|
... it's much easier to work with than the old single column version.
Would it be possible to add it to the "Paste as" list when the user selects "code block" - that way the user can specify exactly how he wants his code to show instead of manually adding the ' lang="xxx"' to the vanilla <pre> tag that is currently generated?
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Good idea,
once you choose "paste as code" then mini popup on the side with the languages.
That should reduce the amount of not properly formated code all over the place, because most either doesn't know about the manual add of "lang" or just don't give a crap about it.
But having to chose on the fly, would make it more accesible.
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Nelek wrote: or just don't give a crap about it.
And nor should they. I've been working on something for a while I hope can make this issue go away.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Discussions: Feature 'Load More' not working!
|
|
|
|
|
Definitely a bug. Working on it ...
"Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana."
|
|
|
|
|
If I visit one of them, the tags show (presumably) correctly, and with teh same count as teh number of "undefined" shown on the home page:
Chrome Version 89.0.4389.114 (Official Build) (64-bit).
Windows 10 Version 20H2 (OS Build 19042.867)
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Each time the homepage updates we actually modify the HTML by hand. With thousands of messages and articles and comments being posted it can get a little tedious. Evidently someone - and I'm not going to name names - go tired of typing "C++" and "Artificial Intelligence" and "Microsoft-Continous-integration-server-for-.NEtCore-2019", especially because they kept misspelling "continuous" and so they just started cut and pasting "undefined" in all the tag spots each time they updated the homepage HTML.
That person has been spoken to.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not at all surprised they got tired on such a beautiful April day! 
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Well, it's cold and freezing here in T.O. 
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Just your luck to get locked down away from Oz ... ![Java | [Coffee]](https://www.codeproject.com/script/Forums/Images/coffee.gif) (It may warm you a little)
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Here is the problem:
I prepared this article specially for April 1st: Markdown Calculator.
I intentionally waited until today's night and completed all activities on April 1. And yes, it is listed as:
Markdown-Calculator,
Posted: 1 Apr 2021 Updated: 1 Apr 2021 (according to https://www.codeproject.com/script/Articles/MemberArticles.aspx?amid=2291164).
And yet, when I referenced the article and clicked at the link to see how it looks for the reader non-authenticated with CodeProject, it shows: Posted 31 Mar 2021!
The same goes for the page of the article: it shows the correct date, but for a non-authenticated reader it's "31 Mar".
How so? Can it be fixed? Remember, having the publication marked as of April 1st is the point.
Thank you.
—SA
Sergey A Kryukov
|
|
|
|
|
We'll check this out. While annoying, pretty much no one would have seen that article before the great reveal.
But seriously: when are you going to build it? 
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
The point is having the April 1st mark on the article permanently. I consider it as one of the attributes of all my April 1st articles.
Even if I see a need for a fix, I prepare an update and wait until next April 1st to submit it...
Thank you.
— SASergey A Kryukov
|
|
|
|
|
We do have some magic powers that will allow us to update your article without changing the date...
(Just email us the changes and we'll look after you)
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you for offering me that backdoor. But what I've reported is looks just like a bug.
[EDIT] Could you tell me what date do you see on this article, and what do you see if you log off?
—SASergey A Kryukov
modified 2-Apr-21 1:54am.
|
|
|
|
|
When I'm signed in the system knows my time zone and so I see Apr 1. When I'm not signed in it doesn't, and so the time is off by 5hrs and I see Mar 31.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you for the answer, Chris. So you confirm that, with your account, you see the same that I can see with mine.
Obviously, the publication date should be the property of the publication, cannot depend on the properties of a reader.
Agree?
Thank you.
—SASergey A Kryukov
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, the publication date is owned by the content item, but it's displayed in the user's local time.
Time is relative...
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Chris,
If you think a bit, you will agree with me. The publication is not a state of a document, it is its attribute characterized by some event in the past. Once defined, it should remain the same for all users.
Otherwise, we would have individual dates for the moment of time when Brutus killed Cesar because it was really different in different parts of the globe. We don't even know what were the time zones at that time. But people don't think this way. They record the event only by one watch, the Rome watch, and the watch existed at that time and that place.
Well, okay, but at least can we return back to your words about the magic power you've mentioned. Is it possible to set the date ad-hoc to appear the same for all users? By the way, it's still a bug: when I log off, my time zone doesn't change, for it should be April 1st in my zone, but it shows March 31. How about it?
—SASergey A Kryukov
|
|
|
|
|
I just did some simple experiments. If I am logged on, I am UTC+11, as expected. (back to +10 in a couple of days!)
If I log out, all the timestamps I looked at seem to place me somewhere mid-Pacific, UTC-10.
I'm guessing that's where SAK seems to be if he logs out too.
Cheers,
Peter
Software rusts. Simon Stephenson, ca 1994. So does this signature. me, 2012
|
|
|
|
|
Peter,
Thank you for experimenting with this.
Could you do the same thing: look at this article and look at the publication date. Then log off and look at the date again.
Will you tell me what you see?
Apparently, the publication date is just the date of some event. Once defined, it cannot depend on the time anymore.
Let's say, you have a time zone of an author or a time zone of some publishing house. Any of these time zones can affect the effective publication date, but this date, when defined, cannot depend on the point of view, right?
Thank you.
—SASergey A Kryukov
|
|
|
|
|
Logged in, I see it dated 1 April. Logged out, 31 March.
My guess is that it is a timestamp (e.g. Unix date() ), displayed with a date-only format. So if the timestamp were say, 2021-04-01T0100Z (1.00 am, April 1, UTC) that would show as 1 April in my timezone, but 31 March in, say, the USA.
As I noted earlier, it seems that users not logged in are assumed to be somewhere like UTC-10.
Cheers.
Peter
Software rusts. Simon Stephenson, ca 1994. So does this signature. me, 2012
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you very much, but I don't think it explains the problem or the logic of the implementation. The reader's time zone has nothing to do with the date (time, for that matter) of the publication. A publication is done only in one time zone, one or another, but only one.
Thank you again.
—SASergey A Kryukov
|
|
|
|
|
Which, to my mind, doesn't make any sense as that control (it says "Improve Solution") is clicked because an Answer poster has made a confusing typo in his "Solution" and it's that correction of the typo he made which might un-confuse matters.
I, for one, would choose the "Improve Solution" of the original post to make editorial corrections/clarifications to the questioners typing. And also note that each potential Solution has an "Improve Solution" control in it's thread-part; what would the point be having more than one "Improve Solution" control in the list of various Solutions if they all only point to the original post?
Finally, I submit that it would be appropriate also to change the name of the original poster's "Improve Solution" control text to something like "Editor's Hayrick Sortie" to distinguish it from "Improve Solution" (where clearly there's no solution to improve unless of course the comment of a cpian is in fact the best solution)
[edit]
My bad ... the text in the editor was so thin in my FF browser that I couldn't see it. Move along, nothing to see here ...
[/edit]
modified 31-Mar-21 13:30pm.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
