Search Results

Search found 5 results on 1 pages for 'paercebal'.

Page 1/1 | 1 

  • How do I know if my firewall is on?

    - by paercebal
    I installed Firestarter, and configured my firewall. But I'm in doubt : On boot, I sometimes see a [FAIL] marker, and to the left, I guess it was something like "start firewall". I can't be sure because the message is seen for less than a second, so I wanted to know if there is a way, without starting the whole firestarter software, to know if the firewall is on and working, or not. Either a gadget, or better, some console instruction, the exact name of the firewall process/daemon, or bash script, will do. Edit: I already tested my computer with the "Shield's Up" http://www.grc.com feature, which marks my computer as "Stealth", but as I am behind a router, I'm not surprised. Still, apparently, my computer answers to pings... Strange...

    Read the article

  • POD global object initialization

    - by paercebal
    I've got bitten today by a bug. The following source can be copy/pasted (and then compiled) into a main.cpp file #include <iostream> // The point of SomeGlobalObject is for its // constructor to be launched before the main // ... struct SomeGlobalObject { SomeGlobalObject() ; } ; // ... // Which explains the global object SomeGlobalObject oSomeGlobalObject ; // A POD... I was hoping it would be constructed at // compile time when using an argument list struct MyPod { short m_short ; const char * const m_string ; } ; // declaration/Initialization of a MyPod array MyPod myArrayOfPod[] = { { 1, "Hello" }, { 2, "World" }, { 3, " !" } } ; // declaration/Initialization of an array of array of void * void * myArrayOfVoid[][2] = { { (void *)1, "Hello" }, { (void *)2, "World" }, { (void *)3, " !" } } ; // constructor of the global object... Launched BEFORE main SomeGlobalObject::SomeGlobalObject() { std::cout << "myArrayOfPod[0].m_short : " << myArrayOfPod[0].m_short << std::endl ; std::cout << "myArrayOfVoid[0][0] : " << myArrayOfVoid[0][0] << std::endl ; } // main... What else ? int main(int argc, char* argv[]) { return 0 ; } MyPod being a POD, I believed there would be no constructors. Only initialization at compile time. Thus, the global object SomeGlobalObject would have no problem to use the global array of PODs upon its construction. The problem is that in real life, nothing is so simple. On Visual C++ 2008 (I did not test on other compilers), upon execution myArrayOfPodis not initialized, even ifmyArrayOfVoid` is initialized. So my questions is: Are C++ compilers not supposed to initialize global PODs (including POD structures) at compilation time ? Note that I know global variable are evil, and I know that one can't be sure of the order of creation of global variables declared in different compilation units. The problem here is really the POD C-like initialization which seems to call a constructor (the default, compiler-generated one?). And to make everyone happy: This is on debug. On release, the global array of PODs is correctly initialized.

    Read the article

  • Change the content of a <style> element through JavaScript

    - by paercebal
    The Problem I have the following code: <html> <head> <style id="ID_Style"> .myStyle { color : #FF0000 ; } </style> </head> <body> <p class="myStyle"> Hello World ! </p> </body> </html> And I want to modify the contents of <style> through JavaScript. The Expected Solution The first solution was to use the innerHTML property of the style element (retrieved through its id), but while it works on Firefox, it fails on Internet Explorer 7. So, I used pure DOM methods, that is, creating an element called style, a text node with the desired content, and append the text node as a child of the style node, etc. It fails, too. According to MSDN, the <style> element has an innerHTML property, and according to W3C, the <style> element is a HTMLStyleElement, which derives from HTMLElement, deriving from Element deriving from Node, which has the appendChild method. It seems to behave as if the content of a <style> element was readonly on Internet Explorer. The Question So the question is: Is there a way to modify the content of a <style> element on Internet Explorer? While the current problem is with IE7, a cross-browser solution would be cool, if possible. Appendix Sources: Style Element (MSDN): http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms535898.aspx HTMLStyleElement (W3C): http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/REC-DOM-Level-2-HTML-20030109/html.html#ID-16428977 Complete Test Code You can use this test code if you want to reproduce your problem: <html> <head> <style id="ID_Style"> .myStyle { color : #FF0000 ; } </style> <script> function replaceStyleViaDOM(p_strContent) { var oOld = document.getElementById("ID_Style") ; var oParent = oOld.parentNode ; oParent.removeChild(oOld) ; var oNew = document.createElement("style") ; oParent.appendChild(oNew) ; oNew.setAttribute("id", "ID_Style") ; var oText = document.createTextNode(p_strContent) ; oNew.appendChild(oText) ; } function replaceStyleViaInnerHTML(p_strContent) { document.getElementById("ID_Style").innerHTML = p_strContent ; } </script> <script> function setRedViaDOM() { replaceStyleViaDOM("\n.myStyle { color : #FF0000 ; }\n") } function setRedViaInnerHTML() { replaceStyleViaInnerHTML("\n.myStyle { color : #FF0000 ; }\n") } function setBlueViaDOM() { replaceStyleViaDOM("\n.myStyle { color : #0000FF ; }\n") } function setBlueViaInnerHTML() { replaceStyleViaInnerHTML("\n.myStyle { color : #0000FF ; }\n") } function alertStyle() { alert("*******************\n" + document.getElementById("ID_Style").innerHTML + "\n*******************") ; } </script> </head> <body> <div> <button type="button" onclick="alertStyle()">alert Style</button> <br /> <button type="button" onclick="setRedViaDOM()">set Red via DOM</button> <button type="button" onclick="setRedViaDOM()">set Red via InnerHTML</button> <br /> <button type="button" onclick="setBlueViaDOM()">set Blue via DOM</button> <button type="button" onclick="setBlueViaInnerHTML()">set Blue via InnerHTML</button> </div> <p class="myStyle"> Hello World ! </p> </body> </html> Thanks !

    Read the article

  • Pros and cons of Localisation of technical words ?

    - by paercebal
    This question is directed to the non-english speaking people here. It is somewhat biased because SO is an "english-speaking" web forum, so... In the other hand, most developers would know english anyway... In your locale culture, are technical words translated into locale words ? For example, how "Design Pattern", or "Factory", or whatever are written/said in german, spanish, etc. etc. when used by IT? Are the english words prefered? The local translation? Do the two version (english/locale) are evenly used? Edit Could you write with your answer the locale translation of "Design Pattern"? In french, according to Wikipedia.fr, it is "Patron de conception", which translates back as "Model of Conceptualization" (I guess).

    Read the article

  • templated method on T inside a templated class on TT : Is that possible/correct.

    - by paercebal
    I have a class MyClass which is templated on typename T. But inside, I want a method which is templated on another type TT (which is unrelated to T). After reading/tinkering, I found the following notation: template <typename T> class MyClass { public : template<typename TT> void MyMethod(const TT & param) ; } ; For stylistic reasons (I like to have my templated class declaration in one header file, and the method definitions in another header file), I won't define the method inside the class declaration. So, I have to write it as: template <typename T> // this is the type of the class template <typename TT> // this is the type of the method void MyClass<T>::MyMethod(const TT & param) { // etc. } I knew I had to "declare" the typenames used in the method, but didn't know how exactly, and found through trials and errors. The code above compiles on Visual C++ 2008, but: Is this the correct way to have a method templated on TT inside a class templated on T? As a bonus: Are there hidden problems/surprises/constraints behind this kind of code? (I guess the specializations can be quite amusing to write)

    Read the article

1