HN user

lenary

152 karma
Posts3
Comments39
View on HN

They are likely to remove this in the next C standard (or may have already), because a declaration with a static size is “compatible” with a declaration with no static size, and thus you can get unsoundness.

So your compiler should accept (though the semantics of static suggest this program would be wrong):

    void foo(int a[static 3]);
    void foo(int a[]);
According to the spec, this is fine, but when you come to define the function foo, should it respect the ‘static’ annotation? The spec doesn’t say, and doing static analysis of subsumption for the expressions after ‘static’ is much more complex to keep sound than C prefers in its specification.

It seems you still want to micro-manage your remote team, which at the same time isn't that remote as you want to meet them once a week.

Come back when you have some sensible suggestions for a truly remote team.

is it just me, or does anyone else think that though the design is prettier, it kinda makes other parts of the app look bad - for instance compare the commit style to the tree listings. it's not that one or the other look bad, it's just the dissimilarity is jarring.

this is not quite what it makes out to be. of course at one level you only need an ethernet cord, but at some level you need to supply power to the cord itself. That power requires a power cable + PoE box if done close to the monitor, or you can buy a rack PoE unit and do it further away, which will have a limit on how far away from the unit you can be.

PoE units are useful when having only one cable enter the housing for waterproofing issues. otherwise, why go to all the hassle?

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. it depends on the alcohol, how much and other external factors like my levels of motivation or tiredness.

It would be clichéd to say that some of my best work was done drunk, but i'd also like to point out that some of my worst has been done when drunk too.

This i found very enlightening to read. I wonder how many accounting apps actually store their data as he describes in this article, to aid their calculations

the "scope" parameter that google included is actully from the OAuth 2.0 spec (still in draft iirc). There are a lot of improvements in OAuth 2.0 which are worth checking out, but this is one of the main ones

for your issue with wanting to swap stylesheets when the user clicks (mobile | standard) or whatever, try doing all your media queries in the stylesheet <link> tags themselves, then using javascript to unset all the media="" parts, or change them so that the correct stylesheet applies, rather than faking browser width that might fuck around with other JS functions

[dead] 16 years ago

I will upvote you, because I'm the OP and you are making comments useful to the discussion I hoped to provoke. Too bad about the downvotes for my comment "laughing is evil" (which was said sarcastically, ftr)

[dead] 16 years ago

it wasn't taken so. that's almost exactly where I was coming from to post the article anyway

[dead] 16 years ago

to be honest, it's because i'm new to posting here and felt like being sensationalist