|
My apologies. I completely misunderstood your OP.
|
|
|
|
|
No worries at all!
|
|
|
|
|
Of course, I was busy with something else and almost forgot, thanks Griff for reminding me.
Reduced musics cause sadnesses, drunk daily game (10)
|
|
|
|
|
is sadnesses a correct word?
cheers,
Super
------------------------------------------
Too much of good is bad,mix some evil in it
|
|
|
|
|
Yes it means "depressed Scottish Loch Monsters".
It's not used much.
"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!
|
|
|
|
|
Ok - we surrender!
What was it?
"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!
|
|
|
|
|
Reduced musics CDs (Compact Discs)
Sadness(es) Sorrows
Drunk Anagram -> Crosswords (our daily game)
|
|
|
|
|
It's harder than it looks to write these, isn't it?
You are up again tomorrow!
"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!
|
|
|
|
|
That's a nice way to politely tell what a failure my attempt was
I try harder tomorrow.
|
|
|
|
|
It wasn't a failure ... just nobody got even close ...
I'm sure tomorrows will be a lot better!
"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!
|
|
|
|
|
@Rage
You won on Friday, remember?
"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!
|
|
|
|
|
Damn, I forgot to prepare and now stuck in meetings - gimme another 30min.
|
|
|
|
|
Now, I just want to remember once more the interesting facts I discovered in the misunderstandings of the forgotten past. you'll find this in the OP's comments on an OriginalGriff response here: [^] ... for me, this is surreal poetry
Having just re-watched Sergei Parajanov's 1965 "Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors" [^], I am hearing these words set to Carpathian Hutsul dorian scales, as goats are bleating.
«One day it will have to be officially admitted that what we have christened reality is an even greater illusion than the world of dreams.» Salvador Dali
modified 16-Nov-20 7:26am.
|
|
|
|
|
Reading the discussion I may even know what he means
Not sure what that says about me though
|
|
|
|
|
I think i understand him too. Some of it i can chalk up to language, but not the sort of lackadaisical attitude toward facts. That I think is something else. I mean, I'm not even judging, as I can relate, but I try not to post questions here when that happens, much less argue about the answers I get.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
He's actually right, I think.
You say "The proper way to request that a disposable object dispose itself is IDisposable.Dispose()."
But his point is that while TcpClient is IDisposable, you can't call Dispose on it.
When you try, you get the message "TcpClient.Dispose(bool) is inaccessible due to its protection level"
Like I said, in my answer to his question, you can either cast the TcpClient to an IDisposable and call Dispose or you can call Close, which calls Dispose internally.
The Dispose method is available in .NET 4.7.2, but not in 4.5 and earlier (haven't checked versions between those).
So this guy may be right that it's a bug... In any case, he's right that he can't simply call Dispose() despite it being an IDisposable
|
|
|
|
|
That's why I said IDisposable.Dispose() and not simply Dispose() . What I didn't think I had to explain was that some classes hide interface members and expose a Close() method instead. Maybe I should have.
But IDisposable.Dispose() always gets you there, because the method is *not* private, it's simply hidden but maybe that's just how i look at it - the big difference being you *can* get to it because it's on a an interface that itself is publicly accessible
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, but when I see stuff like that, it's mostly that ((ISomeInterface)someInstance).SomeHiddenMethodOnThatInterface() throws a NotImplementedException.
Which would be extremely bad design in the case of IDisposable
I guess this guy's knowledge of OO is not as firm as yours, so when you say he should call IDisposable.Dispose() he's just think "but I just said I can't!"
It's weird though, to hide Dispose like that.
So I get his confusion, I get why he thinks it's a bug, and I get how he gets frustrated with a bunch of guys telling him he should just call IDisposable.Dispose because "it's there!"
|
|
|
|
|
One of the things I picked up in my decades on this rock is that the right questions are infinitely more valuable than the right answers.
I think that applies here. You're the first person I've heard who may have made sense of what he was asking.
When I said I understood earlier I meant specifically about that "past forgotten memories" thing or whatever. Not the question. It seemed to me he was looking for a framework method to free objects.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
honey the codewitch wrote: You're the first person I've heard who may have made sense of what he was asking. The result of dealing with end-users for over a decade!
Seriously though, people rarely ask directly what they want to know.
|
|
|
|
|
my QA answer, posted 1/12/2014, accepted today [^]
from such serendipitous crumbs as these, i partially repair an ego well past its use-by date.
woof, woof
«One day it will have to be officially admitted that what we have christened reality is an even greater illusion than the world of dreams.» Salvador Dali
|
|
|
|
|
It's Amazing!
It took a while, but your wisdom finally permeated the Internet!
|
|
|
|
|
I know that some QA querists can be slow learners, but ...
"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!
|
|
|
|
|
The ESP32 IoT SoC has great CPU power saving capabilities including a deep sleep mode which can take as few as 20uA according to the documentation. It's on a development board with LEDs, voltage regulators and whatever else so it draws quite a bit more than that in practice, but still it sips power in sleep mode.
Furthermore even while awoken the chip can run at different frequencies which you can set in software. As low as 2Mhz although in practice 80MhZ is the happiest "slow" speed and 240mhz is the max.
However, when I try to set the CPU frequency to a low setting the power use increases dramatically. I think by default it's 160mhz. Anyway:
without setting the CPU Freq:
goes from 2.5mA sleeping to 6.8mA when the CPU wakes to 9.3mA when the radio engages
with setting the CPU Freq to 80Mhz
goes from 2.5mA sleeping to 39mA when the CPU wakes to 42mA when the radio engages!
This is unacceptable and completely surprising. Looking at the espressif forums suggests their CPU change code is experimental but why even put it in if this is the result?
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
Apparently they expect their users to do the experiments. This attitude seems to be becoming more common.
"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?"
|
|
|
|