If you go on particular laws, you can see the previous versions and how it changed. Example: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/codes/section_lc/LEGITEXT0000...

Click on "version" then "comparer" buttons and you will see a diff.

The code of the article: https://github.com/ieviev/mini-gzip/blob/main/src/main.rs

Top level declarations of the C code:

    #define MAXBITS 15   
    #define MAXLCODES 286
    #define MAXDCODES 30
    #define MAXCODES
    #define FIXLCODES 288

    struct state

    local int bits(struct state *s, int need)
    local int stored(struct state *s)

    struct huffman

    local int decode(...)
    local int construct(...)
    local int codes(...)

    local int fixed(...)
    local int dynamic(...)
    int puff(...)

    const MAXBITS: usize = 15;
    const MAXLCODES: usize = 286;
    const MAXDCODES: usize = 30;
    const FIXLCODES: usize = 288;
    const MAXDIST: usize = 32768;
    struct State<'a> 
    struct Huffman<'a>

    fn decode
    fn construct
    fn codes
    fn fixed
    fn dynamic
    fn stored
    pub fn inflate

it's just convenient configuration macros and generic procedures names being reused to implement the steps for the DEFLATE algorithm.

There are only finites ways for you to express a piece of code in a language.

It was in the context of hydrogen and I could have sworn it was flammable. But here is this encyclopedia telling me it's INflammable. It's... not flammable? Looked it up in the school library.

Thank you, that memory came up from the depths of time. Probably haven't thought about that in 30 years. Funny how we sometimes just didn't know stuff, and couldn't find out back then.

The only logical way out of the flammable/inflammable mess is to use 'flammable' and 'non-inflammable', which makes me so mad.

There are many counter-examples to your examples, such as “direct” and “indirect”, “humane” and “inhumane”.

The words used should be clear in their meaning. “Inflammable” is ambiguous, and it makes a great deal of difference which meaning is intended.

Flammable is unambiguous, as is non-inflammable. I’m forced to use these. Personally, I’m more in favour of flammable (able to catch fire) and inflammable (not able to catch fire).

The historically correct term would be non-inflammable. The modern variant is non-flammable.

Similarly, inflammable is the historic term and flammable is the modern variant.

The confusion arises when people are exposed to the word flammable and then attempt to apply the usual rules to construct a word they've never actually used before.

This isn't the usual sort of inconsistency introduced by our fusing multiple incompatible languages. It's from the original Latin and I'm unclear what led to it. For example consider inflammable versus inhumane. It seems Latin itself used the prefix to mean different things - here on(fire) versus not(human). But confusingly it's ex to indicate location, despite ex also being the antonym of in. So ex equo means you are on horseback, not off it as I would have guessed.

They are not counter-example. You use the other "in-" prefix that take an adjective and give the opposite adjective, not the one that create a verb from a noun.