|
No, an extra bun and an extra patty. And stop playing with your food.
Bastard Programmer from Hell
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Only an expensive but non expansive CPU
In Word you can only store 2 bytes. That is why I use Writer.
|
|
|
|
|
Probably not, you will get some cheese and a little bit of lettuce with the burger, an extra bun... and if you ask for a menu some salad or potatoes and even a soft drink...
Oh, and in Spain you can ask for a too...
|
|
|
|
|
@petepjksolutionscom
Nobody got it yesterday (and I'm not surprised ) so you are up again.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
I guess he is busy. Maybe it will be your turn again.
|
|
|
|
|
Exterminate, exterminate!
|
|
|
|
|
First Contact[^]
I know exactly how they feel ...
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Me too[^]
Anything that is unrelated to elephants is irrelephant Anonymous
- The problem with quotes on the internet is that you can never tell if they're genuine Winston Churchill, 1944
- Never argue with a fool. Onlookers may not be able to tell the difference. Mark Twain
|
|
|
|
|
Went over to the shops at lunch and picked up 2 of the Pixel 2 XL phones and phones cases. Got a couple of 15k power banks and lightning to headphone adapters for the kids iPhones.
Now have to see if I can find time over the weekend to move us across to them. Got to catch up with a couple of my customers and get some work done as I haven't been able to get to them during the week due to current contract job.
Last time I install some wonder app from the Play Store on each phone and told the new one to receive and the old one to push to get Contacts, SMS, Photos and other stuff across.
Anyone know if that is still the best way? Also is there a way to get my Contacts in a format easily edited on a computer and put back to the phone? Want to remove a lot but not delete them forever in case I need them in the future and poking around through the phone is a pain in the arse.
Michael Martin
Australia
"I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible."
- Mr.Prakash One Fine Saturday. 24/04/2004
|
|
|
|
|
I do not care about SMS so don't know about that. For photos, I will sync the ones I want to my Google account and when I login to another phone, it all comes by itself.
Has Anyone Seen Mike Hunt wrote: Also is there a way to get my Contacts in a format easily edited on a computer and put back to the phone?
If your contacts are backed up to your Google account, you can see and edit them here.
"It is easy to decipher extraterrestrial signals after deciphering Javascript and VB6 themselves.", ISanti[ ^]
|
|
|
|
|
Faarrrkkkk no, nothing from my phone backed up to Google anything storage or cloud thingy.
Michael Martin
Australia
"I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible."
- Mr.Prakash One Fine Saturday. 24/04/2004
|
|
|
|
|
You could do it if you want. Or else, Titanium backup is something you can use. It has been around for a while and does work well. I have not used it for at least ~5 years now so don't know ow it is today.
"It is easy to decipher extraterrestrial signals after deciphering Javascript and VB6 themselves.", ISanti[ ^]
|
|
|
|
|
And no, this isn't a programming question in the lounge. I started asking this question in the QA forum because it had me totally stumped. As I was filling out the "What I've tried" I had a major moment.
To prove I'm not asking for help on the lounge, I posted a solution on my blog. You'll need to use the password "fizbin" as the blog post is specifically for this lounge post and eventually I'll delete the post.
It is a fun one though.
Here's the code:
public class ModelDataContext : DataContext
{
public static ModelDataContext Context;
public ModelDataContext(DbConnection conn) : base(conn)
{
Context = this;
}
}
class Program
{
static ModelDataContext mdc = new ModelDataContext(new SqlConnection("[some string]"));
static void CreateNewContext(DataContext context, out SqlConnection conn, out DataContext newContext)
{
conn = new SqlConnection(context.Connection.ConnectionString);
newContext = (DataContext)Activator.CreateInstance(context.GetType(), new object[] { conn });
Console.WriteLine(context == newContext);
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
SqlConnection conn2;
DataContext newdc;
CreateNewContext(ModelDataContext.Context, out conn2, out newdc);
Console.WriteLine(ModelDataContext.Context == newdc);
}
}
and the result is:
False
True
Why is the second equality True when the first is False???
And for the bonus prize, what's a fix?
|
|
|
|
|
No interest to solve the puzzle. For me it goes in the same direction like "Code Puzzler vs. Dumbing down code so it can be maintained by junior devs". Do we really Need to write code where we Need first to solve a puzzle to get what the code is doing
It does not solve my Problem, but it answers my question
modified 19-Jan-21 21:04pm.
|
|
|
|
|
0x01AA wrote: Do we really Need to write code where we Need first to solve a puzzle to get what the code is doing
Well, this is different. It's a stupid bug on my part. But it's like language. If you can speak at more than a 3rd grade level, you can express your thoughts better.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: If you can speak at more than a 3rd grade level, you can express your thoughts better No idea what this means, sounds only I'm undeveloped
Btw. I'm aware, I'm most probably not able to solve the puzzle
It does not solve my Problem, but it answers my question
modified 19-Jan-21 21:04pm.
|
|
|
|
|
You probably could, with a bit of thinking about it - it's obvious when you see it, but it's a stinker to spot if you didn't write the code (and probably even harder if you did if you are anything like me: I tend to see what I meant to write, rather than what I did )
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
I also see what I meant to write as opposed to what I actually wrote. I've been tired and looked at two spellings of same word and get compiler errors and don't spot the error for some time.
Everyone has a photographic memory; some just don't have film. Steven Wright
|
|
|
|
|
Annoying, isn't it?
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
Yes very frustrating.
As I get older it seems to be more prevalent.
Everyone has a photographic memory; some just don't have film. Steven Wright
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: I tend to see what I meant to write, rather than what I did
Yup that's me!
As an answer: I haven't gone further in the thread, but at first glance the FALSE comes from comparing 2 different instances, where the TRUE result is comparing the same instance to itself?
Fix: the first comparison is not necessary
|
|
|
|
|
Roughly 90 seconds, mostly working out which Console.WriteLine call was which.
Spoilers ahead - select the block to view:
Take a copy of the static field;
Create a new instance, thus overwriting the static field;
Compare the new instance to the copy of the old value of the static field - result = false;
Compare the new instance to the current value of the static field - result = true;
Damnit Chris, we need a <div class="spoiler"> !
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Richard Deeming wrote: select the block to view:
Now THAT is snazzy!
|
|
|
|
|
Is it a problem? Does it need to be fixed?
I wouldn't presume to say that you didn't write exactly what you intended.
Setting a static on each instantiation is unusual though.
|
|
|
|
|
The problem is that you're assigning a static variable inside the instance constructor to that instance . So every time you create an object you're changing the Context property. The reason the tests are different is because you pass the Context as a parameter so even after the update the parameter still has the old Context .
A fix would be to not do that because it's bad design I'd make Context an instance property and implement your own ==, !=, Equals, etc unless you want referential equality.
|
|
|
|