[vilhelm_s]

It's not any kind of advanced math at all! The quoted fragment above is just a line of computer code. Anyone who has done any programming in any typed language should be easily able to understand it, though they may need to look up the syntax.

[AnimalMuppet]

Nope, not me. But I've only been programming for 40 years, so maybe I'll get it when I've got more experience.

In other words, baloney. If you don't do that kind of programming, that stuff is very opaque. I might be able to get it if I were willing to stare at it for another 15 minutes, but I'm not willing.

[sordina]

15 minutes is not a long time. Easily understand doesn't mean instantly understand with no background reading.

[_a_a_a_]

You're just ignoring what he is saying.

[sordina]

What part am I ignoring?

[AnimalMuppet]

> In other words, baloney. If you don't do that kind of programming, that stuff is very opaque.

That part.

[sordina]

Well, I interpret that as the assertion that it's more opaque than other types of programming. But I disagree and think that it is actually simpler in terms of the syntax and amount of prior understanding required. My blunt reply is that to assert that a particular example is inaccessible but then only to have dedicated 15 minutes to prove so is silly. I'm sure most people who seem to suggest that this stuff is opaque had no problem learning PCRE or complicated SQL joins and also didn't complain that it took more than 15 minutes to do so. Of course TT is a deep field and there are many complicated parts of it, but the syntax, rules and the example given are not opaque and very understandable to anyone who can tackle languages and abstraction.