Bug of the Day
-
string objectRefGuid = objectRef.ObjectTypeId.ToString() + PartDivider + objectRef.ObjectId;
if (objectRef.VersionNumber > 0)
objectRefGuid += PartDivider + objectRef.VersionNumber;ObjectTypeIdis 1,ObjectIdis 2, andVersionNumberis 3.PartDivideris '_'. The expected result was 1_2_3. The output was 1_298. :doh:cheers Chris Maunder
-
string objectRefGuid = objectRef.ObjectTypeId.ToString() + PartDivider + objectRef.ObjectId;
if (objectRef.VersionNumber > 0)
objectRefGuid += PartDivider + objectRef.VersionNumber;ObjectTypeIdis 1,ObjectIdis 2, andVersionNumberis 3.PartDivideris '_'. The expected result was 1_2_3. The output was 1_298. :doh:cheers Chris Maunder
Oh, you mean this output[^]? I am sure the aftermath of that bug was really very graphical. See the layout.
The shit I complain about It's like there ain't a cloud in the sky and it's raining out - Eminem ~! Firewall !~
-
Care to explain for those (me) who do not C# ? Someone say it is related to "Implicit conversions" ? Thanks.
I'd rather be phishing!
He's basically doing this:
"1_2" + '_' + 3
Note that the underscore is a character, not a string (Single quotes = char, Double quotes = string). So instead of both parts being converted to strings to form "_3", it's treating the character as a number (ASCII code 95), adding 3 to it, THEN converting it to a string... So it becomes "1_2" + "98" Very subtle. I like it.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
Oh, you mean this output[^]? I am sure the aftermath of that bug was really very graphical. See the layout.
The shit I complain about It's like there ain't a cloud in the sky and it's raining out - Eminem ~! Firewall !~
-
He's basically doing this:
"1_2" + '_' + 3
Note that the underscore is a character, not a string (Single quotes = char, Double quotes = string). So instead of both parts being converted to strings to form "_3", it's treating the character as a number (ASCII code 95), adding 3 to it, THEN converting it to a string... So it becomes "1_2" + "98" Very subtle. I like it.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
So, the pixels flattened due to the empty space, I guess?
The shit I complain about It's like there ain't a cloud in the sky and it's raining out - Eminem ~! Firewall !~
-
So, the pixels flattened due to the empty space, I guess?
The shit I complain about It's like there ain't a cloud in the sky and it's raining out - Eminem ~! Firewall !~
Afzaal Ahmad Zeeshan wrote:
So, the pixels flattened due to the empty space, I guess?
No, just forgot to run my Bit Recycler[^]. It is like defragmenting, but for the bits. :rolleyes:
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^][](X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett)
-
Oh, you mean this output[^]? I am sure the aftermath of that bug was really very graphical. See the layout.
The shit I complain about It's like there ain't a cloud in the sky and it's raining out - Eminem ~! Firewall !~
-
That has nothing to do with the fact that JS is loosely typed, but the fact that JS doesn't have a char type. So '_' is just a string, equivalent to "_", and thus 3 is concatenated as though it was a string. C# would have done the same if '_' was a string and not a char. Basically, it's not loosely typed, but poorly typed :)
Best, Sander arrgh.js - Bringing LINQ to JavaScript SQL Server for C# Developers Succinctly Object-Oriented Programming in C# Succinctly
-
He's basically doing this:
"1_2" + '_' + 3
Note that the underscore is a character, not a string (Single quotes = char, Double quotes = string). So instead of both parts being converted to strings to form "_3", it's treating the character as a number (ASCII code 95), adding 3 to it, THEN converting it to a string... So it becomes "1_2" + "98" Very subtle. I like it.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Cute. Thanks.
I'd rather be phishing!
-
That has nothing to do with the fact that JS is loosely typed, but the fact that JS doesn't have a char type. So '_' is just a string, equivalent to "_", and thus 3 is concatenated as though it was a string. C# would have done the same if '_' was a string and not a char. Basically, it's not loosely typed, but poorly typed :)
Best, Sander arrgh.js - Bringing LINQ to JavaScript SQL Server for C# Developers Succinctly Object-Oriented Programming in C# Succinctly
It has everything to do with it bro, there is no char type in JS.... because it's loosely typed. Btw, the sky is blue. ;)
Jeremy Falcon
-
That has nothing to do with the fact that JS is loosely typed, but the fact that JS doesn't have a char type. So '_' is just a string, equivalent to "_", and thus 3 is concatenated as though it was a string. C# would have done the same if '_' was a string and not a char. Basically, it's not loosely typed, but poorly typed :)
Best, Sander arrgh.js - Bringing LINQ to JavaScript SQL Server for C# Developers Succinctly Object-Oriented Programming in C# Succinctly
-
Is that what caused the CSS to go wack-a-doodle? :-D
There are two kinds of people in the world: those who can extrapolate from incomplete data. There are only 10 types of people in the world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
Which CSS?
cheers Chris Maunder
-
It is.
cheers Chris Maunder
-
Which CSS?
cheers Chris Maunder
Dunno for him, but for me it keeps on resetting the layout like I'm not logged in... going to compact view, back to fixed from fluid, etc. On a Mac in Chrome if that helps.
Jeremy Falcon
-
I thought that I was the only one who still uses GIMP. ;)
if (Object.DividedByZero == true) { Universe.Implode(); } Meus ratio ex fortis machina. Simplicitatis de formae ac munus. -Foothill, 2016
Well, now there's two of you. ;P
Jeremy Falcon
-
This the part where you say, oh but it has some types... go on... do it. ;P
Jeremy Falcon
Must... Not... Give... In... Oh crap. JavaScript DOES have some types though! It even has a typeof operator and makes use of prototypes. I'm not usually the type to correct people on the internet, but this was typically a situation that needed some clearing up. Sadly, JavaScript is the type of language I like to avoid. I'm done typing now.
Best, Sander arrgh.js - Bringing LINQ to JavaScript SQL Server for C# Developers Succinctly Object-Oriented Programming in C# Succinctly
-
Must... Not... Give... In... Oh crap. JavaScript DOES have some types though! It even has a typeof operator and makes use of prototypes. I'm not usually the type to correct people on the internet, but this was typically a situation that needed some clearing up. Sadly, JavaScript is the type of language I like to avoid. I'm done typing now.
Best, Sander arrgh.js - Bringing LINQ to JavaScript SQL Server for C# Developers Succinctly Object-Oriented Programming in C# Succinctly
You gotta connect the dots man. You're seeing black and white... when the truth is I am not wrong... however I am not inclined to write a book on the subject on every post I make. You seem to want to... I'm over that stage in life man. I have other things to do. I mean God forbid I visit CP for less than an hour when posting in the lounge, am I right? So, since I need to prove to you I know what I'm talking about... Nowhere anywhere does it say a loosely typed language cannot have any types. There is no language on the planet I know of that has only one type. JS is a loosely typed language, and thus the way it behaves is a direct result of that... and yes it has basic types... which is a result of design from being loosely typed in the first place. You need less types when it's loose, and so affects things like the example I posted. Just for a breakdown. You may know this already, but hey... [^] I was pointing out the irony, that in this instance, C# was doing some magic like a dynamically typed language would. And in this instance, JS actually handles the case better. And before you say it, I have nothing against a strongly typed language. I'd think most people can infer that if they've been programming for any length of time. Seriously man... get a hobby... :P
Jeremy Falcon
-
Must... Not... Give... In... Oh crap. JavaScript DOES have some types though! It even has a typeof operator and makes use of prototypes. I'm not usually the type to correct people on the internet, but this was typically a situation that needed some clearing up. Sadly, JavaScript is the type of language I like to avoid. I'm done typing now.
Best, Sander arrgh.js - Bringing LINQ to JavaScript SQL Server for C# Developers Succinctly Object-Oriented Programming in C# Succinctly
And obligatory XKCD :) xkcd: Duty Calls[^]
Jeremy Falcon
-
You gotta connect the dots man. You're seeing black and white... when the truth is I am not wrong... however I am not inclined to write a book on the subject on every post I make. You seem to want to... I'm over that stage in life man. I have other things to do. I mean God forbid I visit CP for less than an hour when posting in the lounge, am I right? So, since I need to prove to you I know what I'm talking about... Nowhere anywhere does it say a loosely typed language cannot have any types. There is no language on the planet I know of that has only one type. JS is a loosely typed language, and thus the way it behaves is a direct result of that... and yes it has basic types... which is a result of design from being loosely typed in the first place. You need less types when it's loose, and so affects things like the example I posted. Just for a breakdown. You may know this already, but hey... [^] I was pointing out the irony, that in this instance, C# was doing some magic like a dynamically typed language would. And in this instance, JS actually handles the case better. And before you say it, I have nothing against a strongly typed language. I'd think most people can infer that if they've been programming for any length of time. Seriously man... get a hobby... :P
Jeremy Falcon
You know I can't sit around idle when people on the internet say bad things about my favorite programming language. Or positive things about my least favorite programming language. I'm just human and I won't pass on a chance to bitch about JavaScript. Having said that, JavaScript DOES have types. It has strings, numbers, booleans null, undefined and objects... Why do you persist that JavaScript has no types when the opposite is obviously true? ;p
Best, Sander arrgh.js - Bringing LINQ to JavaScript SQL Server for C# Developers Succinctly Object-Oriented Programming in C# Succinctly
