Search Results

Search found 88909 results on 3557 pages for 'inline code'.

Page 5/3557 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Why can't c# use inline anonymous lambdas or delegates?

    - by Samuel Meacham
    I hope I worded the title of my question appropriately. In c# I can use lambdas (as delegates), or the older delegate syntax to do this: Func<string> fnHello = () => "hello"; Console.WriteLine(fnHello()); Func<string> fnHello2 = delegate() { return "hello 2"; }; Console.WriteLine(fnHello2()); So why can't I "inline" the lambda or the delegate body, and avoid capturing it in a named variable (making it anonymous)? // Inline anonymous lambda not allowed Console.WriteLine( (() => "hello inline lambda")() ); // Inline anonymous delegate not allowed Console.WriteLine( (delegate() { return "hello inline delegate"; })() ); An example that works in javascript (just for comparison) is: alert( (function(){ return "hello inline anonymous function from javascript"; })() ); Which produces the expected alert box. UPDATE: It seems you can have an inline anonymous lambda in C#, if you cast appropriately, but the amount of ()'s starts to make it unruly. // Inline anonymous lambda with appropriate cast IS allowed Console.WriteLine( ((Func<string>)(() => "hello inline anonymous lambda"))() ); Perhaps the compiler can't infer the sig of the anonymous delegate to know which Console.WriteLine() you're trying to call? Does anyone know why this specific cast is required?

    Read the article

  • F# Inline Function Specialization

    - by Ben
    Hi, My current project involves lexing and parsing script code, and as such I'm using fslex and fsyacc. Fslex LexBuffers can come in either LexBuffer<char> and LexBuffer<byte> varieties, and I'd like to have the option to use both. In order to user both, I need a lexeme function of type ^buf - string. Thus far, my attempts at specialization have looked like: let inline lexeme (lexbuf: ^buf) : ^buf -> string where ^buf : (member Lexeme: char array) = new System.String(lexbuf.Lexeme) let inline lexeme (lexbuf: ^buf) : ^buf -> string where ^buf : (member Lexeme: byte array) = System.Text.Encoding.UTF8.GetString(lexbuf.Lexeme) I'm getting a type error stating that the function body should be of type ^buf -> string, but the inferred type is just string. Clearly, I'm doing something (majorly?) wrong. Is what I'm attempting even possible in F#? If so, can someone point me to the proper path? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • vertical align of some inline-block divs with different content

    - by Jan Möller
    i want to center some inline-block divs. I want to create a responsive design, so if the screen size is too small, the horizontal elements should be under each other. How can i center them vertical, so they are side by side without a difference in height? (See fiddle). Moveover those elements should be verticaly centered, if the screen size is too small. http://jsfiddle.net/5dpRs/52/ CSS .repeat { display:inline-block; border-style:solid; border-width:2px; height:50px; width:50px; } #content { border-style:solid; border-width:2px; text-align:center; } HTML <div id="content"> <div class="repeat"> <p>hello</p> </div> <div class="repeat"> </div> </div> Thank you :)

    Read the article

  • Fastest inline-assembly spinlock

    - by sigvardsen
    I'm writing a multithreaded application in c++, where performance is critical. I need to use a lot of locking while copying small structures between threads, for this I have chosen to use spinlocks. I have done some research and speed testing on this and I found that most implementations are roughly equally fast: Microsofts CRITICAL_SECTION, with SpinCount set to 1000, scores about 140 time units Implementing this algorithm with Microsofts InterlockedCompareExchange scores about 95 time units Ive also tried to use some inline assembly with __asm {} using something like this code and it scores about 70 time units, but I am not sure that a proper memory barrier has been created. Edit: The times given here are the time it takes for 2 threads to lock and unlock the spinlock 1,000,000 times. I know this isn't a lot of difference but as a spinlock is a heavily used object, one would think that programmers would have agreed on the fastest possible way to make a spinlock. Googling it leads to many different approaches however. I would think this aforementioned method would be the fastest if implemented using inline assembly and using the instruction CMPXCHG8B instead of comparing 32bit registers. Furthermore memory barriers must be taken into account, this could be done by LOCK CMPXHG8B (I think?), which guarantees "exclusive rights" to the shared memory between cores. At last [some suggests] that for busy waits should be accompanied by NOP:REP that would enable Hyper-threading processors to switch to another thread, but I am not sure whether this is true or not? From my performance-test of different spinlocks, it is seen that there is not much difference, but for purely academic purpose I would like to know which one is fastest. However as I have extremely limited experience in the assembly-language and with memory barriers, I would be happy if someone could write the assembly code for the last example I provided with LOCK CMPXCHG8B and proper memory barriers in the following template: __asm { spin_lock: ;locking code. spin_unlock: ;unlocking code. }

    Read the article

  • Freelancing - Share the source code?

    - by Tec
    I have developed a couple of form based windows application in vb.net for a client and they all work well and he paid me through a freelance site. I have handed over the executable and the setup to the client and all was well. Now the client wants the source code for the application. Is there a general practice on sharing the source code with the client? Please note - the client never mentioned he needs the source code and he is now asking for it after a week after the app was completed and he made the payment. I don't mind sharing the source code, but I am not sure if I should. This probably means the client would not hire me again and the bigger question is the source code really his property? This question may have been asked a few times, but I cannot still draw a conclusion on what is right. update To answer some of the questions: The source code was not mentioned at all. There was no exclusive contract signed except for the usual agreement of the freelance site. I am not sure if software development comes under work for hire and is it valid for users outside of the US? The reason for not sharing the source code was this was a very small project and I got paid for a mere few hours. So if I have an option then definitely I would want to keep the source code to myself as that gives a possibility of the client coming back. The application works flawlessly and the code is solid. Also, the task that the client wanted to achieve was very challenging and I would not like other programmers (competitors) to know how I achieved it. So unless I get the confirmation that the source code is purely the property of the client, I would not be willing to share it.

    Read the article

  • Code Trivia #7

    - by João Angelo
    Lets go for another code trivia, it’s business as usual, you just need to find what’s wrong with the following code: static void Main(string[] args) { using (var file = new FileStream("test", FileMode.Create) { WriteTimeout = 1 }) { file.WriteByte(0); } } TIP: There’s something very wrong with this specific code and there’s also another subtle problem that arises due to how the code is structured.

    Read the article

  • Code review recommendations and Code Smells

    - by Michael Freidgeim
    Some time ago Twitter told that I am similar to Boris Lipschitz . Indeed he is also .Net programmer from Russia living in Australia. I‘ve read his list of Code Review points and found them quite comprehensive. A few points  were not clear for me, and it forced me for a further reading.In particular the statement “Exception should not be used to return a status or an error code.” wasn’t fully clear for me, because sometimes we store an exception as an object with all error details and I believe it’s a valid approach. However I agree that throwing exceptions should be avoided, if you expect to return error as a part of a normal flow. Related link: http://codeutopia.net/blog/2010/03/11/should-a-failed-function-return-a-value-or-throw-an-exception/ Another point slightly puzzled me“If Thread.Sleep() is used, can it be replaced with something else, ei Timer, AutoResetEvent, etc” . I believe, that there are very rare cases, when anyone using Thread.Sleep in any production code. Usually it is used in mocks and prototypes.I had to look further to clarify “Dependency injection is used instead of Service Location pattern”.Even most of articles has some preferences to Dependency injection, there are also advantages to use Service Location. E.g see http://geekswithblogs.net/KyleBurns/archive/2012/04/27/dependency-injection-vs.-service-locator.aspx. http://www.cookcomputing.com/blog/archives/000587.html  refers to Concluding Thoughts of Martin Fowler The choice between Service Locator and Dependency Injection is less important than the principle of separating service configuration from the use of services within an applicationThe post had a link to excellent article Code Smells of Jeff Atwood, but the statement, that “code should not pass a review if it violates any of the  code smells” sound too strict for my environment. In particular, I disagree with “Dead Code” recommendation “Ruthlessly delete code that isn't being used. That's why we have source control systems!”. If there is a chance that not used code will be required in a future, it is convenient to keep it as commented or #if/#endif blocks with appropriate explanation, why it could be required in the future. TFS is a good source control system, but context search in source code of current solution is much easier than finding something in the previous versions of the code.I also found a link to a good book “Clean Code.A.Handbook.of.Agile.Software”

    Read the article

  • syscall from within GCC inline assembly

    - by guest
    is it possible to write a single character using a syscall from within an inline assembly block? if so, how? it should look "something" like this: __asm__ __volatile__ ( " movl $1, %%edx \n\t" " movl $80, %%ecx \n\t" " movl $0, %%ebx \n\t" " movl $4, %%eax \n\t" " int $0x80 \n\t" ::: "%eax", "%ebx", "%ecx", "%edx" ); $80 is 'P' in ascii, but that returns nothing. any suggestions much appreciated!

    Read the article

  • CSS- removing horizontal space in list menu using display inline property

    - by Kayote
    Hi All, Im new to CSS and have a set target of learning & publishing my website in CSS by the end of the month. My question: Im trying to build a CSS horizontal menu with hover drop downs, however, when I use the 'display: inline' property with li (list) items, I get horizontal spaces between the li (list) items in the bar. How do I remove this space? Here is the html: <div id="tabas_menu"> <ul> <li id="tabBut0" class="tabBut">Overview</li> <li id="tabBut1" class="tabBut">Collar</li> <li id="tabBut2" class="tabBut">Sleeves</li> <li id="tabBut3" class="tabBut">Body</li> </ul> </div> And here is the CSS: #tabas_menu { position: absolute; background: rgb(123,345,567); top: 110px; left: 200px; } ul#tabas_menu { padding: 0; margin: 0; } .tabBut { display: inline; white-space: list-style: none; background: -webkit-gradient(linear, 0% 0%, 0% 100%, from(rgba(255,142,190,1)),to(rgba(188,22,93,1))); background: -moz-linear-gradient(top, rgba(255,142,190,1), rgba(188,22,93,1)); font-family: helvetica, calibri, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; font-weight: bold; line-height: 20px; text-shadow: 1px 1px 1px rgba(99,99,99,0.5); -moz-border-radius: 0.3em; -moz-box-shadow: 0px 0px 2px rgba(0,0,0,0.5); -webkit-border-radius: 0.3em; -webkit-box-shadow: 0px 0px 2px rgba(0,0,0,0.5); padding: 6px 18px; border: 1px solid rgba(0,0,0,0.4); margin: 0; } I can get the space removed using the 'float: left/right' property but its bugging me as to why I cannot achieve the same effect by just using the display property.

    Read the article

  • recommending gcc to inline the function

    - by thetna
    I don't know how feasible it is and how sensible is this question here. Is there any changes that we can make in makefile to recommend GCC inline all the function although the functions are not inlined during the declaration or nowhere in the source file.

    Read the article

  • What is New in ASP.NET 4.0 Code Access Security

    - by Xiaohong
    ASP.NET Code Access Security (CAS) is a feature that helps protect server applications on hosting multiple Web sites, ASP.NET lets you assign a configurable trust level that corresponds to a predefined set of permissions. ASP.NET has predefined ASP.NET Trust Levels and Policy Files that you can assign to applications, you also can assign custom trust level and policy files. Most web hosting companies run ASP.NET applications in Medium Trust to prevent that one website affect or harm another site etc. As .NET Framework's Code Access Security model has evolved, ASP.NET 4.0 Code Access Security also has introduced several changes and improvements. The main change in ASP.NET 4.0 CAS In ASP.NET v4.0 partial trust applications, application domain can have a default partial trust permission set as opposed to being full-trust, the permission set name is defined in the <trust /> new attribute permissionSetName that is used to initialize the application domain . By default, the PermissionSetName attribute value is "ASP.Net" which is the name of the permission set you can find in all predefined partial trust configuration files. <trust level="Something" permissionSetName="ASP.Net" /> This is ASP.NET 4.0 new CAS model. For compatibility ASP.NET 4.0 also support legacy CAS model where application domain still has full trust permission set. You can specify new legacyCasModel attribute on the <trust /> element to indicate whether the legacy CAS model is enabled. By default legacyCasModel is false which means that new 4.0 CAS model is the default. <trust level="Something" legacyCasModel="true|false" /> In .Net FX 4.0 Config directory, there are two set of predefined partial trust config files for each new CAS model and legacy CAS model, trust config files with name legacy.XYZ.config are for legacy CAS model: New CAS model: Legacy CAS model: web_hightrust.config legacy.web_hightrust.config web_mediumtrust.config legacy.web_mediumtrust.config web_lowtrust.config legacy.web_lowtrust.config web_minimaltrust.config legacy.web_minimaltrust.config   The figure below shows in ASP.NET 4.0 new CAS model what permission set to grant to code for partial trust application using predefined partial trust levels and policy files:    There also some benefits that comes with the new CAS model: You can lock down a machine by making all managed code no-execute by default (e.g. setting the MyComputer zone to have no managed execution code permissions), it should still be possible to configure ASP.NET web applications to run as either full-trust or partial trust. UNC share doesn’t require full trust with CASPOL at machine-level CAS policy. Side effect that comes with the new CAS model: processRequestInApplicationTrust attribute is deprecated  in new CAS model since application domain always has partial trust permission set in new CAS model.   In ASP.NET 4.0 legacy CAS model or ASP.NET 2.0 CAS model, even though you assign partial trust level to a application but the application domain still has full trust permission set. The figure below shows in ASP.NET 4.0 legacy CAS model (or ASP.NET 2.0 CAS model) what permission set to grant to code for partial trust application using predefined partial trust levels and policy files:     What $AppDirUrl$, $CodeGen$, $Gac$ represents: $AppDirUrl$ The application's virtual root directory. This allows permissions to be applied to code that is located in the application's bin directory. For example, if a virtual directory is mapped to C:\YourWebApp, then $AppDirUrl$ would equate to C:\YourWebApp. $CodeGen$ The directory that contains dynamically generated assemblies (for example, the result of .aspx page compiles). This can be configured on a per application basis and defaults to %windir%\Microsoft.NET\Framework\{version}\Temporary ASP.NET Files. $CodeGen$ allows permissions to be applied to dynamically generated assemblies. $Gac$ Any assembly that is installed in the computer's global assembly cache (GAC). This allows permissions to be granted to strong named assemblies loaded from the GAC by the Web application.   The new customization of CAS Policy in ASP.NET 4.0 new CAS model 1. Define which named permission set in partial trust configuration files By default the permission set that will be assigned at application domain initialization time is the named "ASP.Net" permission set found in all predefined partial trust configuration files. However ASP.NET 4.0 allows you set PermissionSetName attribute to define which named permission set in a partial trust configuration file should be the one used to initialize an application domain. Example: add "ASP.Net_2" named permission set in partial trust configuration file: <PermissionSet class="NamedPermissionSet" version="1" Name="ASP.Net_2"> <IPermission class="FileIOPermission" version="1" Read="$AppDir$" PathDiscovery="$AppDir$" /> <IPermission class="ReflectionPermission" version="1" Flags ="RestrictedMemberAccess" /> <IPermission class="SecurityPermission " version="1" Flags ="Execution, ControlThread, ControlPrincipal, RemotingConfiguration" /></PermissionSet> Then you can use "ASP.Net_2" named permission set for the application domain permission set: <trust level="Something" legacyCasModel="false" permissionSetName="ASP.Net_2" /> 2. Define a custom set of Full Trust Assemblies for an application By using the new fullTrustAssemblies element to configure a set of Full Trust Assemblies for an application, you can modify set of partial trust assemblies to full trust at the machine, site or application level. The configuration definition is shown below: <fullTrustAssemblies> <add assemblyName="MyAssembly" version="1.1.2.3" publicKey="hex_char_representation_of_key_blob" /></fullTrustAssemblies> 3. Define <CodeGroup /> policy in partial trust configuration files ASP.NET 4.0 new CAS model will retain the ability for developers to optionally define <CodeGroup />with membership conditions and assigned permission sets. The specific restriction in ASP.NET 4.0 new CAS model though will be that the results of evaluating custom policies can only result in one of two outcomes: either an assembly is granted full trust, or an assembly is granted the partial trust permission set currently associated with the running application domain. It will not be possible to use custom policies to create additional custom partial trust permission sets. When parsing the partial trust configuration file: Any assemblies that match to code groups associated with "PermissionSet='FullTrust'" will run at full trust. Any assemblies that match to code groups associated with "PermissionSet='Nothing'" will result in a PolicyError being thrown from the CLR. This is acceptable since it provides administrators with a way to do a blanket-deny of managed code followed by selectively defining policy in a <CodeGroup /> that re-adds assemblies that would be allowed to run. Any assemblies that match to code groups associated with other permissions sets will be interpreted to mean the assembly should run at the permission set of the appdomain. This means that even though syntactically a developer could define additional "flavors" of partial trust in an ASP.NET partial trust configuration file, those "flavors" will always be ignored. Example: defines full trust in <CodeGroup /> for my strong named assemblies in partial trust config files: <CodeGroup class="FirstMatchCodeGroup" version="1" PermissionSetName="Nothing"> <IMembershipCondition    class="AllMembershipCondition"    version="1" /> <CodeGroup    class="UnionCodeGroup"    version="1"    PermissionSetName="FullTrust"    Name="My_Strong_Name"    Description="This code group grants code signed full trust. "> <IMembershipCondition      class="StrongNameMembershipCondition" version="1"       PublicKeyBlob="hex_char_representation_of_key_blob" /> </CodeGroup> <CodeGroup   class="UnionCodeGroup" version="1" PermissionSetName="ASP.Net">   <IMembershipCondition class="UrlMembershipCondition" version="1" Url="$AppDirUrl$/*" /> </CodeGroup> <CodeGroup class="UnionCodeGroup" version="1" PermissionSetName="ASP.Net">   <IMembershipCondition class="UrlMembershipCondition" version="1" Url="$CodeGen$/*"   /> </CodeGroup></CodeGroup>   4. Customize CAS policy at runtime in ASP.NET 4.0 new CAS model ASP.NET 4.0 new CAS model allows to customize CAS policy at runtime by using custom HostSecurityPolicyResolver that overrides the ASP.NET code access security policy. Example: use custom host security policy resolver to resolve partial trust web application bin folder MyTrustedAssembly.dll to full trust at runtime: You can create a custom host security policy resolver and compile it to assembly MyCustomResolver.dll with strong name enabled and deploy in GAC: public class MyCustomResolver : HostSecurityPolicyResolver{ public override HostSecurityPolicyResults ResolvePolicy(Evidence evidence) { IEnumerator hostEvidence = evidence.GetHostEnumerator(); while (hostEvidence.MoveNext()) { object hostEvidenceObject = hostEvidence.Current; if (hostEvidenceObject is System.Security.Policy.Url) { string assemblyName = hostEvidenceObject.ToString(); if (assemblyName.Contains(“MyTrustedAssembly.dll”) return HostSecurityPolicyResult.FullTrust; } } //default fall-through return HostSecurityPolicyResult.DefaultPolicy; }} Because ASP.NET accesses the custom HostSecurityPolicyResolver during application domain initialization, and a custom policy resolver requires full trust, you also can add a custom policy resolver in <fullTrustAssemblies /> , or deploy in the GAC. You also need configure a custom HostSecurityPolicyResolver instance by adding the HostSecurityPolicyResolverType attribute in the <trust /> element: <trust level="Something" legacyCasModel="false" hostSecurityPolicyResolverType="MyCustomResolver, MyCustomResolver" permissionSetName="ASP.Net" />   Note: If an assembly policy define in <CodeGroup/> and also in hostSecurityPolicyResolverType, hostSecurityPolicyResolverType will win. If an assembly added in <fullTrustAssemblies/> then the assembly has full trust no matter what policy in <CodeGroup/> or in hostSecurityPolicyResolverType.   Other changes in ASP.NET 4.0 CAS Use the new transparency model introduced in .Net Framework 4.0 Change in dynamically compiled code generated assemblies by ASP.NET: In new CAS model they will be marked as security transparent level2 to use Framework 4.0 security transparent rule that means partial trust code is treated as completely Transparent and it is more strict enforcement. In legacy CAS model they will be marked as security transparent level1 to use Framework 2.0 security transparent rule for compatibility. Most of ASP.NET products runtime assemblies are also changed to be marked as security transparent level2 to switch to SecurityTransparent code by default unless SecurityCritical or SecuritySafeCritical attribute specified. You also can look at Security Changes in the .NET Framework 4 for more information about these security attributes. Support conditional APTCA If an assembly is marked with the Conditional APTCA attribute to allow partially trusted callers, and if you want to make the assembly both visible and accessible to partial-trust code in your web application, you must add a reference to the assembly in the partialTrustVisibleAssemblies section: <partialTrustVisibleAssemblies> <add assemblyName="MyAssembly" publicKey="hex_char_representation_of_key_blob" />/partialTrustVisibleAssemblies>   Most of ASP.NET products runtime assemblies are also changed to be marked as conditional APTCA to prevent use of ASP.NET APIs in partial trust environments such as Winforms or WPF UI controls hosted in Internet Explorer.   Differences between ASP.NET new CAS model and legacy CAS model: Here list some differences between ASP.NET new CAS model and legacy CAS model ASP.NET 4.0 legacy CAS model  : Asp.net partial trust appdomains have full trust permission Multiple different permission sets in a single appdomain are allowed in ASP.NET partial trust configuration files Code groups Machine CAS policy is honored processRequestInApplicationTrust attribute is still honored    New configuration setting for legacy model: <trust level="Something" legacyCASModel="true" ></trust><partialTrustVisibleAssemblies> <add assemblyName="MyAssembly" publicKey="hex_char_representation_of_key_blob" /></partialTrustVisibleAssemblies>   ASP.NET 4.0 new CAS model: ASP.NET will now run in homogeneous application domains. Only full trust or the app-domain's partial trust grant set, are allowable permission sets. It is no longer possible to define arbitrary permission sets that get assigned to different assemblies. If an application currently depends on fine-tuning the partial trust permission set using the ASP.NET partial trust configuration file, this will no longer be possible. processRequestInApplicationTrust attribute is deprecated Dynamically compiled assemblies output by ASP.NET build providers will be updated to explicitly mark assemblies as transparent. ASP.NET partial trust grant sets will be independent from any enterprise, machine, or user CAS policy levels. A simplified model for locking down web servers that only allows trusted managed web applications to run. Machine policy used to always grant full-trust to managed code (based on membership conditions) can instead be configured using the new ASP.NET 4.0 full-trust assembly configuration section. The full-trust assembly configuration section requires explicitly listing each assembly as opposed to using membership conditions. Alternatively, the membership condition(s) used in machine policy can instead be re-defined in a <CodeGroup /> within ASP.NET's partial trust configuration file to grant full-trust.   New configuration setting for new model: <trust level="Something" legacyCASModel="false" permissionSetName="ASP.Net" hostSecurityPolicyResolverType=".NET type string" ></trust><fullTrustAssemblies> <add assemblyName=”MyAssembly” version=”1.0.0.0” publicKey="hex_char_representation_of_key_blob" /></fullTrustAssemblies><partialTrustVisibleAssemblies> <add assemblyName="MyAssembly" publicKey="hex_char_representation_of_key_blob" /></partialTrustVisibleAssemblies>     Hope this post is helpful to better understand the ASP.Net 4.0 CAS. Xiaohong Tang ASP.NET QA Team

    Read the article

  • Specify an inline callback function as an argument.

    - by Matthias Vance
    LS, Let me first explain what I'm trying to achieve using some pseudo-code (JavaScript). // Declare our function that takes a callback as as an argument, and calls the callback with true. B(func) { func(true); } // Call the function B(function(bool success) { /* code that uses success */ }); I hope this says it all. If not, please comment on my question so I can write a little more to clarify my issue. What I want is to have code like this in C++. I have tried to use lambda functions, but I was unable to specify a parameter type for those. Kind regards, Matthias Vance

    Read the article

  • Tool to convert inline C' into a code behind

    - by Jon Jones
    Hi I have a number of legacy web controls (ascx) that contains huge amounts of inline C#. The forms contain a number of repeated and duplicate code. Our first plan is to move the code into code behinds per file, then refactor etc... were doing this to upgrade the client to the latest version of their cms At the moment we are going to have to manually copy and paste hundreds files, convert the namespace client-side imports into usings, etc... does anybody PLEASE know of a tool that can do the majority of this work for us ? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Tips on a tool to measure code quality?

    - by Cristi Diaconescu
    I'm looking for a tool that can provide code quality metrics. For instance it could report very long functions (spaghetti code) very complex classes (which could contain do-it-all code) ... While we're on the (subjective:-) subject of code quality, what other code metrics would you suggest? I'm targetting C#/.NET code, but I'm sure this could extend to most programming languages.

    Read the article

  • Evaluating php generated javascript "inline"?

    - by talkingnews
    If you look at the source of this page http://kingston.talking-newspapers.co.uk/ you will see a large amount of inline javascript near the top. I don't really want all this extra stuff floating around in my page source, I'd much rather get it off into a script tag, and then I can minify it and all sorts. If I call it as a php file, this SHOULD work in theory, I just end the js file extension with php instead, and in the header I put the following: header("Content-type:application/x-javascript"); but... a lot of the php variables used to generate the playlist within the javascript are setup at the beginning of the main index.php file, and in calling this php-generated js playlist file like this, it seems to evaluate it entirely separately, so it's full of errors. The only way round it I can think of is to have the page write a file, then immediately read it in. The other thing is, the playlist is likely to change often and dynamically, so I think I need to get minify to NOT cache it?

    Read the article

  • C2244 when trying to call the pow function from inline assembly

    - by schrödingers cat
    I would like to call the pow function from inline assembly. The problem is i'm getting error C2244: 'pow' : unable to match function definition to an existing declaration. I'm new to assembly so this may be a trivial question but how do i resolve this? I guess it has something to do with the compiler not beeing able to properly resolve the overload of pow. The following code fragment is causing the error: do_POW: // push first argument to the stack sub esp, size value_type fld qword ptr [ecx] fstp qword ptr [esp] // push second argument to the stack sub esp, size value_type fld qword ptr [ecx - size value_type] fstp qword ptr [esp]and pop fpu stack // call the pow function call pow sub ecx, size value_type fstp qword ptr [ecx] add esp, 2 * size value_type jmp loop_start

    Read the article

  • Pros and Cons of Different macro function / inline methods in C

    - by Robert S. Barnes
    According to the C FAQ, there are basically 3 practical methods for "inlining" code in C: #define MACRO(arg1, arg2) do { \ /* declarations */ \ stmt1; \ stmt2; \ /* ... */ \ } while(0) /* (no trailing ; ) */ or #define FUNC(arg1, arg2) (expr1, expr2, expr3) To clarify this one, the arguments are used in the expressions, and the comma operator returns the value of the last expression. or using the inline declaration which is supported as an extension to gcc and in the c99 standard. The do { ... } while (0) method is widely used in the Linux kernel, but I haven't encountered the other two methods very often if at all. I'm referring specifically to multi-statement "functions", not single statement ones like MAX or MIN. What are the pros and cons of each method, and why would you choose one over the other in various situations?

    Read the article

  • Inline javascript performance.

    - by Geromey
    I know it is better coding practice to avoid inline javascript like: <img id="the_image" onclick="do_this(true);return false;"/> I am thinking about switching this kind of stuff for bound jquery click events like: $("#the_image").bind("click",function(){ do_this(true); return false; }); Will I lose any performance if I bind a ton of click events? I am not worried about the time it takes to initially bind the events, but the response times between clicking and it happening. I bet if there is a difference, it is negligible, but I will have a ton of functions bound. I'm wondering if browsers treat the onclick attribute the same way as a bound event. Thanks

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >