The use of U+212B 'Angstrom sign', which was encoded due to round-trip mapping compatibility with an East-Asian character encoding, is discouraged, and the preferred representation is U+00C5 'capital letter A with ring above', which has the same glyph.

What is the equivalent of unbuffer program on Windows?

A good heuristic is to not trust the libraries you did not write either.

Of course you must not use plain-text passwords and place them directly into scripts. You even must not use telnet protocol at all. And avoid ftp, too. I needn’t say why you should use ssh, instead, need I? And you also must not plug your fingers into 220 voltage AC-output. Telnet was chosen for examples as less harmless alternative, because it’s getting rare in real life, but it can show all basic functions of expect-like tools, even abilities to send passwords. BUT, you can use “Expect and Co” to do other things, I just show the direction.

But in all this incongruous abundance you'll certanly find the links to expect It's just what is wanted: the tool, which is traditionally used to communicate automatically with interactive programs. And as it always occurs, there is unfortunately a little fault in it: expect needs the programming language TCL to be present. Nevertheless if it doesn't discourage you to install and learn one more, though very powerful language, then you can stop your search, because expect and TCL with or without TK have everything and even more for you to write scripts.

“Who cares? Let’s just go with the style-guide” — to which my response is that caring about the details is in the heart of much of our doings. Yes, this is not a major issue; def self.method is not even a code smell. Actually, that whole debate is on the verge of being incidental. Yet the learning process and the gained knowledge involved in understanding each choice is alone worth the discussion. Furthermore, I believe that the class << self notation echoes a better, more stable understanding of Ruby and Object Orientation in Ruby. Lastly, remember that style-guides may change or be altered (carefully, though!).

Micromachines always focused on local multiplayer, and the fun their eccentric races of small toy vehicles competing on tracks made with everyday objects; and all that is present.

There's probably a thousand different directions you can go, but there just needs to be some kind of deeper hook to make this a full-fledged game.

I actually think this is Not Constructive, since there's no absolute rule about which pairings can be joined into a single word or hyhenated, and it's pointless having "votes" here about each specific case. Follow a style guide if you have one, or search Google Books and copy whatever the majority do. Or just make your own decision.

Of course, there is no reason why you can't use <aside> for all sidenotes, if it makes your code simpler. Think of it as civil disobedience. :)

Show/hide output and metadata differences in the diff editor

Academy Games has always prided itself in the quality of its rules. Most of our rules are taught in stages, allowing you to start playing as soon as possible without needing to read everything. We are very careful about the order we teach rules and rely heavily on graphics and pictures to facilitate understanding. We also include a large number of detailed picture examples, often with 3D renders, that help you understand the context of the rules.

This approach is preferable to overriding authenticate_user! in your controller because it won't clobber a lot of "behind the scenes" stuff Devise does (such as storing the attempted URL so the user can be redirected after successful sign in).

# +devise_for+ is meant to play nicely with other routes methods. For example, # by calling +devise_for+ inside a namespace, it automatically nests your devise # controllers: # # namespace :publisher do # devise_for :account # end

Scholar@UC: University of Cincinnati's self-submission institutional repository

Wasn't sure if this belonged as an issue in Devise or Rails though.

The hostname's first n segments, starting from the right (the TLD).

find_field finds by id, name or placeholder text - so find_field('Prefix') should find the element with matching placeholder text rather than needing xpath.

Would it be desirable to specify the new object in a block? That would make it somewhat symmetrical to how Hash.new takes a block as a default value.

This could be an operation, a workflow, or hand-baked Ruby code completely unrelated to Trailblazer.

CSS Grid Layout Generator

Or if you need to change the way the string is assembled, you can provide a proc, for example: if defined?(BetterErrors) BetterErrors.editor = proc { |file, line| "vscode://file/%{file}:%{line}" % { file: URI.encode_www_form_component(file), line: line } } end

It sounds like a gnome-open (or the equivalent library call) bug. Reassigning.

there are no general principles comparable to Alberti's treatises or Le Corbusier's.

This games a scam. Reviews are fake.

a Docker container running a very simple NodeJS web server with the Graphile library (and some additional Netflix internal components for security, logging, metrics, and monitoring) could provide a “better REST than REST” or “REST++” platform for rapid development efforts

Third configurable block to run.

Last configurable block to run. Called after frameworks initialize.

Focus is better than features.

Write modules that do one thing well. Write a new module rather than complicate an old one.

Clearly JS and NPM have done a lot RIGHT, judging by success and programmer satisfaction. How do we keep that right and fix the wrong?

Meh... as I said earlier, I think using Webpack is the recommended way now. Another issue is there is no way to generate source maps in production.

But yeah, I'm not sure how you would determine which was the "recommended way" really. I don't see anything in Rails docs saying either way.

But last I have seen comments from DHH, he considered webpack(er) recommended for JS, but Sprockets still the preferred solution for (S)CSS.

Is there a PR to... something? sassc-rails? That would make the patch not necessary? (I don't know if there's any good way to monkey-patch that in, I think you have to fork? So some change seems required...) Should the defaults be different somehow? This is very difficult to figure out.

Is there a PR to... something? sassc-rails?

I don't even know how to tell if they're working 100%, I'm getting mixed signals ..

Should it only contain link* calls?

When should I use link, vs dir, vs. tree?

but I still have no idea if I'm writing this new file correctly.

we want source maps in production (like DHH)

After waiting years for sprockets to support this we were very happy to see that sprockets 4 officially added support (thanks ), but then when trying to upgrade we noticed there's actually no way to use it in production... (without brittle hacks mentioned above).

Rails still encourages you to dump all validation errors at the top of a form, which is lulzy in this age of touchy UX

always use real <label for="correct_input"> elements. Just that alone is a UX consideration all too many forms fail on

This is a non-exhaustive list of other things I love;

Beykat yi duñu dem tool altine.

Noo mën a def dinga fey alamaan bi.

Webshim is also more than a polyfill, it has become a UI component and widget library. Webshim enables a developer to also enhance HTML5 capable browsers with more highly customizable, extensible and flexible UI components and widgets.

signal.to_h[:semantic]

Hey, that’s is an imaginary complication of our example - please don’t do this with every condition you have in your app.

URI::MailTo::EMAIL_REGEXP

In combination with [Track()], the :magnetic_to option allows for a neat way to spawn custom tracks outside of the conventional Railway or FastTrack schema.

  DefTrack do :paypal do
    step :charge_paypal
  end

  paypal_track = RailwayTrack do :paypal do
    step :charge_paypal
  end

For branching out a separate path in an activity, use the Path() macro. It’s a convenient, simple way to declare alternative routes

step :decide_type, Output(Activity::Left, :credit_card) => Track(:with_credit_card)

# Create the track, which would automatically create an implicit End with the same id.
Track(:with_credit_card) do
    step :authorize
    step :charge
end

class Example::ValidationErrorTrack < Trailblazer::Activity::Railway
  step :validate_model, Output(:failure) => Track(:validation_error)
  step :save,           Output(:failure) => Track(:validation_error)

  # Can't use fail here or the magnetic_to won't work and  Track(:validation_error) won't work
  step :log_validation_error, magnetic_to: :validation_error,
    Output(:success) => End(:validation_error), 
    Output(:failure) => End(:validation_error) 
end

puts Trailblazer::Developer.render o
Reloading...

#<Start/:default>
 {Trailblazer::Activity::Right} => #<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=validate_model>
#<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=validate_model>
 {Trailblazer::Activity::Left} => #<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=log_validation_error>
 {Trailblazer::Activity::Right} => #<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=save>
#<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=save>
 {Trailblazer::Activity::Left} => #<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=log_validation_error>
 {Trailblazer::Activity::Right} => #<End/:success>
#<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=log_validation_error>
 {Trailblazer::Activity::Left} => #<End/:validation_error>
 {Trailblazer::Activity::Right} => #<End/:validation_error>
#<End/:success>

#<End/:validation_error>

#<End/:failure>

class Example::ValidationErrorTrack::VPathHelper1 < Trailblazer::Activity::Railway
   validation_error_path = Path(end_id: "End.validation_error", end_task: End(:validation_error)) do
    step :log_validation_error
  end
  step :validate_model, Output(:failure) => validation_error_path
  step :save,           Output(:failure) => validation_error_path
end

o=Example::ValidationErrorTrack::VPathHelper1; puts Trailblazer::Developer.render o
Reloading...

#<Start/:default>
 {Trailblazer::Activity::Right} => #<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=validate_model>
#<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=validate_model>
 {Trailblazer::Activity::Left} => #<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=log_validation_error>
 {Trailblazer::Activity::Right} => #<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=save>
#<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=log_validation_error>
 {Trailblazer::Activity::Right} => #<End/:validation_error>
#<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=save>
 {Trailblazer::Activity::Left} => #<Trailblazer::Activity::TaskBuilder::Task user_proc=log_validation_error>
 {Trailblazer::Activity::Right} => #<End/:success>
#<End/:success>

#<End/:validation_error>

#<End/:failure>

step :direct_debit

Patching has no implicit, magical side-effects and is strongly encouraged to customize flows for a specific case in a quick and consise way.

While you could nest an activity into another manually, the Subprocess macro will come in handy.

The macro automatically wires all of Validate’s ends to the known counter-part tracks.

Sure, zero-config one-click installs are nice and all, but:

It's recommended to configure this library by setting environment variables.

despite initially appearing to be an appropriate and effective response to a problem, has more bad consequences than good ones

Do notation provides an alternative to bind, which also flattens the code.

They do not maintain a to-do list (mentally or physically).

If you ask my former students, they will tell you that as a teacher, my goal is to do nothing. I dream of the day when I can sit at my desk, feet propped up, reading a book, while the classroom bursts with activity and learning around me.

While Trailblazer offers you abstraction layers for all aspects of Ruby On Rails, it does not missionize you. Wherever you want, you may fall back to the "Rails Way" with fat models, monolithic controllers, global helpers, etc. This is not a bad thing, but allows you to step-wise introduce Trailblazer's encapsulation in your app without having to rewrite it.

The new 2.1 version comes with a few necessary but reasonable changes in method signatures. As painful as that might sound to your Rails-spoiled ears, we preferred to fix design mistakes now before dragging them on forever.

ActiveModel provides a powerful framework for defining callbacks. ActiveInteraction hooks into that framework to allow hooking into various parts of an interaction's lifecycle.

account.first_name = first_name if first_name.present? account.last_name = last_name if last_name.present?

Personal todo lists don’t depend on others using the same system (no network effects)

{a: 1, b: 2, c: 3, d: 4} => {a:, b:, **rest} # a == 1, b == 2, rest == {:c=>3, :d=>4}

{a, b, ...rest} = {a: 1, b: 2, c: 3, d: 4}

In order to support easy reuse, revision, remixing, and redistribution, the entire Hypothesis Help knowledge base by Hypothesis is dedicated to the public domain via CC CC0 1.0. While we appreciate attribution and links back to Hypothesis from anywhere these works are published, they are not required.

Examples of different ways of defining forms

The assert method is used by all the other assertions. It pushes the second parameter to the list of errors if the first parameter evaluates to false or nil.

The more important point comes from a program design perspective. Here, "programming to an interface" means focusing your design on what the code is doing, not how it does it. This is a vital distinction that pushes your design towards correctness and flexibility.

It makes me happy to see people actually think about things and not just accept a shitty API.

I'd like to know specifically what you were aiming to achieve with this Gem as opposed to simply using https://github.com/apotonick/reform? I am happy to help contribute, but equally if there is a gem out there that already does the job well, I'd like to know why we shouldn't just use that.

DSLs can be problematic for the user since the user has to manage state (e.g. am I supposed to call valid? first or update_attributes?). This is exactly why the #validate is the only method to change state in Reform.

The reason Reform does updating attributes and validation in the same step is because I wanna reduce public methods. This is to save users from having to remember state.

Writing the uniqueness validations yourself is easy so I felt it was better to leave this up to the developer

Yes, you do face difficult choices (moral) but you don't care about it. All you care are the reputation bars. So... Let's kill this guy, who cares if he is innocent, but this faction needs it or I'm dead. Sounds great on paper but to be honest... you just sit there and do whatever for these reputation bars. If you won't, then you lose

We could of course refactor our code to rename things any time we like, but we don’t do this enough in practice

considering PopOS is trying to tackle Ubuntu they really need their dual-boot setup to be a lot less tedious

if PopOS! really wants to be what Ubuntu was 10 years ago they need to step up and make dual booting easier.

that's a point, but I would say the opposite, when entering credit card data I would rathre prefer to be entirely in the Verified By Visa (Paypal) webpage (with the url easily visible in the address bar) rather that entring my credit card data in an iframe of someone's website.

Systemd flies in the face of the Unix philosophy: 'do one thing and do it well,' representing a complex collection of dozens of tightly coupled binaries

systemd has such huge documentation. systemd.unit Did you try searching for explanation yourself? What did you find?

http://letmegooglethat.com/?q=How+to+change+the+default+search+engine+in+chromium&l=1

overflow-wrap: break-word; makes sure the long string will wrap and not bust out of the container. You might as well use word-wrap as well because as the spec says, they are literally just alternate names for each other. Some browsers support one and not the other.

I'm very (VERY!) tempted to use that ppa, but without offense to it's maintainers... it's just some random ppa. If it had more "traction" I'd use it. Right now it has only 3 maintainers.

Flatpak as a truly cross-distro application solution that works equally well and non-problematic for all

Moving DOM elements around made me anxious and I wanted to preserve natural tab order without resorting to setting tabindex, so I also made a flexbox version that never moves DOM elements around. I think it's the superior solution, at least for the layouts I was going for. https://github.com/wickning1/svelte-components/blob/master/src/FlexCardLayout.svelte

Depending on what other component libraries you’ve used, you may be used to handling events by passing callback functions to component properties, or using a special event syntax – Svelte supports both, though one is usually more appropriate than the other depending on your situation. This post explains both ways.

You should default to the most permissive option imo and there really is no reason to check anything until you really need to If it were left to me I'd just use optional chaining, as it also eliminates the need for no-ops

In other words, programs that send messages to other machines (or to other programs on the same machine) should conform completely to the specifications, but programs that receive messages should accept non-conformant input as long as the meaning is clear.

be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others

"Headless Tippy" refers to Tippy without any of the default element rendering or CSS. This allows you to create your own element from scratch and use Tippy for its logic only.

It's a generic abstraction for the logic and styling of elements that pop out from the flow of the document and float next to a reference element, overlaid on top of the UI.

A cleaner approach could be the use:action API.

Popper has a sole goal: position elements. That's why we call it a "positioning engine" and not a "tooltip library".

Popper for Svelte with actions, no wrapper components or component bindings required! Other Popper libraries for Svelte (including the official @popperjs/svelte library) use a wrapper component that takes the required DOM elements as props. Not only does this require multiple bind:this, you also have to pollute your script tag with multiple DOM references. We can do better with Svelte actions!

Progress is made of compromises, this implies that we have to consider not only disadvantages, but also the advantages. Advantages do very clearly outweigh disadvantages. This doesn’t mean it perfect, or that work shouldn’t continue to minimize and reduce the disadvantages, but just considering disadvantages is not the correct way.

How do you know this? I've looked all over the internet and can't find any proof that Lightdm is more "lightweight" (whatever this means) or faster.

O tucano Orlando Morando, de São Bernardo do Campo, diz que não há a menor chance de fazê-lo em um futuro próximo e que tem doado parte de seu salário correspondente a um aumento concedido na gestão anterior com o qual não concordou.