@morbiuswilters said:
In the context of Unicode graphics, "black" means filled-in whereas "white" means outlined. Since the card suit is red it actually makes sense that they rendered it in red.
Today, I learned things!
@morbiuswilters said:
In the context of Unicode graphics, "black" means filled-in whereas "white" means outlined. Since the card suit is red it actually makes sense that they rendered it in red.
Today, I learned things!
@Spectre said:
@barrabus said:No, you don't understand. Hotmail is not parsing anything as HTML. There was no HTML in the subject line to begin with. It is simply that Hotmail will replace Unicode Character 'BLACK HEART SUIT' (U+2665) with<img src="http://gfx2.hotmail.com/mail/w4/pr04/ltr/emoji/emoji_02665.gif" class="Emoji$02665$1546" title="Black heart (cards)" alt="Black heart (cards)">Which, apparently, is an image of a red heart.
It's actually more surprising to me that the Unicode character name includes a colour. What's the point? If you entered that character into a word processor and set the font colour to red, would the word processor also be wrong if it rendered a red glyph?
I'm not saying it's not a WTF, but it's a heck of a lot smaller one than it would have been if they were actually parsing HTML in the subject line, which is the conclusion some people were jumping to.
No, you don't understand. Hotmail is not parsing anything as HTML. There was no HTML in the subject line to begin with. It is simply that Hotmail will replace Unicode Character 'BLACK HEART SUIT' (U+2665) with
<img src="http://gfx2.hotmail.com/mail/w4/pr04/ltr/emoji/emoji_02665.gif" class="Emoji$02665$1546" title="Black heart (cards)" alt="Black heart (cards)">
@TheCPUWizard said:
@pkmnfrk said:@TheCPUWizard said:@Sutherlands said:
Quoting fail. I'm not sure what you're saying, exactly, but you make me look at it and say "this isn't even a valid scenario, since it will dispose of the object and you won't be able to use it."Disposing can object is nothing more than calling a method on that object. There is nothing inherent in this that means " you won't be able to use it", unless the developer of the class in question has explicitly coded in functionallity to detect the call to Dispose and do something special.
...which is the exact semantics that IDisposable demands. If you call Dispose() on, say, a Stream, then calling any of its instance methods will cause an ObjectDisposedException to be thrown. If an object doesn't have any special dispose logic, then it shouldn't even have a Dispose() method.
To paraphase Blakeyrrequat, this shit isn't hard people.
There is nothing that demands those Semantics. The only requirement (in this respect) is that Dispose "releases valuable resources". An object is free to re-create these resources, and many objects (including BCL objects) maintain some properties that are valid even after Dispose.
This is one of the reasons why so many people consider the Disposable Pattern fatally flawed.
Are you arguing that it actually makes sense to return disposed objects, or is this just pedantic dickweedery?
Edit: I re-read the thread again and there were a lot less posts talking about returning from inside a using than I remember. So, uh, nevermind.
@Sutherlands said:
@rstinejr said:
Here's an anti-pattern I've seen at every company I've worked for in the last 20 years, in C, C++, Java, C#, and python:In C#, sure, that's not necessary, but C/C++ don't have an actual bool value, so explicit comparison can get rid of bugs.
if (myBoolean == true)
{
// do something
}
Or, in some cases, be part of a fun-to-find bug:
#define TRUE 1 #define FALSE 0 // more flags #define FLAG_FOO 0x0080 // more flags ... unsigned int isFooFlagSet = flags & FLAG_FOO; ... if (isFooFlagSet == TRUE) { ... }
@blakeyrat said:
@barrabus said:@MeesterTurner said:@russ0519 said:I'm confused. Why did her behavior change between the CRT and the LCD?
Her behaviour didn't change, she always turned it off at night. My guess is that (a) she expected it to auto switch on after turning the PC back on or (b - most likely) couldn't find the power button and wouldn't admit it...But... surely if she could find the button to turn it off, she would be able to find it to turn it back on?
I know I'm trying to apply reason to irrational behaviour, but... I just... bluh...
Guys she was FLIRTING with him, and he didn't pick up on it.
Duh.
She clearly didn't do much research on her target audience.
@MeesterTurner said:
@russ0519 said:I'm confused. Why did her behavior change between the CRT and the LCD?
Her behaviour didn't change, she always turned it off at night. My guess is that (a) she expected it to auto switch on after turning the PC back on or (b - most likely) couldn't find the power button and wouldn't admit it...
But... surely if she could find the button to turn it off, she would be able to find it to turn it back on?
I know I'm trying to apply reason to irrational behaviour, but... I just... bluh...
@morbiuswilters said:
@bgodot said:I also subscribe to the 'evil genie' theory of computer; in that they do exactly what they are told to do, which may not be what you actually wanted."Computer, I command you to give me a 14-inch cock!"
smaller-than-average chicken appears
"Oh, the irony! NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!"
Or... 14 inches in diameter, but only 1 inch long.
@error_NoError said:
What's going to happen to Item6001?
I assume you'd get something like this:
1 Item1 6002 Item1 12003 Item1 2 Item2 6003 Item2 12004 Item2 ... 6000 Item6000 12001 Item6000 18002 Item6000 6001 Item6001 12002 Item6001 18003 Item6001