 15000

    perhaps not the best, but I rather stick to conventional symbols rather than using... idk, question marks? that'd be funny as hell, though

    just picture it:

    4© 4« 4¿ 15bp + 10 ? - 375 » - 2250 🄯 - 15000

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    The amount of effort I do to try and avoid using double parentesis is trully herculean.

    I think that stuff is the product of a completionist/perfectionist mindset - as one is writting, important details/context related to the main train of thought pop-up in one's mind and as one is writting those, important details/context related to the other details/context pop-up in one's mind (and the tendency is to keep going down the rabbit hole of details/context on details/context).

    You get this very noticeably with people who during a conversation go out on a tangent and often even end up losing the train of thought of the main conversation (a tendecy I definitelly have) since one doesn't get a chance to go back and re-read, reorganise and correct during a spoken conversation.

    Personally I don't think it's an actual quality (sorry to all upvoters) as it indicates a disorganised mind. It is however the kind of thing one overcomes with experience and I bet Mr Torvalds himself is mostly beyond it by now.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

    perfectionist mindset - as one is writing,

    I think an "M-Dash (perfectionist mindest— as one is writing,)" would be more appropriate than an "N-Dash" in your statement. No 'nested' parentheses needed (unless you're looking to add non-essential (though insightful) info to your sentence); but the type of... "PAUSE" makes all the difference

  • source
  • parent