It seems like in a lot of cases one wants to set a bunch of options.
Pre-defined variables and constants
The options are usually set by constants from the user, and they can easily affect type-stability. A simple example is qrfact. But it seems like if you have qrfact A,true , Julia could in theory propagate the literal here.
If the second argument is a constant in a function, then that could also happen at compilation time. But you might not always want that because that could be too coarse of a compilation setup, so instead it might be nice to have an opt-in for that:.
- Shadows Wait To Play: The Second Chronicle of the Wolf Pack.
- The Argument from Physical Constants.
- ruby on rails - Using constants as arguments in a method? - Stack Overflow?
- Stringification - The C Preprocessor!
- De camarera a princesa (Bianca) (Spanish Edition).
- Der blinde Chef: Der Weg in die Selbständigkeit ein Leitfaden für Blinde und Sehbehinderte (German Edition);
Then APIs like qrfact A,true would allow optional arguments to change in a type-unstable way but keep type-stability when users are hardcoding the argument choice. When keyword dispatch is thing, it would be nice to allow this with keyword arguments as well. One related issue is that if you write a function that internally calls a function with lots of arguments and some infer like this, you'd want to pass splatted args I wouldn't know how to solve that easily solve with this.
Chris instructed me to do this like it is, so that the function is still type-stable but also can return different things based on user input.
The cosmological constant governs the expansion rate of the universe is fine-tuned to 1 part in 10 ! We reason that of all the possible values the constants could have assumed, it is unfathomably improbable that they assumed the extremely narrow range of life-permitting values they have by chance alone.
If chance cannot account for their precise values, then their values must have been determined by a designing intelligence which most would identify as God. Atheists admit that the universe is finely-tuned for the existence of complex life, but deny that God is the best explanation for why the physical constants have the values they do. They attempt to undercut the argument for theism from fine-tuning by saying we lack sufficient justification for thinking the constants could have assumed values different from what they have.
It could be that they possess these values necessarily out of some physical necessity similar to the way the sum of the angles of a triangle must be degrees.
Noncompliant Code Example
If so, then while the constants themselves may be contingent beings, their values are necessary such that whenever physical constants come into being they must assume the values we observe them to have. If so, no fine-tuner is necessary to explain them. Two things should be noted. In fact, it does not even prove that the physical constants are not fine-tuned by a designing intelligence.
The real question, then, is what reasons exist for thinking the values are necessary rather than contingent. The mere logical possibility that they could be necessary is not enough. Possibilities come cheap. Unfortunately, atheists have not provided any reasons for thinking the values to be necessary they seem to think raising the mere possibility is enough to undercut our argument ; therefore, we have no reason for doubting that the values are contingent.
The nature of a thing that comes into being can only be determined by the thing that brings it into existence. If the universe sprang into existence from absolutely nothing, then there were no physical, metaphysical, or logical entities to determine what came into existence. If we start with nothing, then it is just as probable that a universe with our precise physical constants pop into existence as it is that a universe with different physical constants, or even a piece of cheese pop into existence!
If something could pop into existence from nothing, then anything and everything could pop into existence from nothing, including constants with different values than the values our physical constants have assumed. There is no basis for the materialist claim, then, that the physical constants of our universe may be necessary. The design argument stands. This response will not do. On the basis of probability alone, contingency ought to be our default position.
Template non-type arguments (C++ only)
Sign up using Facebook. Sign up using Email and Password. Post as a guest Name. Email Required, but never shown. Medical School or Games Industry? Featured on Meta.
- Midnight Erotica: 7 hot stories! (Midnight Erotica Collections Book 1)!
- Functions — The Swift Programming Language (Swift )!
- Amazing Answers to Prayers.
- Planning for the Elderly in Florida;
- Mensajes del alma. Para caminantes de la vida (Spanish Edition).
Custom Filters release announcement. Related