If you are already ignoring the actual chord "voicing" as written in the "classical" system, then just keep doing that in my system??

If you are already able to intuit that a note should go elsewhere, then keep doing that for your jazz sets? What's the issue again?

"Gsus4x5" is just as unreadable and ignorable and malleable as "G+5+4".

Known in western classical harmonization theory as "Em+" (E chord with minor third, augmented 5th). C first inv is actually Gsus4add6no5 or as I like to call it G+5+4. It has an incredibly warm and rich tone, nothing like C+4+3 (C major triad).

It works in C because all of its notes are also present in the C major scale, but that's just a coincidence. Calling it a C inverted chord is like making astrological or numerological conclusions.

And no, shifting up or down by octaves is not the same sound. It's close but not equal. You can probably get away with octave substitutions in a busy song but you can not say it sounds exactly the same. A 9th is not a 2nd. 11 not 4, 13 not 6. When you play La Campanella, is that your excuse for skipping those octave jumps? :)

As I said, unpopular opinion :)

Inverted chords have, in my ears, never sounded anything like the chords they are supposedly an inversion of. It's like saying "10 is just really 3+7". It's true, and it's also useless. Let 10 be 10. Let 3 be 3. Etc.

Most composers don't even use this system as they compose, it's just for after the fact analysis. Composers hear a tune in their head and then transcribe it. Unless they're writing cookie cutter shit without inspiration, then they might synthesize some soulless crap that intentionally follows some well known chord progression as picked by a dart thrown at a poster of the circle of fifths.

? takes a bool, a T, and returns option

true?b == Result b

false?b == None

: takes an Option and a T and returns T

Result x : y == x

None : y == y

However, in most languages (looking at you php) the ?: act as a type of parenthesis: in a?b:c, any expression goes into b, no matter it's precedence.

Why are you so aggrieved? What's the big deal?

It's got a kind of "all but" deal going on: two ways to interpret it.

Really annoying how the English language can't get quantifying phrases right.

That's wrong... Suppose A calls B and B returns a Result (so it's colored as you say). A can match both the Some() and the Err() variants of B and return something other than the error in the latter case. So A can shed the color. There is no way to "shed" async-ness like that in javascript.

For instance, if the "prototype" of the argument is {int foo, float bar}, and I supply {int foo, int baz, float bar}, the table will be {foo: base+0 bytes, bar: base+8 bytes}.

The author admits to not being a C undefined behavior expert and yet acts like they might know better than a tool made by such experts.

Looking up the rules and verifying the shown snippets takes at most 30 minutes at a leisurely pace, the author could have saved themselves the embarrassment.

I'm not going to write a blog post about how I didn't expect a color spectrometer pointed at the sky to say "BLUE" because I thought it might have been purple, "although I'm not an expert in wave lengths".

    void (*name)(char *ptr);
    typedef void (*name_func)(char *ptr);

    void target(void *ptr)
    {
       printf("Input %p\n", ptr);
    }


    char *data = "string";
    name = (name_func)target; // Illegal: casting fn that takes void* to a fn that takes char*
    name(&data); // Illegal: passing a char** into a function that takes char*

Agreed, nor is the inverse implied of course. But what is your point?

> How many decades of fabric replacements could you get from the savings of bolting on a simple metal frame as compared to an elaborate electromechanically actuated arm mechanism?

That's what I'm saying, fabric doesn't really need to get replaced in 15 years and going from personal experience. The mechanism is simple enough to be reliable as well.

Ultimately, it's impossible to analyze the cost benefits of this. It's a matter of personal taste and what the harshness of the local climate allows. I don't doubt that fixed awnings are cheaper - but actuating awnings fix their drawbacks, and the maintenance they introduce is minimal in my experience. And frankly, for the price of giving up a single vacation in 15+ years, it's not that expensive. Again, cheap enough that those in social housing can make the choice to get them installed.

ETA: my point of mentioning social housing is to say that people with lower income can still get them. The government doesn't pay for it. I just wanted to paint a picture of the relative cost.

Let me put it this way: it's cheap enough that a lot of social housing and other cheap forms of housing inhabited by the "lower class" feature them.