|
Hi Chris,
When I do a search on my name, I get the following error:
No results found (Incorrect syntax near ')'.)
Here's the link[^]
I tried with a couple of other valid names, and also tried giving the keywords but the result is same.
|
|
|
|
|
Will look into this. Thanks.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
After replying to a post the page opens to show your reply right? Ok but when i click on another post to check what someone said then i have 2 open posts (Message View / FireFox2).
Artificial Intelligence is no match for Natural Stupidity
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness. ~Sheik Abd-al-Kadir
I can't always be wrong ... or can I?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fixed
cheers,
Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
so we don't feel like were wasting our time posting them here. I appreciate some time passing in order to get a consensus (if that's how you want to run things here).
I would appreciate it if Chris or whoever is responsible for real changes around here take the time to reply to each and every suggestion and indicate whether they are taking it on as a potential change or rejecting it outright.
The growing trend of slapping a license on the article itself here is pretty serious, I'd appreciate an official reply to that thread below.
|
|
|
|
|
John Cardinal wrote: The growing trend of slapping a license on the article itself here is pretty serious, I'd appreciate an official reply to that thread below.
Some variant of this, generally related to the ambigious nature of the default license gets reanimated and flogged back to death every few months. In response to one of the past threads Chris said it was being looked at, but since redoing the licensing scheme was something they could only do once all the ducks needed to be in a row before anything went public.
--
Rules of thumb should not be taken for the whole hand.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm on holidays at the moment ("holidays", I should say) so sorry for being slow on this.
Every author has had the right to apply a licence to their code. Usually this is done in the code itself. We intend to allow developers to provide a licence with their code in a more formal and organised manner in order to protect both the author and the person using the code.
Not having a licence means
a) Readers have to take a chance when they use code, hoping the use of the code is OK
b) Authors are only protected by copyright law and not explicitrly by disclaimers of fitness or suitability of the code
It's not whether or not a licence is applied to code that is the problem, it's the form/wording of the licence.
We're looking at 3 levels: Open use and distribution, Open use and restricted distribution (to ensure author has control over distribution), and restricted (non-commercial/educational) use. The last licence probably won't actually be offered, or if it is, articles licenced such will not be eligible for being picked as editor's choice or be allowed entry in comps. They would be special cases.
There is the thought we should allow other licences BSD, GPL etc. but our feeling is that we do not wish to support GPL licencing, and that other licences out there are not worded tightly enough for our liking. If you are going to have a licence then make it a legally valid one.
Articles would be clearly labelled by licence. You would be able to search by licence level.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
I see. How about the content of the article itself (which is the heart of the issue for me)?
I'm seeing people applying a "license" to the content of the article, what I suggest is that any source code or working application that accompany the article in zip files or as downloads be licensed, but surely we are not talking about licensing the concept or wording in the article or small snippets of code that are traditionally pasted into the article text?
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, I didn't catch that it was content, not downloads, that were the issue. Downloads will definitely be the target of licencing. Articles? They will be governed by Terms of Use of the site itself.
cheers,
Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
That might need to be made a little clearer to some.
|
|
|
|
|
Steps to reproduce:
1. Change View to Thread View.
2. Click on message that has some replies.
3. Click on View the other X messages in this thread.
4. Click on Next (under orange header).
5. What you will see is a page with no messages.
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks for that. Will add to list
cheers,
Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
Steps to reproduce:
1. Change View to Thread View.
2. Next to New Message you will see "Msgs 1 to 25 of N" (assuming you are on first page, and have "Per Page" set to 25).
3. Click on message 25 (last message).
4. Assuming it has several replies, click on View the other X messages in this thread.
5. Next to New Message you will see "Msgs 23 to 47 of N".
6. What is displayed are a few message threads from halfway down the next page.
I have not tried this in other forums.
|
|
|
|
|
Sometime in the next month or so, i'll be updating CPhog. Among other things, the next version will allow in-place loading of threads from the thread view - including threads longer than 50 messages.
Of course, knowing that doesn't do you a bit of good right now... i guess i just wanted to brag about how much the thread view rocks for me.  
|
|
|
|
|
Hi All,
I recenlty read an article which spent more time discussing the motivation for sharing the knowledge, than explaining the sample code. Taking from the article:
Here are a few notes on the implementation ... So anyway enough already take a look at the attached code.
At this point, I'm not sure if it is worth downloading.
Would it be possible to have two areas: one for articles, and one for sample code? I know it's late in the game for the request, but I make a very clear distinction between the two. The editors could perform the classification.
So, modifying the system: An 'unedited reader comment' takes one of two paths: 1) Article, or 2) Sample Code. As with the redesign, each can be edited, but cannot be relclassified (unless by Code Project staff).
Jeff
|
|
|
|
|
The voting links (1 through 5) are really close to the report spam or abuse links.
A little more room between them can mean the difference between a 5 vote and a report spam... 
V.
I found a living worth working for, but haven't found work worth living for.
|
|
|
|
|
V. wrote: A little more room between them can mean the difference between a 5 vote and a report spam...
And Visa Versa
Brad
Australian
-CAUTION-
The previous statement may contain traces of PHP, and by reading this statement you negate the right to vote me down.
|
|
|
|
|
Except there is a confirmation message for Spam and Abuse (as has been stated sooo many times before).
|
|
|
|
|
yeah, I never have reported spam before, so excuse me.
|
|
|
|
|
It'd be nice if the script to upload the image from your profile returned an error message saying if the image was too big (dimension or file size wise) rather than just saying: Oops  .
I have no idea what I just said. But my intentions were sincere.
|
|
|
|
|
Ed.Poore wrote: It'd be nice if the script to upload the image from your profile returned an error message saying if the image was too big (dimension or file size wise) rather than just saying: Oops .
It would be even nicer if it just re-sized the image as necessary.
|
|
|
|
|
The Grand Negus wrote: It would be even nicer if it just re-sized the image as necessary.
And the nicest would be if it asked you if you wanted it to resize the image for you.
|
|
|
|
|
Clippy: "It looks like you are uploading an image..." 
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
