When I get married....

[Lugubrious]

This will definitely be the cake.

[Charles Stover]

Cute.

[Bennett 🚀]

Lolz.. very nice

[Jordan]

I like how people arguing about the syntax in the comments.

[frufru]

May 28, 2010 17:03:10 GMT -8 Jordan said:

I like how people arguing about the syntax in the comments.

I like how that person complaining about bad syntax (near the top of the comments) has a bracket mismatch in his "correction"

[Jordan]

Haha, yeah I saw that.

[Charles Stover]

May 28, 2010 17:03:10 GMT -8 Jordan said:

I like how people arguing about the syntax in the comments.

I don't believe them. do {} while() is so cheesy.

I'd have totally just went with while (!death) { }

[Jordan]

May 28, 2010 20:13:27 GMT -8 Charles Stover said:

May 28, 2010 17:03:10 GMT -8 Jordan said:

I like how people arguing about the syntax in the comments.

I don't believe them. do {} while() is so cheesy.

I'd have totally just went with while (!death) { }

Haha, that one is awesome. Everyone would be so confused.

[frufru]

May 28, 2010 20:13:27 GMT -8 Charles Stover said:

May 28, 2010 17:03:10 GMT -8 Jordan said:

I like how people arguing about the syntax in the comments.

I don't believe them. do {} while() is so cheesy.

I'd have totally just went with while (!death) { }

They probably realize there are better ways of doing it but I'm thinking they went with a form that was like the actual saying itself. Like they used do { } until( ) because it's like what they would actually say when getting married: " 'till death do us part" not "While we're not dead"

[Charles Stover]

Then that would be
until (death && location(me) != location(you))

[Bob]

May 28, 2010 20:13:27 GMT -8 Charles Stover said:

May 28, 2010 17:03:10 GMT -8 Jordan said:

I like how people arguing about the syntax in the comments.

I don't believe them. do {} while() is so cheesy.

I'd have totally just went with while (!death) { }

How is the Do...While construct cheesy? Its entire purpose is to ensure that it'll run at least once and then continue running if the statement is positive.

May 28, 2010 22:24:57 GMT -8 Charles Stover said:

Then that would be
until (death && location(me) != location(you))

You're just as bad as the countless people arguing about this on the Wedinator site.

[Charles Stover]

May 29, 2010 9:33:51 GMT -8 Bob said:

May 28, 2010 20:13:27 GMT -8 Charles Stover said:

I don't believe them. do {} while() is so cheesy.

I'd have totally just went with while (!death) { }

How is the Do...While construct cheesy? Its entire purpose is to ensure that it'll run at least once and then continue running if the statement is positive.

May 28, 2010 22:24:57 GMT -8 Charles Stover said:

Then that would be
until (death && location(me) != location(you))

You're just as bad as the countless people arguing about this on the Wedinator site.

Baww more. I wasn't being serious.

[Kami]

i'm not a programmer [though i'd love to learn] but this is adorable and nerdy. =3
i wouldn't mind having a similar cake, provided that the syntax is all correct. xDD of course, once i learn some sort of programming language, that is.

[Troxy]

I was laughing so hard, cause of how nerdy this is, until my boyfriend asked me what I was laughing at. While I was explaining it to him, I realized that I couldn't laugh, cause I did in fact know what was going on, and it just made me laugh harder instead. I personally would have went with

while (you || me != dead)
{
have_and_hold();
love_and_cherish();
}

[Charles Stover]

There's gotta be a better way to do the functions, though.
have() && hold();
love() && cherish();

Albeit unnecessary syntax. >_>