Goat Bastard posted:

Maybe I am the horror for expecting two references to the same thing to behave in the same way.

quote:

When the GA creates the transfer certificate, it gives it a one year validity range. It uses midnight UST of the current day as the valid-from date and one year from that date as the valid-to date. The leap day bug is that the GA calculated the valid-to date by simply taking the current date and adding one to its year. That meant that any GA that tried to create a transfer certificate on leap day set a valid-to date of February 29, 2013, an invalid date that caused the certificate creation to fail.

pokeyman posted:

I'm becoming convinced that Microsoft, almost as a rule, never eats its own dogfood.

It explains garbage like Sharepoint so tidily.

pokeyman posted:

I'm becoming convinced that Microsoft, almost as a rule, never eats its own dogfood.

It explains garbage like Sharepoint so tidily.

hobbesmaster posted:

I'm not sure whether this makes me laugh or cry...

Lets see here:


I'm assuming they're not eating their own dogfood here?

pokeyman posted:

I'm becoming convinced that Microsoft, almost as a rule, never eats its own dogfood.

It explains garbage like Sharepoint so tidily.

hieronymus posted:

A recruiter was talking about flying me out to redmond to interview with the "MS Office Team" for a SDET position. I was tempted but then I figured out the job was really about sharepoint and that tempered my interest level rather significantly.

shrughes posted:

You're saying that as if silently falling through would be a good thing. Which it is not. Crashing the program there is basically the only thing to do. In our C++ code every switch statement has a default case that calls a function unreachable() which prints a backtrace and crashes.

Chuu posted:

I am blatantly stealing this for use in my own code.

rjmccall posted:

If that's because it gets compiled out in release builds, you might consider having it compile to __builtin_unreachable() in GCC and Clang.

Biowarfare posted:

Zend_Mail does sanitisation in any way right..?

quote:

For security reasons, Zend_Mail filters all header fields to prevent header injection with newline (\n) characters. Double quotation is changed to single quotation and angle brackets to square brackets in the name of sender and recipients. If the marks are in email address, the marks will be removed.

The Gripper posted:

Haha how did that even come about

pokeyman posted:

I'm becoming convinced that Microsoft, almost as a rule, never eats its own dogfood.

It explains garbage like Sharepoint so tidily.

pokeyman posted:

I can't tell if you're being serious.

pokeyman posted:

I can't tell if you're being serious.

Plorkyeran posted:

I've been told by a friend who works on Office that antitrust concerns stopped them from using .NET, as it could be viewed as them using a near-monopoly to give their platform an unfair advantage. The settlement finally expired last May, but WinRT suggests that they're still not planning to use .NET for their desktop apps.

Suspicious Dish posted:

While I heavily believe in dogfooding, I really don't understand the problem with using Firefox and Google and such.

quote:

In fact, I find myself disgusted at some of the new features in C# 4.0 which are plastered with the "Do Not Use" disclaimer - default function arguments, as an example.

pokeyman posted:

You're not supposed to use default function arguments in C# 4.0?

pokeyman posted:

You're not supposed to use default function arguments in C# 4.0?

Jabor posted:

Then any existing code that just calls Butts() will still use the old default value - until they get recompiled. This is a pretty nasty trap if you're doing something where stuff might not get recompiled just because a library it uses is updated.

Wheany posted:

The only one-character member names you are allowed to use in public interfaces are "x, y, z", "r, g, b" and "i, j, k", and those are all some kind of vectors.

Wheany posted:

Vanadium posted:

What about $ then?

Suspicious Dish posted:

In fact, I find myself disgusted at some of the new features in C# 4.0 which are plastered with the "Do Not Use" disclaimer - default function arguments, as an example.

pokeyman posted:

You're not supposed to use default function arguments in C# 4.0?

Zhentar posted:

Optional Parameters were added primarily to make COM interop less painful. They have some caveats otherwise (especially if you mix overloads and optional parameters with the same function).

The Gripper posted:

code:

void Butts(int? i = null) {
    if (i.Equals(null)) i = 42
    Console.WriteLine(i);
}

Scaevolus posted:

Good luck calling a method on a null object.

code:

void Butts(int? i = null) {
    i = i ?? 42;
    Console.WriteLine(i);
}

pokeyman posted:

That said, what are the caveats when using optional parameters in C#?

The Gripper posted:

The worst is with concurrency frameworks and the like, where the most promising looking example is almost always some complex mathematical computation which probably looks clean and makes a lot of sense to someone that knows that particular math, but to anyone else it's difficult to separate "here's the code I need to use to implement this for my own use" from the "holy god m=p*x ^ 7; _,x=sub1(-y^(x)^add1(m));" part.

I know it's good to have examples that actually do something real and the developers probably have a strong math background, but giving me something like that when I don't even know which parts are the framework and which parts are the payload isn't all that productive.

Zhentar posted:

Second, it adds a complication to overload resolution, and won't always behave how many people expect it to. If you make optional parameters using both overloads and default values, it gets hard to understand what your code will actually call.