"Is there some use of this that I am missing here?" It's an example of the worst algorithm of its class.

What a moronic question. And your claim isn't even true, asshole. (Ok, that makes it twice now.)

My day job is writing proprietary code, imbecile.

Aspiring writers quit because of snarky comments in sewers like the CP lounge? I don't think so.

It only confuses stupid people.

There are lots of moronic things people can do to hose things up ... defining NOT_USED is just one of them. It could be called DONT_DEFINE_THIS_BECAUSE_IT_EXCLUDES_CODE_THAT_SHOULD_NOT_BE_COMPILED and one could just as well define that.

All code used to be written like that. That's a relatively understandable example.

But you have no objection to "all good reasons for he used it for ..."?

Don't quit your day job.

Whoosh!

You seem to suffer from comprehension failure.

I would certainly dismiss you immediately for poor grammar and poor thinking.

Whoosh!

So do other things in the switch, but set the common values just once outside the switch ... duh. It's the DRY principle, and duplicating the code in each branch of the switch is not only stupid, but error prone.

"It's better said that if a system S includes a statement about its own consistency, then by definition S is inconsistent." No it isn't. You don't even seem to what a definition is. I didn't bother to read further.

> Not even close." Bzzt! Wrong! Gödel's second incompleteness theorem states that a consistent system cannot prove its own consistency. And of course inconsistent systems can prove anything, true or false, including their consistency. > Consistency: X is provable, therefore X is true. > Completeness: X is true, therefore X is provable. This is an odd and confusing way to state these, as it isn't clear that they are universally qualified. Better is: Consistency: For all X, if X is provable then X is true. Completeness: For all X, if X is true then X is provable. > The layman's version of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem claims that in any closed system there are statements that are true and unprovable, because proving them would violate consistency. That "because" omits a lot. Gödel's proof of his (first) Incompleteness Theorem shows that, given a consistent formal axiomatic system (capable of expressing elementary arithmetic), it is possible to construct a true statement (the "Gödel sentence" for that system) that cannot be proved. The Gödel sentence G is an encoding of the statement "G cannot be proved within the theory T". If G could be proved, that would be a contradiction, making the system inconsistent. And since it cannot be proved, it's true.

You continue to deserve both the word and such minor and infrequent attention. No, actually, it's too much ... the last I will say to you. (Except: You find this incomprehensible precisely because you are a git.)

I don't look at this dreck often, git.

That is so stupidly irrelevant here ... just what I expect of you.

You seem proud to be a moron.