transliterate | Convert Unicode characters to Latin characters | Build Tool library

In this solution, if the translation checkbox is clicked, the translateBlock() method is called and the text inside the </code> element is changed according to the logic.</p> <p><div class="snippet" data-lang="js" data-hide="false" data-console="true" data-babel="false"> <div class="snippet-code"> <pre class="snippet-code-js lang-js prettyprint-override"><code>/* A let variable is declared, not a const, to change the content. */ let checkBox = document.getElementById('checkbox'); let input = document.getElementById('input'); function transRussian(ch){ ch = ch.replace(/l/g, "л"); ch = ch.replace(/p/g, "п"); return ch; } function translateBlock(){ var ch = input.value; input.value = transRussian(ch); } /* When the checkbox is clicked, the control variable is set to true. */ input.addEventListener('keyup', () => { if(checkBox.checked) translateBlock(); }); /* This method is triggered when data is entered in the <textarea> element. */ checkBox.addEventListener('change', () => { if(checkBox.checked) translateBlock(); else console.log("transliteration is turned off") });</code></pre> <pre class="snippet-code-css lang-css prettyprint-override"><code>textarea{ display: block; }</code></pre> <pre class="snippet-code-html lang-html prettyprint-override"><code><span>Translate</span> <input type="checkbox" id="checkbox"/> <textarea id="input" name="w3review" rows="4" cols="50"> At w3schools.com you will learn how to make a website. They offer free tutorials in all web development technologies.

I've figured out that I'm always returning with a method ToList() so I've created a custom static toList method and added transliteration.

You will need to enforce your order of priority, like here:

You forgot to define the o letter mapping.

Here is the fix:

Apparently, no one is both interested enough and confident enough to write an answer, so I guess I'll go ahead.

isn't that argument fatally flawed?

To the extent that the proof quoted from the paper is intended to demonstrate that a conforming C implementation is not permitted to perform the source-to-source transformation described in the question, or an equivalent, yes, the proof is flawed. The refutation presented in the question is sound.

There was some discussion in comments about how the refutation could be viewed as boiling down to anything being permissible in the event of undefined behavior. That is a valid perspective, and in no way does it undercut the argument. However, I think it's unnecessarily minimalistic.

Again, the key problem with the paper's proof is here:

the load of a can only return 0 (the initial value of a) because the store a=1 does not happen before it (because it is in a different thread that has not been synchronised with) and non-atomic loads must return the latest write that happens before them.

The proof's error is that the language specification's requirement that a read of a must return the result of a write to a that "happened before" it is conditioned on the program being free of data races. This is an essential foundation for the whole model, not some kind of escape hatch. The program manifestly is not free of data races if in fact the read of a is performed, so the requirement is moot in that case. The read of a by thread 2 absolutely can observe the write by thread 1, and there is good reason to suppose that it might sometimes do so in practice.

To look at it another way, the proof chooses to focus on the write not happening before the read, but ignores the fact that the read also does not happen before the write.

Taking the relaxed atomic accesses into account does not change anything. It is plausible that in a real execution of the paper's three-threaded program, the implementation (for example) speculatively executes the relaxed load of x in thread 2 on the assumption that it will return 1, then reads from a the value written by thread 1, and as a result, executes the store to y. Because the atomic accesses are performed with relaxed semantics, the execution of thread 3 can read the value of y as 1 (or speculate that it will do so) and consequently perform the write to x. All speculations involved can then be confirmed correct, with the final result that a = x = y = 1. It is intentional that this seemingly paradoxical result is allowed by the "relaxed" memory order.

isn't it indeed valid for a C11 implementation to treat the original three-threaded program as if it were the two-threaded program consisting of threads 2' and 3?

At minimum, the paper's argument does not show otherwise, even if we -- with no basis in the specification -- construe the scope of the UB arising from the data race to be limited to whether the value read from a is its initial one or the one written by thread 1.

Implementations are given broad license to behave as they choose, so long as they produce observable behavior that is consistent with the behavior required of the abstract machine. The creation and execution of multiple threads of execution is not itself part of the observable behavior of a program, as that is defined by the specification. Therefore, yes, a program that performed the proposed transformation and then behaved accordingly, or one that otherwise behaved as if there were a happens before edge between the write to a and the read from a, would not be acting inconsistently with the specification.

First put the keys with multiple characters first, then use a regular expression to match any of the keys, starting with the first, instead of splitting by ''.

Ideally, the way we use translation service is like {{ 'Key' | translate }} and to simply pass it from parent to child component you can do it as shown below and it will work

Preface: I know nothing of devanagari, so you will have to bear with me.

First, consider your function. It can return two things, character or None (print just outputs something, it doesn't actually return a value). That makes your first output example originate from the print function, not Python evaluating your last statement.

Then, when you consider your second test string, it will see that there's some Devanagari text and just return the string back. What you have to do, if this transliteration works as I think it does, is to apply this function to every word in your text.

I modified your function to:

The str.translate method table maps from unicode ordinals (i.e. integers) to ordinals, strings, or None. Use str.maketrans to convert the string-to-string mapping appropriately: