If they do I hope real devs take care of it. If not... R.I.P. Visual Studio 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.

Sure, but in this case, it was sufficient for running down this bug, because of the way the engine works. I did change it to + just to dot my "i"s and cross my "t"s but same result. Check out my IoT graphics library here: https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx And my IoT UI/User Experience library here: https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix

Technically, they still have THOSE MENUS; it's just that the "Apply title case styling to menu bar" option seems to be ticked by default now. :) "These people looked deep within my soul and assigned me a number based on the order in which I joined." - Homer

I'm still trying to figure why I should much care about .NET <#odd> if they aren't LTS. Knowing what's coming when it's "real" is good I guess, but they tend towards adjusting it such that you'd have been better off never knowing about it until the final cut so as to avoid future confusion. I think the release cadence is a bit fast and hope we're not destined for whatever "overdevelopment" in C# that all the C++ gurus were bitching about in their sphere a fair while back. I've always been a MSFT fanboy. They'd more recently taken .NET a good direction and made some great strides. I hope they're not really going to mess it up by bloating it with nonsense. I also think LTS of 3 years is a year or two short. We're running .NET that's 10 years old in some legacy spots.

Maybe because the first SDK did not work so Lekker[^] :laugh:

Kent Sharkey wrote: Why we can't have nice things Mankind not being kind to man at all 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.

Amarnath S wrote: Doesn't this imply that commercial/enterprise use of the Community Edition is not permitted? Recehcked license terms: Quote: a. Individual License. If you are an individual working on your own applications, either to sell or for any other purpose, you may use the software to develop and test those applications. Anyway the only benefit I get are CP points and even those are few and of little commercial value :laugh: Mircea

I don't understand your rejection of this feature. In the example, y is certainly within scope when foo() is called. The problem arises because the scope determined by the return address is not correct until foo() returns. You select which set of locals to display by selecting a stack frame. If the called and calling function have identically named variables, they are in different stack frames. You'll see one when selecting one stack frame, the other when selecting the other stack frame. If this is not sufficient to keep the two apart, I guess that you will feel the same confusion when creating or modifying the code in a plain code editor, regardless of debugger features. [Edit: This was an answer to another reply that seems to have been subsequently deleted.] Religious freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make five.

Forgive me, but hearing something said by someone else doesn't make it a fact. The history of science is littered with mistakes by scientists who were adamant that they were right about something, when it later turned out they were completely wrong.

Cheers mate! "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!

Besides AI getting it wrong: 1) If you have concurrent writers to the queue you do not know something else does not insert a new "last" item after you checked what it is. This can of course be solved with some locking, but then we are at the next point: 2) If you do not have concurrent writers you can just capture the last item to a variable as you enqueue it.