example | really example for goldvideo project

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.

This problem's caused by a bug in Springfox. It's making an assumption about how Spring MVC is set up that doesn't always hold true. Specifically, it's assuming that MVC's path matching will use the Ant-based path matcher and not the PathPattern-based matcher. PathPattern-based matching has been an option for some time now and is the default as of Spring Boot 2.6.

As described in Spring Boot 2.6's release notes, you can restore the configuration that Springfox assumes will be used by setting spring.mvc.pathmatch.matching-strategy to ant-path-matcher in your application.properties file. Note that this will only work if you are not using Spring Boot's Actuator. The Actuator always uses PathPattern-based parsing, irrespective of the configured matching-strategy. A change to Springfox will be required if you want to use it with the Actuator in Spring Boot 2.6 and later.

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:

Code readability, short-circuiting and it is not guaranteed that Ord will always outperform a || operand. Computer systems are more complicated than expected, even though they are man-made.

There was a case where a for loop with a much more complicated condition ran faster on an IBM. The CPU didn't cool and thus instructions were executed faster, that was a possible reason. What I am trying to say, focus on other areas to improve code than fighting small-cases which will differ depending on the CPU and the boolean evaluation (compiler optimizations).

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:

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++:

This is what solved it for me on my M1.

1. Go to Android Studio Preview and download the latest Canary build for Apple chip (Chipmunk). Don't worry this is just to get through the initial setup.
2. Unpack it, run it, let it install all the SDK components, accept licenses, etc as usual.
3. Once it's done, simply close it and delete it.

Now when you start your stable Android Studio (Arctic Fox) you should not see the error.

Overflow in the iterator state.

The C++ version will loop forever when given a large enough input:

This is a specialty of Math.min, as specified:

21.3.2.25 Math.min ( ...args )

[...]

1. For each element number of coerced, do

a. If number is NaN, return NaN.

b. If number is -0𝔽 and lowest is +0𝔽, set lowest to -0𝔽.

c. If number < lowest, set lowest to number.

1. Return lowest.

Note that in most cases, +0 and -0 are treated equally, also in the ToString conversion, thus (-0).toString() evaluates to "0". That you can observe the difference in the browser console is an implementation detail of the browser.