|
It's called the Gates effect; the way things should be done is inversely proportional to common sense!
|
|
|
|
|
I've noticed that in a few mobile apps. Maybe it's a permission-clawing thing.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
For the same reason a SERP exists?
(Because it's there ... oh, wait a minute, no it's not ...)
|
|
|
|
|
I came across that exact issue at exactly 16:45 yesterday afternoon.
I know that's what time it was, because that was the proverbial straw - so I took an early mark!
I think you also can't print!
PooperPig - Coming Soon
|
|
|
|
|
I have the problem where if I want to search the document, I cannot click Ctrl+F until I actually click inside the document. This only happens in non-edit mode for me. Microsoft needs to focus on being user-friendly.
|
|
|
|
|
I can code all day long (literally) on black background without getting blurry vision. If I staring at something with white background for 10 minutes, my vision start getting blurry and it gets worst the longer I stare at it. Worst on smaller screen.
Any one experienced similar? Or vise versus?
|
|
|
|
|
Screen is too bright, eye fatigue?
Does this happen on paper (in normal lighting), or just computer screens?
|
|
|
|
|
Pualee wrote: Screen is too bright, eye fatigue?
Agreed. I had to replace a dead monitor a week ago, and was reminded how they typically ship with a brightness setting that's just way too high, and most people don't adjust it. It's like staring at the sun.
I have all my monitors set with the brightness all the way down to 0 (well, ok, 5 for one of my oldest ones), and contrast at maybe 75% (this varies between displays).
|
|
|
|
|
Yup, on paper too. Anything with bright background.
|
|
|
|
|
Leng Vang wrote: Any one experienced similar
Nope. I like a white background - I find the dark background... odd.
|
|
|
|
|
RACIST!!!
(Well, if you'd said it the other way round, you'd have been called on it)
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Now if you put it that way I will have to go gorge my eye out, since other parts of my body doing just fine. The eyes clearly the sinner!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Probably too much porn ....
|
|
|
|
|
For all we know, porn are usually have darker view or more pleasantly color tones. And for the record, I have clear vision for porn
|
|
|
|
|
|
How much rhythm does it take to knock "Shave and a haircut"?
Anything that is unrelated to elephants is irrelephant Anonymous ----- The problem with quotes on the internet is that you can never tell if they're genuine Winston Churchill, 1944 ----- I'd just like a chance to prove that money can't make me happy. Me, all the time
|
|
|
|
|
OK - this is not a coding question but it does include some code.
Brace yourselves (pun intended) :-
/// <summary>
/// How dependencies are resolved
/// </summary>
[Flags]
public enum DependencyOrdinality
{
/// <summary>
/// This task can start even if its dependency has not yet started
/// </summary>
Optional = 0x0,
/// <summary>
/// This task can run if the dependency is running
/// </summary>
ConcurrentRun = 0x1,
/// <summary>
/// This task can run if the dependency has completed successfully
/// </summary>
PostSuccess = 0x2,
/// <summary>
/// This task can run if the dependency has completed in a failed state
/// </summary>
PostFail = 0x4
}
OK - so the word "Ordinality" is wrong. What should I call this?
|
|
|
|
|
I would use a descriptor that makes sense to you/other developers.
enumerator == ordinal, hence I would use a descriptor.
"Religion is the most malevolent of all mind viruses." - Arthur C. Clarke
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's getter than Ordinality, so I think we have a result.
(I also thoughto of "Magnitude" and "Gate".. )
|
|
|
|
|
First off, since you're using flags, the naming convention, as per Microsoft is:
Use a singular name for most Enum types, but use a plural name for Enum types that are bit fields.
Thus, I would suggest:
TaskExecutionDependencyOptions
as it encapsulates the concept "This task can run...", so it becomes rather readable in, say:
TaskExecutionDependencyOptions.PostSuccess
Or, even the shorter:
TaskDependencyOptions
or
TaskOptions
would be quite reasonable, IMO.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Since you are using Flags, and you can have a "compound" result, I think I'd go for "DependencyState."
« There is only one difference between a madman and me. The madman thinks he is sane. I know I am mad. » Salvador Dali
|
|
|
|
|
DEREK.
Tell everyone it's an acronym, and look at them if they're stupid for not knowing it.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
My acronyms never have vowels in- if a thing is difficult to do it should be more difficult to pronounce.
|
|
|
|
|
Well... depending on the application, for me is logical to jump the number 3.
If you see it in binary you have
0x0 = 00000000
0x1 = 00000001
0x2 = 00000010
0x4 = 00000100
This is something I have seen many times to give variables a value that afterwards are used in different places with different meanings and different ways to work them out or to evaluate. I.e: Bit-Binary masking in the PLC to select procedure and colouring animations with the int-value in the HMI (I work in industrial automation)
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.
|
|
|
|