concrete | TFHE Compiler that converts python programs | Encryption library

" It sounds as if rebasing "replays" commits, one after another (so sequentially) from the source branch over the changes in my working branch, is this the case? "

Yes.

" Furthermore, it does so, one develop commit at a time, until all the changes have been "replayed" into my feature branch, yes? "

No, it's the contrary. If you rebase your branch on origin/develop, all your branch's commits are to be replayed on top of origin/develop, not the other way around.

Finally, the difference between merge and rebase scenarios has been described in details everywhere, including on this site, but very broadly the merge workflow will add a merge commit to history. For that last part, take a look here for a start.

Seem the First approach look more valid.

1. Thread Safe
   • We can create a singleton object and save multiple object creation
2. Extend in Response Object:
   • If we are expecting more parameters in the future from Response, we can create a property in the object. In the second approach, we have to pollute the Interface to add more parameters.
3. Extend in Interface:
   • Suppose IProvider require one more function to expose which have a different response and different parameter. Then in the Second approach IProvider becomes a design issue, ProviderResponse output is responsible for which function.

So overall feel, the First approach looks more valid in terms of Thread Safe, Design, Performance, and extendable.

You could use a factory along with dependency injection.

Create your user class:

Resolve the desired type directly from the host's service provider,

I have one big question here. While this is correct (it yields the same response) is this the correct thing to do?

Essentially, yes, you've done it correctly. The only things that aren't really correct there are your Webclient usage, and your style.

You certainly don't have to specify a WebClient per URI (and you shouldn't, they're meant to be reusable.) So if you have different domains and the same webclient, just create a standard instance:

There are concrete efficiency losses because of the inefficient use of threads. Each thread requires at least 1 MB for its stack, so the more threads that are created in order to do nothing, the more memory is allocated for unproductive purposes.

It is also possible for concrete performance losses to appear, in case the demand for threads surpasses the ThreadPool availability. In this case the ThreadPool becomes saturated, and new threads are injected in the pool in a conservative (slow) rate. So the tasks you create and Start will not start immediately, but instead they will be entered in an internal queue, waiting for a free thread, either one that completed some previous work, or an new injected one.

Regarding your concerns about creating busy waiting procedures, no, that's not what happening. A sleeping thread does not consume CPU resources.

As a side note, creating cold Tasks using the Task constructor is an advanced technique that's only used in special occasions. The common way of creating delegate-based tasks is through the convenient Task.Run method, that returns hot (already started) tasks.

From what i can see, you have some form and you want to plug 3 data to the form on submit.

Depending on your database configuration, you can do 3 different way:

The best one is to use the mapping

Your evaluation have those 3 fields:

• date
• user
• player

Then just add them to the original builder as hidden field whith default value what you have:

Let's take a look at a worst case scenario, i.e. the palindrome check will not allow us to have an early out.

For writing down the recurrence relation, let's say n = end - start, so that n is the length of the sequence to be processed. I'll assume the indexed array accesses are constant time.

is_palindrome will check for palindromity in O(end - start) = O(n) steps.

dfs_helper for a subsequence of length n, calls is_palindrome once and then has 2n recursive calls of lengths 0 through n - 1, each being called two times, plus the usual constant overhead that I will leave out for simplicity.

So, we have

The problem with your sample lies in understanding what the trait is. And in fact it is not a type (that's why compiler asks for T: ?Sized), but a requirement for a type. Thus the solution is fairly simple: come up with a "real" type. You got it right with a struct declaration, it can be one option. But usually it's much more convenient to use associative type for that: