|
I removed this tag and used Win32api which is much more common. I got to a question from 2013.
color in console in c++
I personally see no problem answering old questions. If a question is no longer valid (for example, a question about Windows XP), it should be deleted or mark is "inactive". Otherwise, answering an older question might serve other people who might search a solution for the same problem.
In any case, I deleted my answer until we have a consensus.
- Michael Haephrati מיכאל האפרתי
modified 16-Jan-18 6:29am.
|
|
|
|
|
Instead of using the "Interested" filter it is probably better to use the "Ignored" one, to exclude subjects you are not interested in. That way you have less chance of opening all these old questions.
|
|
|
|
|
Sure. I will next time. Thanks for the tip.
- Michael Haephrati מיכאל האפרתי
|
|
|
|
|
What does CP use for its syntax highlighting in <pre> tags?
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
A homegrown system that we're actively looking to replace.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
The lowest impact one I've found is something called highlight.js (highlightjs.org[^]). It does pretty much what yours does, except I have to pre-escape < >characters if I'm showing something like List<someclass> unless i put white space when the type and the brackets. Unfortunately, the accompanying javascript is in pack format which makes t extremely touchy for changes. I added some C# types to it (.Net framework stuff), and changeed the of type color but that's about it.
The pointy bracket problem appears to be that the javascript code only looks for keywords between brackets, and not types. "string" works, my "String" (which I've defined as a type) does not.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
modified 12-Jan-18 18:04pm.
|
|
|
|
|
AFAIK highlight.js doesn't handle ASP.NET or Razor properly. We also prefer to colourise on the server side to save you guys the extra processing.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, there is no support at all for Razor (but I thought I saw something for asp.net). I saw that right away. To be fair though, I haven;t found anything yet that supports razor.
I've started a class to parse the c# on the server side, although my needs are a lot less severe than CP's.
Why do you want to ditch your home-grown code? Maintenance requirements because of changing language features?
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
We support Razor 
Actually that's why we used our own in the first place: ASP.NET and HTML in general is multi-language and all the highlighters at the time failed to colourise properly.
Our colouriser is a little slow since it's based on regex's (as are most, really). I also want to be able to take advantage of textmate colour files, so I either want a colouriser that already does this, or I want to rewrite ours so it does it.
MAybe I should just open source our stuff and be done.
Hmmm.... 
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, please open source it.
I only need support for c#, sql, html/css/razor. I don't do any of the hippy/free love languages (basic, php, python, etc).
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
OK.
I've actually been meaning to OS it for a few years but the code is fairly awful and contains a few nasty hacks as well as relying on regex's to parse. It's all bad.
However, maybe opening it up and baring our sins is the best way to make it better. It's how I started, after all.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
I approved this message over eleven hours ago: The Lounge - Meltdown, Spectre mitigation Server Farm[^]
But it's still showing as "Message currently under review":
There are no messages or QA posts in the queue on the front page:
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay...
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
The message was still being served from the (outdated) cache.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Despite having the option E-mail me if someone replies to this message being checked,
no email is being sent when someone replies.
YES The email on the account is valid.
NO The email is not in the spam folder.
|
|
|
|
|
On forums such as this one or on your articles?
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Both, I didn't get any emails about my interaction with the article and just now, nothing for the forum post here either.
|
|
|
|
|
I've sent an email reconfirmation request. When it arrives click the link and after that you should be good to go.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
 I did get that and I did click it and it said success.
 But why was doing this necessary,
my email was already verified when I created my account a long time ago,
just curious why this will fix it now?
 By the way, unless it is a matter of timing,
(I suspect I confirmed after you posted this reply)
I didn't get a notification for this reply either.
Hopefully I will now get notified of you reply to this,
and I can confirm the fix. 
Thanks. ![Java | [Coffee]](https://codeproject.global.ssl.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/coffee.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
GµårÐïåñ wrote: But why was doing this necessary
Mainly because we don't want to be sending emails to abandoned accounts. Most sites just keep emailing forever and ever amen. We don't. If there's no activity for 7 months then we assume you simply don't want / don't read emails from us and we stop bothering you.
Maybe we're being too careful about not bothering people.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Ok, now I am really confused, how is my account abandoned? I have had this account for a long time, I visit AT LEAST once EVERYDAY and I have previously confirmed my email, so how was this determination done?
No one asked anyone to send out emails constantly, as I normally don't post in the comments or the forum, but finally had a reason to do it, but I am still otherwise active on the site each day.
I have never received any email from you guys and this claim "don't want/don't read email from us" is complete bull. What email? When did you send it? Why was it sent? The fact is that if the account is legit, which this is, and not abandoned as you false claim, since I visit every day, then when you comment or post you should get the email alert as request, period, there is no you don't want to or read from us. This makes zero sense and I don't understand why you are saying all this when it doesn't fit the facts.
Not sending me something I ask for is not being too careful not to bother me, it is failing to do what I have explicitly asked for, this is not for my sake, this is a simple shortcoming pure and simple. If you send me a newsletter that I don't want without asking me, then yeah you are bothering me, these two are not the same thing.
|
|
|
|
|
Settle down mate.
I didn't say your account was abandoned. I said we don't want to send emails to accounts that have been abandoned, and don't want to send emails to those who aren't interested. Maybe our assumption that zero involvement in 7 months is too conservative. We're trying to be good net citizens. We're also trying to ensure we abide by the insanely onerous anti-spam legislation that increasingly makes our - and your - life inconvenient.
So a reconfirmation email has been sent. Just click the link in the email and our system will be reassured that you still want emails and you'll be good to go.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
I am perfectly calm, I am a professional and hence why I find this discussion important in changing how you guys make assumptions about the user base and what constitutes being a good "net citizen".
That's the problem I am trying highlight, what do you consider "engagement"? So to you only those who post comments or forum posts are engaged? Not those that log in each and every day to read and review what's on the site? That is a horrible and daft metric to use in considering what is engagement or abandonment.
You using a very skewed and illogical metric to make a decision doesn't make you a good net citizen, in fact the opposite because you only value those who make noise as being "engaged" not those who simply read, review and possibly learn from the material with dedication without saying something. That's just absurd, and don't try to shift the focus on the fact that it is a wrong way to make determination.
I have already clicked that as I said before already and the last two times you posted, yes I did get a notification so that seems to be resolved. But what about the next time you guys arbitrarily decide that 7 months has passed and the account is abandoned? I don't feel that I should go through this every time a bad decision is made to add more burden on me to reach out to resolve.
There is absolutely NO REASON, what so ever, that when a person explicitly says - notify me when a response has been made - for you to substitute your own judgement that it is considered abandoned lack of engagement so I won't notify you, even though you explicitly asked me to and going to call not letting you know being a good citizen.
|
|
|
|
|
Again:
1. We have to abide by anti-spam legislation. This, by extension, means we have to be very careful about not email accounts that appear to not have any involvement with emails. Note I didn't say "engagement". That's a very different thing.
2. Our tests are:
- if you have clicked on a (tracked) link in emails (most are, some are not)
- if an image we place in emails is requested
Then you are showing "involvement". Each time that image is requested we know you've opened your email. Each time you click a link we know you've opened an email.
In other words we do what we can to see if you're actually getting emails we send. If we can't tell, after 7 months, you're not getting our emails then you'll get up to 4 reminder emails saying "Please click this link to let us know you're still interested". If after 7 months and 4 emails bugging you you choose not to respond then we leave you alone. Apart from the message at the top of every forum stating that you email needs reconfirmation and to please click the link.
I'm open to suggestions on walking the line between onerous and punitive anti-spam legislation and not bothering people already overloaded with emails.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
But that is a failed and inaccurate metrics to say the least. Not every time a person gets an email do they feel the need to click on the "tracked" link and many in business environments (or default configuration even) have images blocked by default (or have their emails render in text only) which means your "tracking image" won't load either, that doesn't mean they didn't see it, or read it and simply because they don't feel like clicking on the content means nothing of their intent to be "left alone". As long as you have an unsubscribe link (which is the only thing required by law) and you honor it when clicked, there is absolutely nothing in any law anywhere that says you can't email your users, especially if they are explicitly asking for it.
Plus, let's add that I have never gotten anything from you to "click" on either except when I created the account and confirmed it; so how is this determination coming in a vacuum by all indications? Again, asking explicitly to receive notification for something you post is NOT covered by or in violation of any spam regulation anywhere on the planet because it shows express consent to be notified, so again your logic fails to equate in this case.
You are relating factors to each other that have absolutely nothing to do with each other. For example, just now I didn't get a notification about this post of yours, even though for the past few I did, so explain that please. Did I suddenly fail to click on some tracked link showing you should send me what I asked for, which is notification for any posts? Has 7 months passed since your/my last post to show I have abandoned or signaled I don't want to be spammed? There is clearly an implementation issue that you should review if you sincerely care about user involvement, engagement, activity, or whatever you want to call it. Alienating the users for phantom assumptions that have no merit don't bolster your case, they simply show there is a real disconnect between reality and action here.
|
|
|
|
|
Are you getting notifications from us now?
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
