Please Make The Following Change(S): Fill & Download for Free

[Originally answered to "http://www.quora.com/If-a-1-how-does-++a-+-++a-6"]<rant> Oh dear! Indian teachers will never learn not to set this question. Ironically enough I have failed to explain to them why this a++ + ++a bullshit is totally nonsensical. They just love this question. </rant>Like the only other correct answer on the page mentions, the behaviour is undefined. Which means a compiler can do exactly as it pleases when asked to convert this statement. It can convert in such a way that you get 5 or 6 or 99 or it could create code to wipe off your entire hard drive. It would still be a perfectly valid C compiler.I wrote a pretty detailed explanation somewhere else on Quora, but unfortunately I can't find it anymore. http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4176328/undefined-behavior-and-sequence-points has every detail (and more) that you can ever want to know on the topic, with pretty useful links to further resources. But Stack Overflow can be a little overwhelming, so let me try putting this in simpler terms. (I may sacrifice absolute accuracy to understandability, so I suggest you go read the SO thread for the real deal, once you understand my approximation). [Edit: http://blog.regehr.org/archives/213 is a much better introduction to the topic though.]C has a concept known as 'sequence points'. Sequence points are basically a point in your code where the compiler guarantees to have finished off all evalutations. For example, a semi-colon at the end of a statement is a sequence point. So a C compiler guarantees that before it moves to the next code after a semi-colon, it will finish doing everything before the semicolon. So when you write a=b+c; printf("%d", a);, you know a will be printed as whatever is b+c, because there is a sequence point before printf, and hence the compiler guaranteed to finish the calculation before starting to print. But what order the C compiler executes statements within a sequence point can not be guaranteed. For example, if you write a=b++ + c++; you can't guarantee whether b will be incremented first or c. In most cases it doesn't matter, because no one cares what order it is evaluated in. But in some cases it does.Now to come to undefined behaviour. The C language standard says that the value of a variable can change at most once within a single sequence point. If a code attempts to change a variable's value more than once within the same sequence point, it is undefined behaviour. Which means the C compiler can do exactly whatever it wants. It can even format your root drive. Anything is fine.So when you do something like a++ + ++a, you are attempting to change the value of variable a twice within the same sequence point. This is not allowed. Since you defied the holy laws of C, now the compiler can do anything it wants. And apparently it does. Which is why in your case it says 6, whereas other people using other compilers (or other versions of your compiler) get 5. It can even say 99. Or -99. Anything is correct. Because you broke the Holy Commandment. Which is why Sergey says that the answers you get is non-sensical. It could be just some random value the compiler decided to spit out on the spur of the moment.And the worst part is, a single piece of undefined code makes the entire program undefined. The compiler can do absolutely anything it pleases, because, yeah, you know, you broke the law.<rant> Good luck getting your teachers to even recognise the law though. </rant>

Quora made a few changes recently → Their utility is arguable but whatever (and it is what it is). In light of the changes, Quora needs to make the following adjustments to make the site more useful to me:… ‘dramatic pause’ …KILL the Anonymous feature.As of April 19th 2021 - the Real Name policy is dead. They took it outside and they shot it. Then they proceeded to violate its corpse by allowing multiple accounts.Image source: Me. **Artists impression only.OK fine. Your site, your rules. I get it. But now that people have the ability to hide who they are or create secondary profiles, the Anonymous ‘feature’ (s/) isn’t really needed anymore. The site does not track the name changes in Edits so kill the Anonymous feature with fire, please.The biggest issue I have with Anon is that I can’t block or mute the questions or answers asked or answered when people utilize Anon - but if they kill the feature, then I can block the accounts that spam us with sexist, racist or derogatory bullsh!t.If you *must* keep anon - then please, please please, give us the option to mute or block it.Enable the ability to block/mute all accounts created by a single user.Now that people have the ability to create multiple accounts, give us the ability to block all the accounts by a single user - automate it so that when you block one account, you automatically block all of them so that we don’t have to block them one by one or keep blocking them when they create new ones to continue the harassment.Allowing people to have multiple accounts means that you’ve removed one of the reporting avenues (fake name). I get that it was probably laborious to manage but the reason that many of us opted to use Quora is the real name policy and the requirement of a single account.That’s gone now but if you don’t increase our moderation options to compensate, then you’re actively destroying what made the site so attractive to us in the first place.Give us the option to become verified users.[1]I’d pay a subscription fee for this. Now that real names have been flushed, credentials are less than useless. Give us an option to verify who we are.That’s my main three. Everything else I can live with.Footnotes[1] Michelle Steele's answer to How can Quora identify sock puppets more effectively?

Oh man…Why on Earth would you want to do that?You realize that—no matter what you do—this is going to be the most awkwardly cringe-inducing sentence ever, right?Ok, you asked.Passive voice in English is about subjects, verbs, and objects. In order to convert an active sentence into a passive one, you must have a subject, an action verb, and a direct object:The boy[s] kicked[av] the ball[do].becomesThe ball was kicked by the boy.Let’s simplify your sentence first.Please have a cup of tea with me.The subject is “you” (it’s implied). The verb is “have,” and the direct object is “cup of tea.”At its most basic, you’re saying:You have a cup of tea.Then, let’s passive-ify it to:A cup of tea is had by you.That’s not terrible, but it’s going to get much, much worse. We have to add the prepositional phrase “with me,” so it becomes:A cup of tea with me is had by you.Ugh…And technically, the tense is ambiguous because we should assume that you’re implying this will happen in the future, so…A cup of tea with me will be had by you.And don’t forget the magic word:A cup of tea with me will be had by you, please.That’s gross. Please don’t make me do that again. It sounds like you translated it into Klingon…and back…half a dozen times.Grammar is messy, kids.::Edit::Just to clarify for some people who may not be aware:“Passive” does not mean “wordy” or “convoluted” when we talk about “passive voice” in English, though passive sentences can be wordy and convoluted. There is a very specific definition for what makes a passive sentence. In passive voice, the subject of the sentence is being acted on by the object, rather than the subject acting on the object.Some comments imply that making the statement more confusing, making it more formal, or adding complex vocabulary makes a sentence passive. Passive-aggressive, maybe…but not passive voice.Also, as a few people have pointed out, you can’t technically convert an imperative sentence into passive voice and retain the implicit meaning, but there’s absolutely no fun in giving that as an answer. I think my answer sufficiently explains why it can’t and shouldn’t be done. (: