Search Results

Search found 4 results on 1 pages for 'n535'.

Page 1/1 | 1 

• Is there any sence in performing binary AND with a number where all bits are set to 1

  - by n535

  Greetings everybody. I have seen examples of such operations for so many times that i began to think that i am getting something wrong with binary arithmetics. Is there any sense to perform the following: byte value = someAnotherByteValue & 0xFF; I don't really understand this, because it does not change anything anyway. Thanks for help. P.S. I was trying to search for information both elsewhere and here, but unsuccessfully.

  Read the article

• Is there any sense in performing binary AND with a number where all bits are set to 1

  - by n535

  Greetings everybody. I have seen examples of such operations for so many times that I begin to think that I am getting something wrong with binary arithmetic. Is there any sense to perform the following: byte value = someAnotherByteValue & 0xFF; I don't really understand this, because it does not change anything anyway. Thanks for help. P.S. I was trying to search for information both elsewhere and here, but unsuccessfully. EDIT: Well, off course i assume that someAnotherByteValue is 8 bits long, the problem is that i don't get why so many people ( i mean professionals ) use such things in their code. For example in Jon Skeet's MiscUtil there is: uint s1 = (uint)(initial & 0xffff); where initial is int.

  Read the article

• Confusion about Nullable<T> constraints

  - by n535

  Greetings everybody. I am sorry, if this was already asked before (searched in vain) or is really very simple, but i just can't get it. The MSDN definition of a Nullable type, states, that it is defined in a following manner: [SerializableAttribute] public struct Nullable<T> where T : struct, new() So the question is quite straightforward: How is this definition possible? Or this is just a typo? Every value type already has a default constructor. Indeed, when i try to compile something like this, the compiler reasonably says, that it is illegal to apply both constraints at the same time, because the second one is implicitly included in a first one. Thanks in advance.

  Read the article

• ReadyNAS issue with Google Apps?

  - by Jauder Ho

  The power went out (again) in my house today so I decided to set up some alerting. Since I have a ReadyNAS and the latest version of Raidinator seems to have SMTP TLS support, I figured I would try setting things up to email to a domain I have hosted on Google Apps. At this point, I have everything working IF I use a Gmail account but as soon as I switch to a Google Apps email address, it stops working and complains with smtpstatus=535 smtpmsg='535-5.7.1 Username and Password not accepted. Learn more at \n535 5.7.1 http://mail.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=14257 30sm16076226wfd.23' errormsg='authentication failed (GNU SASL, method PLAIN)' exitcode=EX_NOPERM I'm wondering if anyone else has encountered this. Google's extremely aggressive captcha does not help but I am able to log in now without a captcha from a browser so I'm open to any ideas why the simple switch of a user/password combo that is supposed to work does not. I'm also attaching my config so that others can see how to set things up.

  Read the article

1