|
Well, here it's...
Them: Process X is failing on input Y.
Me: Well, input Y is correct, so process X must be wrong.
Them: Yes, process X is wrong, but we don't have time to fix it now, so break input Y to compensate.
Me: Yeah, no.
|
|
|
|
|
17" (legal) paper in landscape mode. With or without "condensed" print.
It was only in wine that he laid down no limit for himself, but he did not allow himself to be confused by it.
― Confucian Analects: Rules of Confucius about his food
|
|
|
|
|
So what's the problem? 36" Plotter[^]
The less you need, the more you have.
Even a blind squirrel gets a nut...occasionally.
JaxCoder.com
|
|
|
|
|
Everything is a PDF now!
Make the virtual paper as wide as you want. There is a table in our system that comes out to 48” paper if you ever tried to print it.
|
|
|
|
|
I agree that clients (in this case - bosses) with unreasonable requirements are very hard to take.
The question is what form must the new report be in? If it must be printable, you are out of luck. If she is willing to accept some sort of electronic format, perhaps you could create an "expandable table" - each line shows the most important data, with a (+) symbol for showing the rest. When clicking on this would open additional data line(s), expanding on the data in the main line.
Something like this:
Main line [+]
expands to:
Main Line [-]
Secondary Line
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Make the report as a dying CSV[^] (  )
The next one can then set Excel printable Area as needed and bring it to an A4, Letter, A3 or whatever he/she/it/undefined wants.
If you have to print it yourself when the process ends... then A3 Landscape and screw your Sr. Partner
P.S. Virtual area and a PDF (as suggested in other messages) is a good solution too (probably the best)
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.
|
|
|
|
|
How come no one has suggested changing the font size so that it will fit? 2pt should be OK - virtually illegible, but it would fit the brief. You can cram long lines into a small space that way.
Example of the above message in 2pt:
How come no one has suggested changing the font size so that it will fit? 2pt should be OK - virtually illegible, but it would fit the brief. You can cram long lines into a small space that way.
|
|
|
|
|
It might fulfil the stated requirements, but the first time the Sr. Partner uses the report, the OP will be called on the carpet and told not to be such a smartass.
The OP will now have to do the work properly.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: the OP will be called on the carpet and told not to be such a smartass.
 You must know my colleague! If I'm not accused of it at least twice daily, I'm being too nice!
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
"Hope is contagious"
|
|
|
|
|
In situations like you have, we would break out the data into 2 or more rows/lines (for both column headers and data). The columns would be offset from the previous row/line to improve readability and everything is left/right justified.
For example,
First Name
<\t> Last Name
James
<\t> Smith
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The font can remain the same for both rows/lines. You could also put a line between the different data points.
It will add complexity to the process in needing to report 2 or more rows/lines to output all of the data but it can be done.
This is not out of the norm. There can be reports that have as many as 3-5 lines for each data row in reports.
|
|
|
|
|
I've been sort of noticing it taking a long time for an item to show in Yahoo mail.
Today, however, I got some pretty good confirmation: and email forward that split to two targets, yahoo and another email box: the yahoo mail arrived about 30 minutes later.
For two concurrent mailings - not a one-off event.
Anyone else see this?
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
My wife uses a Yahoo mail account and we've seen that kind of behavior quite often. Just last week trying to get confirmation email it took a long time.
|
|
|
|
|
I have not had any issues. I have the mobile app installed and I get the emails come through fairly promptly (and from a variety of sources too).
I'm UK based through, so it could make a difference.
|
|
|
|
|
Is it possible to write a MFC application targeting Windows XP?
I have Visual Studio 2019 enterprise version. I have a legacy software still running on Windows XP, but it needs a utility software to prepare some data.
diligent hands rule....
|
|
|
|
|
IIRC, it's impossible in VS 2019.
VS 2017 has an XP target. If you meet the conditions for the target audience (work for yourself or for a company with 5 or fewer programmers and under a certain level of revenue), you can download VS 2017 Community Edition and use that. Otherwise, you'll have to spring for the Pro edition.
VS 2017 and 2019 may be installed side-by-side.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
modified 19-Aug-21 13:37pm.
|
|
|
|
|
I do have Visual Studio 2017 version on my laptop.
do I need to deploy any C++ runtime files?
diligent hands rule....
|
|
|
|
|
Not if you statically link --
This was an attempt at Software-Dev-Humor.
Most people do not find me funny.
|
|
|
|
|
You have to ensure that the XP target is installed. Otherwise, I assume that if you use dynamic linking you will have to include the appropriate runtime DLLs in your installation package, If you use static linking, you will need to distribute only your executable and any DLLs that are part of your project.
You may distribute the XP runtime DLLs on the same basis that you distribute runtime DLLs for applications targeted at later Windows versions. Note that unless it does something special with the hardware, a program targeted for XP should run on any later version of Windows as well.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
I got it...
diligent hands rule....
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: IIRC, it's impossible in VS 2019.
Not quite - you can install the VS2017 (v141) toolset in VS2019, together with the (now Deprecated) XP support MFC libraries for that toolset.
Bit more convoluted, but it is still possible...
Java, Basic, who cares - it's all a bunch of tree-hugging hippy cr*p
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, you can do this, but you still need to get VS2017 from somewhere...
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
No, you don't - the VS2017 toolset, including XP & MFC bits are part of the VS2019 installer.
Hit the 'Modify' button in the VS2019 installer, select 'Individual Components' and search for 'v141'. It shows you all the VS2017 compiler & linker components you can install as part of VS2019.
Java, Basic, who cares - it's all a bunch of tree-hugging hippy cr*p
|
|
|
|
|
OK, I never noticed that. My bad... 
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Man you made my day. Now I can recompile the old sdl library without worry (yeah I know Windows 10 doesn't allow direct video memory access, but other stuff still works)
|
|
|
|
|
You need older dev tools. pm me.
Charlie Gilley
<italic>Stuck in a dysfunctional matrix from which I must escape...
"Where liberty dwells, there is my country." B. Franklin, 1783
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
