speculation | JavaScript promises are made to be broken Speculations are cancellable promises | Reactive Programming library

Let's look at the three possible scenarios:

Here's an example with -u working with file descriptor 9 open on a file mylock, successfully unlocking 9 so that a backgrounded flock mylock can proceed. Note that flock 9 cannot also have a command as in that case the "9" is taken to be a filename, not an fd.

You have to print spaces before printing the numbers to make the triangle look inverted, the number of spaces depends on the amount of numbers you skip which are (rows-i), so you can loop from i to rows and print space in each iteration.

I think there are several questions here. First, the locale cookie question.

The main question to ask is if the URL you are working with is specific to a certain user, or something that might be shared or viewed by multiple users. If it is specific to a user (their settings page, or some other private page that they can only see after logging in) then it makes perfect sense that the locale is part of their settings. Cookie is very reasonable here.

However, if the locale is part of a page that multiple users would see, then you want to include the locale as part of the URL. So that if I send you https://blah.blah.foo/check/this/out?response=foo&lang=EN you will see exactly what I am seeing.

As far as handling different URLs for different languages, you generally keep the same routes/views and lean on rails's I18N to handle multiple languages. But like everything else, you can do it however makes the most sense for your app :)

That article was written in 2007, so it predates C++11.

C++11 was the first to define anything about threads in the standard, and with it defines¹ what does or doesn't constitute a data race.

Under the current rules, I believe your conclusion is basically correct--with the quoted code, evaluating p->a, p->b and/or p->c when p==NULL would violate the requirements of the standard, except under the as-if rule (i.e., if the system could assure that evaluating them had no visible effects, even if p was a null pointer).

The story here is pretty much the same--the C11 standard was the first to define threading and how sequencing works when you use them. So, when the article was written, the standard didn't have any rules about it. Although they don't use the same terminology, the C and C++ committees have coordinated on this, so I believe they at least intend for the rules in the two languages to be the same in this regard.

The comparison may be easier to understand if you map numbers to characters, and think of string comparisons. A=1, B=2, E=5, F=6. So [5,5,5] is "EEE"

If i understanded right, you want to excute one function once and excute the other all the time . So if this was right and let's say that the first one will be excutable once so the code is gonna be

Quite obviously, SO is not the right place for such a question as it's unrelated to programming. There's quite a lot of discussion regarding the topic and answers also will tend to be opinion based.

Up to this moment, it hasn't been possible on Apple (due to closed ecosystem, not hardware incompatibility) and became allowed for Android. Technically it's been possible for a while already, but regulations made consumer grade devices incapable of acceptance - they are still quite terrible in the physical aspect as they are not designed to either handle entries securely as well as generate the electromagnetic field according to EMVCo requirements as to the shape and operating volume. Payment schemes have generated as list of special criteria for solutions based on consumer grade devices and the company you mentioned is one of many that have been working on it. There certainly are already some production deployments with limits that have been set by the schemes.

There might be changes in Apple approach (especially as they acquired a company dedicated to such solutions) or not. This is just speculation. The fact is that consumer devices tend not to be as good as dedicated hardware but only time will tell if this stays true. Security research is ongoing, we shall see the results and how will that affect companies policy and further development in the area. It's just too early too tell.

I managed to remove the glitch for resumeLayerBackwards(layer:) in the sample project. Two problems there in fact:

1. there is an empty screen after animation has visually finished
2. the empty screen is visible for 1 - .timeOffset seconds

So, seems like the problem is that animation in fact plays not just for .timeOffset period, but for the whole .duration period. And the empty screen appears because there is no animation defined for 1 - .timeOffset block.

Just to recall: CALayer also adopts CAMediaTiming protocol, as CAAnimation does (with all the properties defined: although some of them seem not be very clear how to be applied to a layer).

With speed = -1 after .timeOffset seconds passed — the property .timeOffset becomes equal to zero. It means that animation has reached its beginning and therefore (with negative speed) it is finished. Though it is not that obvious — seems like it is removed because of the .fillMode property. To fix this I've added perspectiveLayer.fillMode = .forwards to animate() method.

To have animation completed exactly after .timeOffset seconds instead of the whole .duration — use .repeatDuration property. I've added layer.repeatDuration = layer.timeOffset to your resumeLayerBackwards(layer:) method.

The project works only with both lines added.

I can't say that the solution is really logical for me, although it works. Negative speed works a bit unpredictable as for me. In my project I used to reverse animation by swapping begin and end values in cloned animation object.