function | Functions for Java | Continuous Deployment library

foo = 5 creates a local variable inside your function. def foo creates a global variable. That's why they can both have the same name.

If you refer to foo inside your foo() function, you're referring to the local variable. If you refer to foo outside that function, you're referring to the global variable.

Since it evidently causes confusion for people trying to follow the code, you probably shouldn't do this.

I ran into the same issue today and came up with the following solution based on this very helpful article by Andrew Luca

In PrivateRoute.js:

This error message...

I suspect this may have been an accident, though I prefer the new behavior.

The new behavior is a consequence of a change to how the bytecode for * arguments works. The change is in the changelog under Python 3.9.0 alpha 3:

bpo-39320: Replace four complex bytecodes for building sequences with three simpler ones.

The following four bytecodes have been removed:

• BUILD_LIST_UNPACK
• BUILD_TUPLE_UNPACK
• BUILD_SET_UNPACK
• BUILD_TUPLE_UNPACK_WITH_CALL

The following three bytecodes have been added:

• LIST_TO_TUPLE
• LIST_EXTEND
• SET_UPDATE

On Python 3.8, the bytecode for f(*a, a.pop()) looks like this:

I am also stuck with the same problem because I installed the latest version of Node.js (v17.0.1).

Just go for node.js v14.18.1 and remove the latest version just use the stable version v14.18.1

Although I can't provide a formal definition of why/how the rounding modes were chosen as they were, the citation about compatibility with the % operator, which you have included, does make sense when you consider that % is not quite the same thing in C++ and Python.

In C++, it is the remainder operator, whereas, in Python, it is the modulus operator – and, when the two operands have different signs, these aren't necessarily the same thing. There are some fine explanations of the difference between these operators in the answers to: What's the difference between “mod” and “remainder”?

Now, considering this difference, the rounding (truncation) modes for integer division have to be as they are in the two languages, to ensure that the relationship you quoted, (m/n)*n + m%n == m, remains valid.

Here are two short programs that demonstrate this in action (please forgive my somewhat naïve Python code – I'm a beginner in that language):

C++:

Updated answer 2021-11-16:

The following is mentioned in the official release notes for Chrome 96.

To disable Length Authoring Tools, navigate to this location in the DevTools and uncheck the checkbox:
Settings > Experiments > Enable CSS length authoring tools in the Styles pane.

The initial incentive to disable these tools has been greatly diminished because of this.

A chevron will now appear to the right of the hovered value instead of reacting to clicks to the entire unit portion of it.

Copy paste now also works as intended.

Conclusion:
It is now possible to disable the Length Authoring Tools, but you might no longer need to.

Old answer:

Fixes have been added to Chromium ( [1], [2], [3] ) that are slowly making their way to the stable release of Chrome.

But help is on its way...

Chrome 96 is scheduled to be released on November 16 2021 (source), or ~3 weeks after October 28 according to this official tweet. It will at least contain a revert to free text editing of css properties (source). Hopefully version 96 will address the issue completely, but if it doesn't then the next major release is scheduled for January 4 2021 (If this issue is unresolved by then somebody at Google should be fired).

As for now, Chrome Canary seems to have these fixes implemented and might be considered an alternative solution to the issue if you find the current state of Length Authoring Tools unbearable.

Please be advised that Chrome Canary can be quite unstable.

This question and answer will be edited and corrected once there are real fixes in the live stable version.

The TLDR is that loads which miss all levels of the TLB (and so require a page walk) and which are separated by address unknown stores can't execute in parallel, i.e., the loads are serialized and the memory level parallelism (MLP) factor is capped at 1. Effectively, the stores fence the loads, much as lfence would.

The slow version of your insert function results in this scenario, while the other two don't (the store address is known). For large region sizes the memory access pattern dominates, and the performance is almost directly related to the MLP: the fast versions can overlap load misses and get an MLP of about 3, resulting in a 3x speedup (and the narrower reproduction case we discuss below can show more than a 10x difference on Skylake).

The underlying reason seems to be that the Skylake processor tries to maintain page-table coherence, which is not required by the specification but can work around bugs in software.

For those who are interested, we'll dig into the details of what's going on.

I could reproduce the problem immediately on my Skylake i7-6700HQ machine, and by stripping out extraneous parts we can reduce the original hash insert benchmark to this simple loop, which exhibits the same issue:

According to the C++17 standard (11.3.6 Default arguments)

9 A default argument is evaluated each time the function is called with no argument for the corresponding parameter. A parameter shall not appear as a potentially-evaluated expression in a default argument. Parameters of a function declared before a default argument are in scope and can hide namespace and class member name

It provides the following example: