|
My God, 21!!!
I was blissfully unaware of it back in the 20th century, shelling out of vi to run cc was about as close as I got to an IDE in those days.
Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect. - Mark Twain
|
|
|
|
|
You know you're up for it today, right?
|
|
|
|
|
Getting a load of DB faults / object reference errors / page not found problems, to the point where I'm copying any response / post before I submit it ...
Anyone else?
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Never throw anything away, Griff
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
You may not saw but Chris playing with Cisco IoT...
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge". Stephen Hawking, 1942- 2018
|
|
|
|
|
I saw, but I failed all four of the requirements ...
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Never throw anything away, Griff
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
I was sure your pony-tail automatically qualifies you as 'wildly attractive'...
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge". Stephen Hawking, 1942- 2018
|
|
|
|
|
I was going to post the same thing. Nice.
|
|
|
|
|
Was for me too but seems OK now.
|
|
|
|
|
Mostly, yes - but I still can't get into some QA questions, so this may just be a lull.
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Never throw anything away, Griff
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
I keep getting 'not found' on QA links. Also the list seems to be unable to find the tags on the questions. Definitely something broken.
|
|
|
|
|
Yep, me too. Had logged me out; tried to log back in but rejected; tried to send password reminder but claimed username was unknown. Tried to setup new user (so I can post the CCC) but validation failed (well, the click event just returned FALSE so form unsubmittable). Home page had error message, and links from the Daily News ending up with 404 not found. All seems OK now though...
|
|
|
|
|
I previously had issues on the Insider News page with not being able to delete a post and the bugs and sugs page was showing that the hamsters were eating the server when I tried to post a message - but things seem to be ok now.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
― Christopher Hitchens
|
|
|
|
|
47. Give vacuum some space? (5)
|
|
|
|
|
AVOID - A Void
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Never throw anything away, Griff
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nice one!
Sent from my Amstrad PC 1640
Never throw anything away, Griff
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry for the interruption but we find ourselves in need of someone familiar with Cisco IoT. I figured if there was ever a place to find such an outstanding, intelligent, and presumably wildly attractive developer with these skills it would be here.
Anyone?
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: outstanding, intelligent, and presumably wildly attractive developer
Yep thats me. Just not cisco IoT. Oh well 3 out of fours pretty good.
A Fine is a Tax for doing something wrong
A Tax is a Fine for doing something good.
|
|
|
|
|
What I'm curious about is what Code Project and IoT have in common!
Latest Article - Slack-Chatting with you rPi
Learning to code with python is like learning to swim with those little arm floaties. It gives you undeserved confidence and will eventually drown you. - DangerBunny
Artificial intelligence is the only remedy for natural stupidity. - CDP1802
|
|
|
|
|
Be afraid. Be very afraid.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Ah what a shame, probably wont me the 10 year expertise requirement
|
|
|
|
|
Usually, I'm a big fan of C#. Today it's irritating me a little bit
I have a case where I would like to perform an implicit conversion for my class when a double is assigned to it, but not do one for an int .
Yeah, I know, its an odd requirement! Suffice to say, it would make my life a little simpler, if I could get away with it. Initially, it seems like C# should allow me to do it.
If I mark the operator for int as explicit , I get the error I want. Regrettably, when I then add the operator for double , which is implicit , the error goes away.
I do understand why, and understand that C# "is-what-it-is", which is usually a good thing. However, today, I truly wish the explicit operator took precedence over the implicit operator!
Oh well, there are plenty of work-arounds, but they end up being far less elegant in this particular code base.
For your consideration, here's a code snippet that demonstrates the behavior. Comment out the line with the implicit operator and you get the error I want. Without it, the integer gets implicitly converted to a double and uses that operator, so no error.
namespace ExplicitOperator
{
public class Program
{
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
int value = 5;
Test test = value;
}
public class Test
{
public Test(double value) => Value = value;
public Test(int value) => Value = value;
public double Value { get; }
public static explicit operator Test(int value) => new Test(value);
public static implicit operator Test(double value) => new Test(value);
}
}
}
|
|
|
|
|
I think this would be an excellent post for the C# language forum !
«Where is the Life we have lost in living? Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?» T. S. Elliot
|
|
|
|
|
How much grief does it cause if you make the double conversion explicit too? Just a random thought.
Software rusts. Simon Stephenson, ca 1994. So does this signature. me, 2012
|
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately, it causes quite a bit of grief. The example I provided was the shortest code I could write to share my pain. Thank you for your thought, but not hoping for an actual solution here...simply ranting
Regrettably, the actual problem is a lot more complex. It also involves collection initializers, method signature ambiguity, and the entire zoo of built-in numeric data types. I'm helping consumers of a framework avoid the detritus added by explicit casts / constructor invocations.
I already have a solution...a separate method signature for each data type (in my code). Its not a huge deal, simply repellant to look at. It also snowballs a bit, to a few places, and forces me to carry test cases for each one.
If C# had a different precedence for implicit/explicit, a far more elegant solution would be possible. That, and honestly, it annoys me that it favors an implicit convenience over something I've told it explicitly NOT to do.
|
|
|
|