rare | Realtime regex-extraction and aggregation into common CLI | Regex library

Your code worked as-is for me. I got this output

Initially I had other problems with libdmtx.(This is an issue with libdmtx I faced and has no issue with your Python code)

I installed libdmtx using condas in win10. But during runtime I got FileNotFoundError: Could not find module 'libdmtx-64.dll'

then I built the library from https://github.com/dmtx/libdmtx and got release mode dmtx.dll. renamed this dll to libdmtx-64.dll and placed in `C:\Users\balu\Miniconda3\Library\bin'.

Note: if QR decoding is your goal, check your old questions I have answered.

This problem has a fun O(n) solution.

If you draw a graph of cumulative sum vs index, then:

The average value in the subarray between any two indexes is the slope of the line between those points on the graph.

The first highest-average-prefix will end at the point that makes the highest angle from 0. The next highest-average-prefix must then have a smaller average, and it will end at the point that makes the highest angle from the first ending. Continuing to the end of the array, we find that...

These segments of highest average are exactly the segments in the upper convex hull of the cumulative sum graph.

Find these segments using the monotone chain algorithm. Since the points are already sorted, it takes O(n) time.

Method 1 out of the options given is best.

None of them would fail WCAG as such.

However as you have pointed out 2 and 3 result in duplication of effort for keyboard users and links to the same location having different names, which is not a fail under any success criterion but is highly recommended.

Yes in scenario 1 and 4.

All 4 of the examples given would "pass" WCAG. However they offer very different experiences.

So the question is what things are we considering for accessibility?

The first is Keyboard operability. Examples 2 and 3, as you pointed out result in duplication of focus stops for the same item. So we should avoid them.

The second thing is link purpose. Yet again examples 2 and 3 are not great here as we have 2 links to the same place on the same page that have different accessible labels / text that assistive tech will use.

So we can rule out options 2 and 3 for best practices.

So what about options 1 and 4?

Well as the items are located within a hyperlink we want the link text (the accessible name for those links) to be descriptive of the product page we are going to visit.

As such option one would read: "link: Squeaky Fox Dog Toy" and the second link would read "link: (image) Red fox stuffed dog toy with white braided rope arms, Squeaky Fox Dog Toy"

The second option results in duplication of information so is not as desirable as the first option.

So we land on option 1.

The only consideration you now have is whether that link text describes the product sufficiently. Now if you sold multiple dog toys (different product types) then you need text that describes them as such i.e. "plastic dog toys" and "fluffy dog toys".

If you sell different coloured products and they all had their own page (so you don't have a colour picker on the end page, they are listed as separate items) then you would need to describe the colour there too. "Red fluffy dog toy", "blue fluffy dog toy".

Essentially you need to provide enough information that each product link is easily identifiable as to where it leads (the purpose of the link itself).

This is where judgement comes into play, provide enough information to describe the product generally in a unique way on the page, not so much information that browsing that page becomes problematic due to 100 products with 200 word link text.

So in the example given the "balance" would be something like "Red fox stuffed dog toy", and then describe the appearance in far more detail on the product page, wither in the description or in the product image alt attributes.

It is worth noting that the last option for a product page is no text at all. Just an image inside a link. The following is also valid HTML and accessible as the alt text will be used as the link text (not if an image contains any text at all that should all appear in the alt attribute).

After removing my std::set from the code, the error did not occur anymore. Conclusion: std::set in multithreading must be protected to avoid unrecoverable crashes.

Text objects always go outwards so, even if you try something like i{, which covers a smaller region than a{, the selection will inevitably be extended.

As you mentioned, you can change the geometry of the selection with o and various motions but that's cumbersome and the alternative, leaving visual mode, moving the cursor, and selecting again, is sadly just as cumbersome.

Building a custom "shrinking" pseudo text object might be possible, though, and something the community would probably gladly welcome.

--- EDIT ---

The quick and dirty code below seems to work reasonably well for a{, a(, a[, and a<:

I found a way to pass a list into the Random's inheritor and use it in __init__.

You might be sieving, but what about counting? And a upper limit, so one can compare? And OMP like primesieve?

You are stuck because you are not even counting or comparing, only with yourself.

I made a segmented sieve just with a 30Kb char array. At 2 billion, it takes quite exactly 3 times as long as primesieve, and works with OMP. So all your bit mapping and unrolling is not measurable.

Attribute composition is not the time when attributes are added to the class; rather, it is the time at which:

• We commits to a particular set of attributes for the class, and communicate this to the underlying runtime (usually MoarVM), which calculates a memory layout for the object
• we tell each Attribute object to compose itself, which is its trigger to generate accessors, handles-related methods, and so forth

I'm not clear on what you are intend to achieve, in so far as attributes are externally readonly by default anyway, and so it'd make more sense perhaps to produce an error if somebody defines an rw one on something declared frozen. If you do want to modify attributes, you'd probably have more luck overriding add_attribute and tweaking the way the attribute works at that point (for example, something like method add_attribute($obj, $attr) { callwith($obj, $attr.clone(:!rw, :!has_accessor)) } may achieve what you want).