wiki | hosted well uh wiki engine or content management system | Wiki library

This is not perfect because you could possibly nest anchors within each other and regexes are bad about keeping tracking of nested contexts. But a good 90% solution is to start by looking for . Then in a separate capturing group save everything up to and not including the next .

You have done the hard part, the results are already in the results variable.

But the results need parsing by the wiki.page() nethod, which only takes one argument.

The solution? Use a loop to parse all results one by one.

The easiest way will be using for loops, but the list comprehension method is the best.

Replace the last two lines with the following:

There are 2 separate queues for handling of the callbacks. A macro and a micro queue. setTimeout enqueues an item in the macro queue, while promise resolution - to the micro queue. The currently executing macro task(the main script itself in this case) is executed synchronously, line by line until it is finished. The moment it is finished, the loop executes everything queued in the microtask queue before continuing with the next item from the macro queue(which in your case is the console.log("hello") queued from the setTimeout).

Basically, the flow looks like this:

1. Script starts executing.

MacrotaskQueue: [], MicrotaskQueue: [].

1. setTimeout(() => console.log("hello"), 0); is encountered which leads to pushing a new item in the macrotask queue.

MacrotaskQueue: [console.log("hello")], MicrotaskQueue: [].

1. Promise.resolve('Success!').then(console.log) is read. Promise resolves to Success! immediately and console.log callback gets enqueued to the microtask queue.

MacrotaskQueue: [console.log("hello")], MicrotaskQueue: [console.log('Success!')].

1. The script finishes executing so it checks if there is something in the microtask queue before proceeding with the next task from the macro queue.
2. console.log('Success!') is pulled from the microtask queue and executed.

MacrotaskQueue: [console.log("hello")], MicrotaskQueue: [].

1. Script checks again if there is something else in the microtask queue. There is none, so it fetches the first available task from the macrotask queue and executes it, namely - console.log("hello").

MacrotaskQueue: [], MicrotaskQueue: [].

1. After the script finishes executing the console.log("hello"), it once again checks if there is anything in the microtask queue. It is empty, so it checks the macrotask queue. It is empty as well so everything queued is executed and the script finishes.

This is a simplified explanation, though, as it can get trickier. The microtask queue normally handles mainly promise callbacks, but you can enqueue code on it yourself. The newly added items in the microtask queue will still be executed before the next macrotask item. Also, microtasks can enqueue other microtasks, which can lead to an endless loop of processing microtasks.

Some useful reference resources:

• The event loop
• Microtasks
• Using Microtasks

Your implementation should be safe - in theory, all numbers between 0 and MAX_SAFE_INTEGER should have a possibility of appearing, if the engine implementing Math.random uses a completely unbiased algorithm.

But an absolutely unbiased algorithm is not guaranteed by the specification - the numbers chosen are meant to be psuedo random, not truly, completely random. ^{(does such a thing even exist? it's debatable...)} Modern versions V8 and some other implementations use an algorithm with a period on the order of 2 ** 128, larger than MAX_SAFE_INTEGER (2 ** 53 - 1) - but it'd be completely plausible for other implementations (especially older ones) to have a much smaller period, resulting in certain integers within the range being picked much more often than others.

If this is important for your script (which is pretty unlikely in most situations, I'd think), you might consider using a higher-quality random generatior than Math.random - but it's almost certainly not worth worrying about.

You would need the template parameter from the method for SFINAE:

A simple way to fix this would be to deduce the non-type template parameter for the function, and reorder the template parameter list

You're looking at random numbers uniformly distributed between 0 and 18,446,744,073,709,551,615 (UINT64_MAX). All numbers between 10,000,000,000,000,000,000 and 18,446,744,073,709,551,615 start with a 1, so the skewed distribution is to be expected.

This line

According to the homepage for ppa:ondrej/nginx, here the PPA description: