在MOD_REWRITE

RewriteRule ^([a-zA-Z0-9_-]+)\.php$ $1/ [R,NC]
RewriteRule ^([a-zA-Z0-9_-]+)/$ $1\.php [NC,L]

将会导致:

"file.php > file > file.php > file > file.php > file >  ..."

最后:

Error 500 Too Many Redirects

(一般来说，我发现编辑.htaccess文件和构造一个正常运行的正则表达式一样乏味。)

在J中，大多数原语(也就是函数)是一元的(一个参数)或二元的(两个参数，一个在左边，一个在右边)。但是修正原语需要3个(我认为这是唯一一个，除了foreign)。这是可以理解的，它需要3个，但它只是看起来…一开始是错的。

vector =: i. 10   NB. Vector will be 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
(10) (0) } vector NB. Will yield 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

在fortran中(当然是77，可能在95中也是如此)，未声明的变量和以I到N开头的参数(“In”组)将是INTEGER，所有其他未声明的变量和参数将是REAL(源)。这与“在某些情况下可选的空白”相结合，导致了最著名的错误之一。

正如弗雷德·韦伯在1990年的《另类民间传说:计算机》一书中所说:

I worked at Nasa during the summer of 1963. The group I was working in was doing preliminary work on the Mission Control Center computer systems and programs. My office mate had the job of testing out an orbit computation program which had been used during the Mercury flights. Running some test data with known answers through it, he was getting answers that were close, but not accurate enough. So, he started looking for numerical problems in the algorithm, checking to make sure his tests data was really correct, etc. After a couple of weeks with no results, he came across a DO statement, in the form: DO 10 I=1.10 This statement was interpreted by the compiler (correctly) as: DO10I = 1.10 The programmer had clearly intended: DO 10 I = 1, 10 After changing the . to a , the program results were correct to the desired accuracy. Apparently, the program's answers had been "good enough" for the sub-orbital Mercury flights, so no one suspected a bug until they tried to get greater accuracy, in anticipation of later orbital and moon flights. As far as I know, this particular bug was never blamed for any actual failure of a space flight, but the other details here seem close enough that I'm sure this incident is the source of the DO story.

我认为这是一个很大的WTF，如果DO10I被作为DO10I，并且反过来，因为隐式声明被认为是类型REAL。这是个很棒的故事。

我所知道的最奇怪的特性来自c++世界:SFINAE。

最糟糕的是，它实际上非常有用，在BOOST中广泛使用SFINAE对我来说已经足够了。

在SQL server(至少MS)中:

这将总是求值为false:

IF @someint <> NULL

考虑到:

DECLARE @int INT

SET @int = 6

IF @int <> NULL
BEGIN
    Print '@int is not null'
END
ELSE
BEGIN
    Print '@int is evaluating to null'
END

输出将是:

@int is evaluating to null

必须这样写:

IF @someint IS NOT NULL
BEGIN
END

谁让英语专业的人加入了SQL队!：）

大约在1977年，我在Lisp中添加了“format”函数，那时“printf”甚至还不存在(我是从与Unix相同的源:Multics复制的)。它一开始很无辜，但后来被一个接一个的特征填满了。当Guy Steele引入迭代和相关特性时，事情就失控了，这些特性被Common Lisp X3J13 ANSI标准所接受。下面的示例可以在Common Lisp The Language, 2nd Edition第22.3.3节中的表22-8中找到:

(defun print-xapping (xapping stream depth)
  (declare (ignore depth))
  (format stream
      "~:[{~;[~]~:{~S~:[->~S~;~*~]~:^ ~}~:[~; ~]~ ~{~S->~^ ~}~:[~; ~]~[~*~;->~S~;->~*~]~:[}~;]~]"
      (xectorp xapping)
      (do ((vp (xectorp xapping))
           (sp (finite-part-is-xetp xapping))
           (d (xapping-domain xapping) (cdr d))
           (r (xapping-range xapping) (cdr r))
           (z '() (cons (list (if vp (car r) (car d)) (or vp sp) (car r)) z)))
          ((null d) (reverse z)))
      (and (xapping-domain xapping)
           (or (xapping-exceptions xapping)
           (xapping-infinite xapping)))
      (xapping-exceptions xapping)
      (and (xapping-exceptions xapping)
           (xapping-infinite xapping))
      (ecase (xapping-infinite xapping)
        ((nil) 0)
        (:constant 1)
        (:universal 2))
      (xapping-default xapping)
      (xectorp xapping)))