|
I'm fairly sure the private email link in posts was removed some time ago.
|
|
|
|
|
It is still there, but not for everyone.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
That used to be an option for everyone, but it's been a long time since I've seen the email link in any post. Just for giggles, check this response to see if the email link appears. In Options I have checked the "Allow private email replies to this message" box, as well as the "E-mail me if someone replies to this message" box.
Will Rogers never met me.
|
|
|
|
|
Roger Wright wrote: s well as the "E-mail me if someone replies to this message" box.
That's the auto generated email from the site, not the same.
Roger Wright wrote: check this response to see if the email link appears. In Options I have checked the "Allow private email replies to this message" box
And yes, it is there. But not for everyone to be seen / used.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
I just checked my permissions on CP. Apparently, in order to send private messages one must be a "protector". AFAIK, very few members have that privilege.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: Apparently, in order to send private messages one must be a "protector".
I didn't know it was only for protectors, but yes. I can see it.
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: AFAIK, very few members have that privilege.
IIRC we are around 30? Maybe less...
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.
|
|
|
|
|
You need to have been awarded the Protector status. (That's the one with the shield on your avatar)
It isn't listed here: Member Reputation System and I've either never known or simply forgotten how to obtain it. (I suspect it's awarded manually)
|
|
|
|
|
In a different wording: The functionality is not available.
Religious freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make five.
|
|
|
|
|
I suppose so, yes;
Which then prompts me to wonder why the "Allow private email replies to this message" checkbox remains on the Reply To Message screen;
 I've just realized my brain did something funny. It somehow slipped into code-mode and ended the sentences with a semi-colon instead of a period.
|
|
|
|
|
enhzflep wrote: Which then prompts me to wonder why the "Allow private email replies to this message" checkbox remains on the Reply To Message screen;
Legacy?
Maybe to be restored in a future? I think it is easier to just make
IF (Status == Protector ) email = visible;
than redo the whole sit to delete the link and its implications / relationships with the personal profile and so on and so on.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
enhzflep wrote: I've either never known or simply forgotten how to obtain it. (I suspect it's awarded manually)
Yeah... it is given by CP staff manually.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Just curious, or am I expecting too much ?
OK, I declare / define C function to return int...
Then I forget to add
return ...
in code.
Compiles / links AND crashes with no error message...
|
|
|
|
|
Wrong place to ask. When you find the correct place, include the actual code and other details.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Without an explicit return statement, functions default to returning an int. What compile level are you using? I always use level 4.
"One man's wage rise is another man's price increase." - Harold Wilson
"Fireproof doesn't mean the fire will never come. It means when the fire comes that you will be able to withstand it." - Michael Simmons
"You can easily judge the character of a man by how he treats those who can do nothing for him." - James D. Miles
|
|
|
|
|
Me too and that was my first thought. How did that even compile?
"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?"
|
|
|
|
|
Might not wanna help him. This is the third time he's posted a programming question in the lounge. And from what I've seen the forums, he's not doing much better there either.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
That's what I was going to private email someone about yesterday.
I’ve given up trying to be calm. However, I am open to feeling slightly less agitated.
I’m begging you for the benefit of everyone, don’t be STUPID.
|
|
|
|
|
I have never look for "compile level", but I 'll try to find it...
Do you mean any function will return int or just when it is declared as returning
int specifically ?
I will have to go see if I actually used the return value...
But since few souls mention this not to post programming questions
I hesitate to post the actual code...
int TEST ( int test )
{
}
for those who needed the code
please note
THERE IS NO "return test;"
WHOOPS
I did not format it properly...
(time to get banned ...)
|
|
|
|
|
Even with all warnings disabled, the compiler should throw an error. ( visual studio and C++)
int Patate()
{
}
goto one of the programming forum and post minimal code that reproduce the problem.
CI/CD = Continuous Impediment/Continuous Despair
|
|
|
|
|
Dude, this is like the third time. Clearly it's intentional now. You are expecting too much since this is the lounge.
Jeremy Falcon
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: Clearly it's intentional now.
Was it even a doubt before? Alone how the messages are phrased...
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Seems like something like this question was discussed not that long ago.
Salvatore Terress wrote: define C function to return int...
So C and not C++.
Per the following at least as far as the C11 spec this is allowed. I did not verify the spec myself.
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/10079089/implicit-int-return-value-of-c-function[^]
As several replies suggest the behavior is undefined however if the caller attempts to use the value. That of course would include crashing.
But there could be other reasons for it crashing.
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 1,040 3/6
⬜⬜⬜🟨🟨
🟨⬜🟨🟩⬜
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
|
|
|
|
|
Wordle 1,040 4/6
⬜🟨⬜⬜🟨
🟨🟨⬜🟨⬜
🟨⬜🟨🟩⬜
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
