|
Whew. For a moment I thought they'd beaten me to market with my WiFi-equipped Smart Self-Open Heart Surgery kit.
|
|
|
|
|
BinarySerializer is a very useful tool, with much less "ceremony" (annotations) required than DataContract. It does have its own brutal ways: it will serialize private Fields.
The fact my WinForm app created an instance of another project (generic 'ctor) separate from the Form, and then called its internally defined Serialize/Deserialize methods ... that in turn used BinarySerializer ...
Well I didn't expect it to break trying to serialize with an error saying the Form must be marked as Serializable: after all, a WinForm is a Control, and you can't serialize Controls.
I went back over every part of the code: external Class project has parameterless 'ctor: check.
There were some properties of Type Action in the external project that had code injected into them at run-time in the Form Load event: I recalled that BinarySerializer ignored Properties being said somewhen by Marc Gravell.
After much gnashing of teeth, I finally let go of fantasizing that some new Framework version had screwed things up, and, went in and added [NonSerializable] attributes on the Action Property definitions.
Whoops: that's illegal: with BinarySerializer, that Attribute works only on Fields. Changed Actions to Fields, and voila, things save and restore as expected.
And now, I'm going to go outside and cry, because I have proven to myself, again, that my tendency toward certainty is my relentless enemy, and I burn with shame.
«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
|
|
|
|
|
I've never really liked the way the serializers work, but I understand why they work that way. I just wish there was a less ... kludgy way to do it.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
There are some very interesting serializer projects on CP including Mehdi Gholam's epic (10 years of development !) FastJSON [^], and SuperLloyds Galador serializer [^] .
@superlloyd where's your CP article on Galador ?
cheers, Bill
«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
|
|
|
|
|
You can add attributes to the backing field for auto properties / events by prefixing the attribute with field: - for example:
[field:NonSerialized]
public Action Foo { get; set; }
[field:NonSerialized]
public event EventHandler Bar; Attributes (C#) | Microsoft Docs[^]
"These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined."
- Homer
|
|
|
|
|
Once again you have proved your eagle-eyes see all, know all 
Why the devil didn't I come across that in poring over the docs on BinarySerializer (again), and related threads on SO ?
The "field" prefix is mandatory on Properties of Type Action and Func ... and, I assume Predicate ... you don't want serialized, but, optional on Func and Action Fields you don't want serialized, where [NonSerialized] works fine.
«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 1-Jun-21 9:43am.
|
|
|
|
|
... Version 91.0.4472.77 (Official Build) (64-bit)
Well, apparently it runs JS 25% faster than V90.x.y.z
And ... I have no way to measure it, but yes, it does seem faster to load CP pages on my Surface.
That may be me expecting to see improvement, but ... who knows?
"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!
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: And ... I have no way to measure it, but yes, it does seem faster to load CP pages on my Surface.
Are you sure that is really due to it? Maybe the hamster got a redbull this morning  
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 you can explain the purpose of in one (reasonable) line, say a sentence or two brief ones.
Mine is implementing a 2D polygon fill algorithm on a write only display device.
I know how in theory - vaguely - to do it, but it's mind bending to attempt in practice, and I say that as someone who writes old-school table based LR parsers.
UPDATE: Randor humbled me. There's an easy way to do this. I even knew about it at one point but blanked on it here. I am very grateful, despite feeling a little foolish.
My most complicated algo... probably GLR parsing. In terms of ones I haven't solved - there's one that should be simple but I can never get it right -> converting an NFA or DFA state machine into a regular expression.
Real programmers use butterflies
modified 31-May-21 10:18am.
|
|
|
|
|
|
a sentence or two brief ones.
or say, a tweet if I'm being generous. If you can put it in one tweet.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
Something bounded by two points. 
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Technowockally, that a line _segment_. 
|
|
|
|
|
That must be the H.264 video encoding and decoding algorithm, I don't even want to look at the newer H.265 algorithm!
|
|
|
|
|
I've never tackled that one, I just punt that kind of thing to ffmpeg
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
Many (~ 500) moons ago, I had to write a line "fitting" program with some unusual constraints. None of the usual "least squares", "cubic spline" etc. methods did exactly what was wanted, so I had to roll my own.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
true love
«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
|
|
|
|
|
Treating love like an algorithm might have something to do with it.
Real programmers use butterflies
|
|
|
|
|
When "true love" is your patient, then, doctor, treatment "primum non nocere" is even more critical.
I find it fascinating that the original sigil of the Asclepian healing cult had only onw serpent twining around the staff, not two (as on the Caduceus of Mercury).
«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
|
|
|
|
|
Obligatory xkcd: Useless
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Given these truths:
o Time is money.
o Money is the root of all evil.
o Girls cost time and money.
We obtain
time = money
_____
money = V evil
girls = time x money
girls = money x money
_____ _____
girls = V evil x V evil
girls = evil
|
|
|
|
|
You forgot the branch cut - a square root has two solutions. This gives us:
time = money
_____
money = ± V evil
girls = time x money
girls = money x money
_____ _____
girls = ± V evil x ± V evil
girls = ± evil
This is closer to the real world, in that:
- Money may be either positive (credit) or negative (debit)
- Some girls are good
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Greg Utas wrote: Given these truths:
o Time is money.
o Money is the root of all evil.
o Girls cost time and money.
Time is worth far more than money ( money can't ( always ) buy me time )
"_The love of_" money is the root of all evil. ( Actually, I'd say power(?) domination(??) )
Proposition 3 I won't touch.
|
|
|
|
|
Mine, and I have not completed it after a few years.. :/ 
Is to do 2D shape (bordered by bezier line) intersection...
|
|
|
|
|
honey the codewitch wrote: Mine is implementing a 2D polygon fill algorithm
Are you saying that the most complex algorithm you've ever implemented is a depth-first/breadth-first traversal? Or am I misunderstanding something. I glanced through your latest articles but didn't see anything mentioned.
I guess the most complicated I've dealt with is noisy sparse signals recovery using Kalman filter[^] variants while I was working at Marine Technologies[^] circa ~2006. Kalman wasn't even the hard part... the underlying Gaussian mixture model[^] was where all the magic really happens. The reason it's considered difficult is because it's an approximation and there is always a better approximation to be found. We had to hire a mathematics professor from Norway as a consultant to help. Math is hard.
Best Wishes,
-David Delaune
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
