|
It may be a security thing, e.g. some sharing sites are not quite safe enough, and images have to have an https address.
If you upload your images to the CP repository, alongside your article (I can't remember how, off the top of my head, but I do remember that the option was easy to find and carry out), there will never be any problems.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Now I have to restructure some performance critical code entirely because of the lack "break" statement.
I'm angry at their lack of effort.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
If it had a break statement, it would probably follow C++ and overload it. 
But surely it has...you know...goto. 
|
|
|
|
|
If does have goto, and i'm seriously considering it at this point
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
Well, when there's a reason, and it's thought out properly, there's nothing wrong with a goto.
"'Do what thou wilt...' is to bid Stars to shine, Vines to bear grapes, Water to seek its level; man is the only being in Nature that has striven to set himself at odds with himself."
—Aleister Crowley
|
|
|
|
|
I think the reason would hopefully be better than "someone at microsoft slacked off"
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
Brady Kelly wrote: Well, when there's a reason, and it's thought out properly, there's nothing wrong with a goto.
Just document what the goto is in there for. Even Dykstra said goto has a place.
|
|
|
|
|
Do it. break is just a thinly-disguised goto anyway. 
Here's an article from 2007 with some alternatives for the unsupported features:
CodeDom Assistant[^]
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot overload the break statement in C++.
|
|
|
|
|
What I meant was that C++ overloads break itself, although I suppose this can be debated. But it's annoying not to be able to exit a loop using break when inside a switch statement that's embedded within that loop.
|
|
|
|
|
OK, now I got it. I think I've used the break statement millions times without ever considering its 'double' nature (I mean, I knew and eccepted it blindly)!
Thank you for the explanation.
|
|
|
|
|
And CodeDOM sounds like an epithet for my rubber duck, who's a refactoring taskmaster.
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Shouldn't it have been 'bootstrap'?)
|
|
|
|
|
|
You could be starting a trend, here:
Whoever designed AnnoyingProduct should be forced to use it
I can think of several values for AnnoyingProduct, without even putting my mind to it
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
It's a good principle, IMO. 
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You could almost say it... Broke your code!
Ba dum tish!
|
|
|
|
|
Gallileo is emerging as an alternative to GSM. Being a newer implementation of the same working principle, they provide higher precision.
I have nowhere close to an understanding of how Gallileo (/GSM) positioning works. So when a collague of mine claimed that a precision of one meter on earth requires that the position of the satellites are determined with a precision of one meter (or preferaby better). If you are triangulating between three signals, and some astronauts were out there and pushed each of the three satellites one meter to the south, your Gallileo (/GSM) reading would be 1 meter wrong.
From simle high school geometry, this argument sounds very plausible. But is it really true, that meter and sub-meter precision location is dependent on a similar precision positioning of the satellites?
(Obviously, if you have signals from several satellites, you may do some smoothing to correct for a single off-position satellite. The question is whether the precision of the positioning directly depends on the satellite positioning, on the same scale.)
|
|
|
|
|
Who owns it?
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
You are asking about the Gallileo positioning system, I presume?
The European Union has an agency called the European GNSS Agency[^]. The satellite network was set up by the European Space Agency in cooperation with the EU, but ESA is a separate organization, not tied to the EU, and I don't know if they have any sort of ownership to Gallileo.
|
|
|
|
|
Cheers. I'll ask around.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
