Obligatory "ignore this space" : https://sacoronavirus.co.za

It is generous of makers of algorithms to give mathematics its own header file, but obtaining the absolute value is an example of the usefulness--which we must call indispensable--of the preprocessor: for one thing, a macro will not be expected to return the modulus. Indispensability therefore having been proven, on the matter of making algorithms that don't skip over any Details, we discover a couple of witless boys singing themselves hoarse on the raw deal they were given.

Or perhaps it was just one witless boy who had convinced himself that negative time equals the minus of positive time.

The keeping of records can only be omitted if we save ourselves the trouble that comes of trying to save ourselves trouble in the future: for we know that when the future is now, we'll spend more effort trying to recall our absolutely fabulous attempt at giving something an unforgettable name.

Going back in time we wonder about dinosaurs and lost civilizations, and also at those who insist that we mayn't assume that tomorrow will be another day for this civilization. Which we can't argue with; nor can we argue that geologists aught to take Genesis 6 with them when they look at rocks (and minute tracks in slate and sand get us wondering why the knower of all creatures hasn't yet shown himself).

Thus looking again at how we had intended to ease our own future, we remind people that a river is inanimate and implies nothing unknown; though rivers have a kind of gravity, of planetary dimensions, in relation to the foundation of civilizations. Standing on the side of the machine we therefore find it just as necessary to shout about what might be forgotten, for the lack of the necessity to remember them, as those who refer to the most ancient books.

The most ancient books only referring to engines as nothing good, we try to wish opposing views, as of two rats tousling over the vacuum tube in between them, would themselves enter the vacuum. But our wishes are not strong enough, for no rat would enter a vacuum without a suit, and no rat we know would enter a vacuum without pointing to a thing within it that demonstrates that we don't know what a vacuum is.

If we think we know what an algorithm is, we would not insist that Details must be hidden, and would therefore remain in the Realm of Native Machine Code. Though we don't claim to be capable of making a compiler, we most certainly do claim to know the details of one kind. But calling a subroutine an algorithm is most certainly contrary to our advice.

Making a subroutine functional on its name conjoined to the types of its parameters is called partial specialization. This is not syntactic sugar when we consider families of routines which do the same thing on different types, which only differ on the matter of their dimension in the Byte Plane. But in attempting to come to an agreement we are brought to look at the ordering of parameters, and how the compiled routines can be indexed--for this aughtn't to affect linking.

Finally, we place ourselves into a different dimension of time wherein such has already been decided, and we look at our future-safe absolute_value subroutine. After all this effort, (a<0?-a:a) is less to type. But if you can stomach flow control within algebra while keeping the word algorithm in reserve, then mister you're a better man than I.