forw | Forwards HTTP requests to multiple endpoints | REST library

In absence of the ++ operator in Python, you use += 1 to increment by one. Notice that unlike your code, the = sign comes after +. There are other problems with your code that we can't fix since we don't have the whole code and don't know what it's trying to achieve. Below is the general way a while loop is incremented. If you nest multiple while loops inside each other, you need to increment the variables within each loop and/or provide conditional statements to break out of each loop.

You have UB for list of one element, as forw is then used uninitialized.

(that UB should probably do, in your case, infinite loop, so TLE).

What is the best way to reject duplicates in a sorted doubly linked list?

I suggest delaying the creation of the new ListNode until you know that the new node isn't a duplicate.

Assuming that the ListNode looks like this

The jquery $().select() function is not the same as the javascript node.select() method.

Your .focus().select() can be changed to:

I can't read Stata code but from your text description it sounds like just a bit of dplyr will work for you

You are instantiating the variable once, and it just logs that same value each time your interval is called. If you want it updated, you need to update it in the interval like:

The Mandelbrot program takes a decent time to run on a good interpreter. Yours, well, it isn't that good. That's why it "hangs" at the start.

Some good ideas that you had, performance-wise:

• precalculating loops

Some bad ideas, performance-wise:

• Using abstracted allocation functions instead of calling realloc
• using scanf and printf instead of getchar and putchar

Some odd things that you did:

• Manually truncating an unsigned char when wraparound is implicit
• checking if an unsigned char is less than 0
• using *(x + y) syntax instead of array indexing x[y]
• I don't think you actually use those precalculated loops, if you do then probably not correctly
• You also probably create a new precalculated loop every time you go over the loop again
• Using the get_value and set_value functions instead of pointers (this will be a performance issue if you don't compile with optimizations)

A couple suggestions:

• Try to avoid calling functions when you don't need to as much as possible.
• Write a BrainFuck->C compiler using this reference.

On second thought, maybe you should try to debug this program instead.

You may also use my interpreter as a reference if you're OK with GPLv3. Note that it doesn't precalculate loops.

C++ operator << for streams is not "thread safe"; with that I mean that nothing prevents the control to switch between threads in the middle of an expression like std::cout << x << y; between the output of x and the output of y.

What you are seeing is a 23 immediately follower by a 4974.

Unfortunately because of the sad interface defined by the operator it's also not trivial to make it "thread safe" (not impossible, but annoyingly hard).

Actually a string format approach à la printf works much better (also) for this.