|
"Dangerous"? Please... 
The problem with diskpart, with this drive, is that it's not low-level enough (if that's even possible). I've tried much more advanced utilities, including the drive's own manufacturer's. Even DBAN (as others below this message have suggested) couldn't make much of it (I forget exactly how it failed, but the partition is still there...)
|
|
|
|
|
I've had two external HDDs "fail".
In both cases, it was the rinky-dink PCBs in the enclosures that failed. The drives were fine.
Don't do anything drastic until you've taken them out of the enclosures and physically mounted them somewhere else.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
I did experience an SSD failure a few years ago, when they were relatively new on the market. I haven't experienced one since.
I have had a few HDDs fail me over the years.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Okay so I was kind of surprised this compiled:
if (null == default(T)) _array[_head] = default(T);
Where T is a generic type parameter
The reason I thought it wouldn't is because T can be a value type.
It's too bad I don't know if that operation boxes or not. It's kind of important. Now I have to disassemble just to know the spec on it. You should never have to do that, especially for a language that is supposed to be standardized, because if there's no standard for that behavior then different implementations are free to implement it how they like.
Maybe it's in the spec and it got buried, but I can't find it to save my life. Grrr.
Edit: Yes, it causes the default(T) to be boxed  (at least in MS's DNF implementation)
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
modified 8-Dec-19 10:12am.
|
|
|
|
|
Why would you expect them to document it? Nullable types weren't in the original C# - they arrived at .NET 2.0 - so a value type would have to be boxed to compare it against null since only reference types can contain null values.
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
They should be amending, and typically do amend the specs when new versions are released. They have to in order for it to be standards based. The other reason to consider that it might not have been boxed was added optimization for T once they added generic support post 1.x
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: Okay so I was kind of surprised this compiled:
if (null == default(T)) _array[_head] = default(T);
Where T is a generic type parameter
Strange, why won't it compile? It just says, "if the default value for this type parameter is null, then set the element at the _head in the _array member as the default value of type T."
To prevent this code from being compiled, you should apply the constraints, that would limit the type that can be used here. C# provides class, struct, notnull and many more as a constraint in this case. To prevent the code from being compiled, you should consider these.
class GenericArray<T> where T : class
{
public void Insert(T parameter)
{
if(default(T) == null)
{
Console.WriteLine("null");
}
}
}This code would not accept a value-type (System.ValueType) in the parameter, and would prevent the code from building; note that it is not the line you expect to break the build.
But remember, the application of these constraints would also make your if...else blocks less sensible. For example, if you apply the class constraint then the condition is always true, and the value will always be set to null in the head element, which would be repetition as the default value is set to null for you. Similarly, application of struct as a condition would make this line of yours not build.
class GenericArray<T> where T : struct
{
public void Insert(T parameter)
{
if(default(T) == null)
{
Console.WriteLine("null");
}
}
}
I like reading the template programming concepts, although C# is no way near template programming (such as in C++), the promise of template programming is huge.
Template metaprogramming - Wikipedia
Quote: It's too bad I don't know if that operation boxes or not.
One of the times when I really miss the old MSDN documentation which was professional, and always accurate. Now, anybody (including peeps like me) can edit the document from one point-of-view and mess it from all other angles. I recommend adding these points to the Microsoft Docs, you can do that with a GitHub account. 
The sh*t I complain about
It's like there ain't a cloud in the sky and it's raining out - Eminem
~! Firewall !~
|
|
|
|
|
To be clear, I didn't want it to not compile. I actually wanted it to work if it didn't box.
Turns out i don't really need the check there anyway, I was primarily just seeing if it would work before i inserted it into my more complex routines that do batch copies of segments of the array.
What I wanted was to avoid doing things like calling Array.Clear unless it was a reference type but i wanted to check that without boxing. Unfortunately it boxes. That's okay for my methods where i must clear whole segments, but not where I'm clearing an individual item.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
Is this new behavior?
I remember doing stuff like that and getting compile time errors saying T could be a value type which can never be null.
I've always had to add a class constraint.
|
|
|
|
|
It apparently depends on how you use it. It might be that the default(T) scenario is a special case.
Or maybe it works in comparisons but not assignments.
I don't know really, that's just casting the bones. But I do know in some cases you're right, it won't compile.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
honey the codewitch wrote: Or maybe it works in comparisons but not assignments.
I think that's it.
Assignments can't be done, just as new T().
Perhaps you can work around boxing.[^]
public void MyVoid<T>(T something)
{
if (typeof(T).IsValueType)
{
}
else
{
}
}Although this is probably not about your code, but code others might possibly write?
|
|
|
|
|
I don't want to take the typeof hit either. I know metadata loading is fast but this was an optimization which would be killed by typeof
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, but maybe you have other reasons to avoid boxing 
|
|
|
|
|
I prefer a battle of wits. Or a proper witchfight
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Microsoft didn't document something ...and you're surprised at this? 
|
|
|
|
|
Yes and no. They've generally done a fair to good job of specing out .NET and C#. Enough that this really frustrated me.
When I was growin' up, I was the smartest kid I knew. Maybe that was just because I didn't know that many kids. All I know is now I feel the opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
So a friend asked me out to watch some local bands last night.
Sure, I'll go.
Didn't feel like going because it required me to leave the house, but I already said yes so let's get it over with.
When we're there, this girl walks up to my friend and apparently they knew each other.
So my friend asks her "how did it go?" (apparently, she just played on stage).
"I was so nervous. I like a bit of attention, but not like this. I'm never doing this again."
So I thought I'd try to be social and chime in, "try a beta blocker next time, it's a small pill and all your nerves will be gone."
I know because I use them when I have to do presentations.
Apparently, they're popular among students taking exams as well.
She looks me dead in the eye and says "I'd rather sniff something, but I've been clean for one and a half month now so I'm not taking anything."
Not the answer I was expecting.
Next time I'll just stand there and say nothing like I usually do 
|
|
|
|
|
You need a reason not to talk to people? I don't. 
|
|
|
|
|
Usually, no 
|
|
|
|
|
In the music scene, you didn't expect singers to be snorting? 
Such a sheltered life you have led!
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
I never said she was a singer 
I live on an island with the nickname "the white island" (and not because its inhabitants are mainly white), but I've never known anyone who was on (hard) drugs. I think... 
We have a lot of farmers who have sheds in the middle of nowhere, great for drug labs.
The musicians are all hobbyists, so they can't live the drugs, sex and rock n roll lifestyle in weekends and be at work/in school on Monday
|
|
|
|
|
Sander Rossel wrote: The musicians are all hobbyists, so they can't live the drugs, sex and rock n roll lifestyle in weekends and be at work/in school on Monday
You would be surprised what can be done during the weekend and still be in the school on monday
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, but as you get older the possibilities become limited
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
