|
Your first example makes sense. Instantiating the second A<B> will fail when it tries to resolve B::foo. It's like A is defining an interface that its template arguments must support.
Not linking dead code into an .exe is great. It allows my main() to #include the subset of static libraries that are wanted in a build, which omits all the others without any fuss at all. It's gross to contemplate the code bloat that would otherwise occur.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm glad it made sense to you. It wouldn't have compiled, but it conveyed the idea, it seems, because you're exactly right about how it works. And it's bril, because you don't need to include a header for a common base to use it.
I agree with you about the linking. I write a lot of IoT code, and i couldn't without it.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
you should probably refresh. my first several edits were a mess. code was bad. i'm out of coffee. 
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
I gathered that, and refreshed. If I had coffee now, we'd be here all night.
|
|
|
|
|
Hang the perpetrator from the nearest lamp post, pour encourager les autres! 
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Damn good way to wreck production code when the originator changes the way his code works internally - which is why such things are private, obviously.
I'm hoping he deploys at 17:00 on a Friday ...
"I have no idea what I did, but I'm taking full credit for it." - ThisOldTony
"Common sense is so rare these days, it should be classified as a super power" - Random T-shirt
AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
|
|
|
|
|
To paraphrase Frank Zappa, you shouldn't let just anyone spew on your private parts.
"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"
|
|
|
|
|
1- the link refers to Java, not .Net. MS has nothing to do with this.
2- if this fragment is required, the developer is doing it wrong. He is using the wrong class for the wrong job or has not properly configured the app ( a cache in this case)
3 - the class is defective, perhaps one of 100 open-source jars to choose from, perhaps another “vendor” is in order
4- is this H1-B code? That would explain it.
|
|
|
|
|
Building a web scraper I had the pleasure to abuse JavaFX's WebView browser module by modifying byte code to hook onto http requests and the trick of this post to get at the url in an intercepted UrlLoader call. I wouldn't care using it in production. But also in test, I'd like to mention.
|
|
|
|
|
Using Visual Studio 2019:
When I write code for an article, I write the article in an html file that lives in the project itself. As I progress, I eventually want to see what the article looks like in the browser. In .Net Framework projects, this works fine, but in .Net Core projects (in this instance, it was a .Net Core 3.1 project), the menu item "View in browser" does not exist in the context menu for the file.
Why would that be?
".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
|
|
|
|
|
This is interesting. I created a VStudio 2019 -- ASP.NET Core project.
I added a basic.html page to the project in the Views\Home\ folder.
I do have the context menu item "View in browser (firefox)".
However, when I attempt to load the page it loads the URL in my browser but doesn't display the page (probably due to routing issue). The URL in the browser looks like : http://localhost:49464/Home/basic which is incorrect. It should have the .html.
Also I do have UseStaticFiles() in my startup.cs.
EDIT
I moved the .html file out to the root (not under views) and now I have the context menu item in 2019 and it actually loads the page now. It was a routing issue in the previous attempt.
|
|
|
|
|
Mine is a Core 3.1 project. I wonder if that makes a difference...
".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
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mine isn't a web app - it's WPF.
EDIT ============
I don't see anything in your settings that's different from mine, excpet mine says "Windows Application" where yours says "Console Application".
".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
|
|
|
|
|
Well, this only took me 24 hours to respond...
But anyways, you are correct if it is a WPF app you won't see that context menu.
Check this snapshot out -- top of Visual Studio : https://i.stack.imgur.com/ozTUB.png[^]
Whether it is wrong or right Studio removes the contextual stuff related to web server and web browser when the app isn't a web project.
Compare that first one to this one (which was my previuos web app)
See the IIS Express choice at the top ==> https://i.stack.imgur.com/sCewp.png[^] .
Not great, but just the way VStudio works I think.
|
|
|
|
|
Does the behavior change if you mark the file "Build action: None", or exclude from project? That might be sufficient to tell Studio to display it using the default browser rather than something dependent on what the rest of the project is doing.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
..who's fault it is now?..
..the one who loaded the gun?..
..or the one who pulled the trigger?..
🤏🤏🤏🤏
|
|
|
|
|
The latest one : Batch Build Clean Error With Only Some Configurations Selected - Developer Community[^]
To shorten the story, when I use batch build and select only some of the options to be cleaned, VS19 cleans them all. In their minds that is not a bug. In mine it most definitely IS a big. I included a screenshot of the options and results in one of my comments. Their "solution" is just a plain denial of facts and is ridiculous. I have done a fair number of experiments and all demonstrate there is a bug in this scenario. I have several solutions containing multiple projects and this is the only that causes VS19 (and VS17) to behave incorrectly. Somehow, they don't think this is really a bug.
Things that make you go, hmm... Followed shortly thereafter by a stream of expletives.
"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"
|
|
|
|
|
And the parrot is not dead, no it is just resting 
|
|
|
|
|
And pinin' for the fjords.
I’ve given up trying to be calm. However, I am open to feeling slightly less agitated.
|
|
|
|
|
That's either a bug or awful UI design. The UI screams that it should only be applying those operations to what's selected in the box.
|
|
|
|
|
That's exactly my opinion too. Their "work-around" is ridiculous. They said I should disable those options in the solution configuration. If that's the case then why even have options in the Batch Build dialog? To make it worse, I did several experiments with different configurations, solutions, and options and found that this is the only case that actually fails. I can select those same projects and click build and only they are built.
"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"
|
|
|
|
|
Typical Microsoft response to a bug report: your perception of the product behavior is at fault.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, exactly! This time they went so far as to suggest a ridiculous work-around on top of it.
"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"
|
|
|
|
|
Sometimes, that is what we have to do in our software. Someone sends a bug report that a feature is not working and their perception of the product's behavior is not what we intended. But will consider it for a change request in a future version.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
