|
Hi,
code is either running or your thread is sleeping; there is no sleepwalking in .NET
Did you have a question of some kind?
|
|
|
|
|
yes, thats why i asked for assurance
TVMU^P[[IGIOQHG^JSH`A#@`RFJ\c^JPL>;"[,*/|+&WLEZGc`AFXc!L
%^]*IRXD#@GKCQ`R\^SF_WcHbORY87֦ʻ6ϣN8ȤBcRAV\Z^&SU~%CSWQ@#2
W_AD`EPABIKRDFVS)EVLQK)JKSQXUFYK[M`UKs*$GwU#(QDXBER@CBN%
Rs0~53%eYrd8mt^7Z6]iTF+(EWfJ9zaK-iTV.C\y<pjxsg-b$f4ia>
--------------------------------------------------------
128 bit encrypted signature, crack if you can
|
|
|
|
|
|
Greeeg wrote: System.Threading.Thread.Sleepwalk(int milliseconds)[^]
what is this ? a link ? or a not available reference ?
TVMU^P[[IGIOQHG^JSH`A#@`RFJ\c^JPL>;"[,*/|+&WLEZGc`AFXc!L
%^]*IRXD#@GKCQ`R\^SF_WcHbORY87֦ʻ6ϣN8ȤBcRAV\Z^&SU~%CSWQ@#2
W_AD`EPABIKRDFVS)EVLQK)JKSQXUFYK[M`UKs*$GwU#(QDXBER@CBN%
Rs0~53%eYrd8mt^7Z6]iTF+(EWfJ9zaK-iTV.C\y<pjxsg-b$f4ia>
--------------------------------------------------------
128 bit encrypted signature, crack if you can
|
|
|
|
|
Break the code block that exists before the Sleep call to another method, and execute this on another thread, like others have pointed out, is the only way to accomplish what you are asking for.
|
|
|
|
|
is there any method to check the precedence of operators
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just scope your algorithms, and you'll be fine. It's better that way anyway.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
|
|
|
|
|
i mean there are two operators such as + and *. is there any logic to check which has higher precedence.
my code is...
char a='+',b='*'
bool result = Higher_Precedence(a,b);
public bool Higher_Precedence(char a , char b)
{
?????..
}
i dont know how to identify the higher precedence
|
|
|
|
|
Precedence would probably be language-specific, but generally they all follow the same order. Someone else already provided a link for C#. And no, there's no logical way to determine precedence (in the form of a function, or otherwise).
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
|
|
|
|
|
Hi,
if you have two operators, say + and *, you can figure out their precedence by comparing the
results of the following expressions:
A= 2 + 3 * 4
B= 2 + (3 * 4)
C= (2 + 3) * 4
if A==B and B!=C then * has higher precedence than +
if A==C and B!=C then + has higher precedence than *
you can generate C# code dynamically, as an example see this article[^].
Hence you can build a method that determines precedence for any pair of operators in C#.
You can apply similar techniques to other languages as long as dynamic code generation is supported.
Warning: you need to pick good constant values to make sure B!=C (all zeroes or all ones would be a very bad choice).
|
|
|
|
|
Seems like a lot of work when the answer is already very well documented.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
|
|
|
|
|
The OP wanted to check, not just read about it... So IMO a little experiment would do.
In a later message he was looking for a method, hence I suggested dynamic code.
If he starts implementing all this, he will learn a thing or two.
|
|
|
|
|
Luc Pattyn wrote: If he starts implementing all this, he will learn a thing or two.
He'll learn that he's wasting his time. I guess that's a valuable lesson, but only if he remembers it the next time.
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass..." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997
-----
"...the staggering layers of obscenity in your statement make it a work of art on so many levels." - Jason Jystad, 10/26/2001
|
|
|
|
|
thanks Luc Pattyn thats what i wanted..
thanks a lot
|
|
|
|
|
hotthoughtguy wrote: is there any method to check the precedence of operators
There are at least three ways:
- read the documentation;
- try it out;
- enforce precedence by using parentheses.
I know choosing one can be hard. Fortunately you can combine them all.
|
|
|
|
|
Luc Pattyn wrote: I know choosing one can be hard. Fortunately you can combine them all.
In any specific order? 
|
|
|
|
|
Mika Wendelius wrote: In any specific order?
Preferably in the order I listed them: learn new things from the documentation, try them so they sink in, then use parentheses every time you realize you have forgotten it (again). 
|
|
|
|
|
Luc Pattyn wrote: then use parentheses every time you realize you have forgotten it (again)
I don't know what it's called in english but sounds like the machine that never stops moving and needs no energy from outside. At last it's invented... 
|
|
|
|
|
My translator says it's called perpetual motion machine 
modified 12-Sep-18 21:01pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Greeeg wrote: perpetual motion machine
Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
Operator precedence is the one thing you don't need to remember when writing code; you can always use parentheses. You do sometimes need to know it when reading existing code without parentheses though.
Mika Wendelius wrote: needs no energy from outside
What makes you think entering parentheses doesn't take any energy?
|
|
|
|
|
Luc Pattyn wrote: Operator precedence is the one thing you don't need to remember
Yeah, I know. Hopefully the OP also uses them after this
Luc Pattyn wrote: What makes you think entering parentheses doesn't take any energy?
Oh well, you're right (pizza + coke at least).... There goes the invention. 
|
|
|
|
|
"http://personal.denison.edu/~havill/algorithmics/algs/postfix.pdf"
see in second algorithm in above like thats what i wanted...
thanks Luc pattyn
<div class="ForumMod">modified on Tuesday, December 16, 2008 2:14 AM</div>
|
|
|
|
|
If you wondered what OP means, it's Original Poster.
hotthoughtguy wrote: see in second algorithm in above like thats what i wanted
I think the idea Luc gave you will be usable to implement the logic.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
