|
Time to get familiar with Wix. I've been very interested in it ever since it launched, but just never had need for an installer. My few desktop apps have always just been xcopy install, and web apps FTP or WebDeploy. But now I'm busy on quite a large and very promising desktop app, maybe with accompanying Windows Service. So, time to install in 2017 and start learning.
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
Good to see someone is staying on the bleeding edge! Congrats on your anniversary btw! ![Beer | [beer]](https://www.codeproject.com/script/Forums/Images/beer.gif)
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: Good to see someone is staying on the bleeding edge!
I have to stay mentally stimulated, or I'll go bonkers! 
Get me coffee and no one gets hurt!
modified 5-Feb-17 11:25am.
|
|
|
|
|
string objectRefGuid = objectRef.ObjectTypeId.ToString() + PartDivider + objectRef.ObjectId;
if (objectRef.VersionNumber > 0)
objectRefGuid += PartDivider + objectRef.VersionNumber;
ObjectTypeId is 1, ObjectId is 2, and VersionNumber is 3. PartDivider is '_'.
The expected result was 1_2_3. The output was 1_298.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Implicit conversions are always a pain. 
More importantly, why is it called objectRefGuid when it doesn't contain a Guid?
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Guid = globally unique identifier. In our case it's globally unique where we define "global" as being in the scope of the application.
(It's kinda like the World Series  )
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Now assume you are really in a production Environment... Sorry to say that, but a lot what happens here is never allowed in production.
Bruno
modified 19-Jan-21 21:04pm.
|
|
|
|
|
Enlighten us.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not able.
But please, what I tried to say: In production environment downtimes Counts. A machine which can not produce because of IT Problems costs $ x/hour. And our customers Shows us (as the IT suppliers) the bill.
modified 19-Jan-21 21:04pm.
|
|
|
|
|
What's wrong is the developer asking "why" questions about their own production code - wrong role.
In production the customers/users ask the "why" questions, to which developers are supposed to say "that's what you/they said you wanted/needed."
The customer is king, but in their presence the developer is never wrong.
Sin tack ear lol
Pressing the any key may be continuate
|
|
|
|
|
Care to explain for those (me) who do not C# ?
Someone say it is related to "Implicit conversions" ?
Thanks.
I'd rather be phishing!
|
|
|
|
|
He's basically doing this:
"1_2" + '_' + 3
Note that the underscore is a character, not a string (Single quotes = char, Double quotes = string).
So instead of both parts being converted to strings to form "_3", it's treating the character as a number (ASCII code 95), adding 3 to it, THEN converting it to a string... So it becomes "1_2" + "98"
Very subtle. I like it.
|
|
|
|
|
You know... point one for loosely typed languages. I submit this...
JSFiddle[^]
Not that I have anything against strongly typed languages, I just smile at those that think it's the answer to everything including poverty and cancer.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
That has nothing to do with the fact that JS is loosely typed, but the fact that JS doesn't have a char type.
So '_' is just a string, equivalent to "_", and thus 3 is concatenated as though it was a string.
C# would have done the same if '_' was a string and not a char.
Basically, it's not loosely typed, but poorly typed 
|
|
|
|
|
It has everything to do with it bro, there is no char type in JS.... because it's loosely typed.
Btw, the sky is blue. 
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
This the part where you say, oh but it has some types... go on... do it. 
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Must... Not... Give... In... Oh crap.
JavaScript DOES have some types though!
It even has a typeof operator and makes use of prototypes.
I'm not usually the type to correct people on the internet, but this was typically a situation that needed some clearing up. Sadly, JavaScript is the type of language I like to avoid. I'm done typing now.
|
|
|
|
|
You gotta connect the dots man. You're seeing black and white... when the truth is I am not wrong... however I am not inclined to write a book on the subject on every post I make. You seem to want to... I'm over that stage in life man. I have other things to do. I mean God forbid I visit CP for less than an hour when posting in the lounge, am I right?
So, since I need to prove to you I know what I'm talking about... Nowhere anywhere does it say a loosely typed language cannot have any types. There is no language on the planet I know of that has only one type. JS is a loosely typed language, and thus the way it behaves is a direct result of that... and yes it has basic types... which is a result of design from being loosely typed in the first place. You need less types when it's loose, and so affects things like the example I posted.
Just for a breakdown. You may know this already, but hey...
[^]
I was pointing out the irony, that in this instance, C# was doing some magic like a dynamically typed language would. And in this instance, JS actually handles the case better. And before you say it, I have nothing against a strongly typed language.
I'd think most people can infer that if they've been programming for any length of time. Seriously man... get a hobby... :P
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
You know I can't sit around idle when people on the internet say bad things about my favorite programming language.
Or positive things about my least favorite programming language.
I'm just human and I won't pass on a chance to bitch about JavaScript.
Having said that, JavaScript DOES have types. It has strings, numbers, booleans null, undefined and objects...
Why do you persist that JavaScript has no types when the opposite is obviously true?
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: Having said that, JavaScript DOES have types. It has strings, numbers, booleans null, undefined and objects...Why do you persist that JavaScript has no types when the opposite is obviously true?
 Might wanna read what I wrote.
Sander Rossel wrote: I'm just human and I won't pass on a chance to bitch about JavaScript.
Fair enough, but as a human, may I humbly suggest you get a woman to occupy your time.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Unfortunately, JavaScript isn't the type of dirty language that turns women on...
|
|
|
|
|
Just "getting" a woman is not like just getting a Coke.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was reading the thread and had exact the same idea... but then I saw your post
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Cute.
Thanks.
I'd rather be phishing!
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
