subs

Why does Perl (5.30.3 but also no feature ':all') assume a bareword following the concatenation operator . to be a string? For example:

I am trying to understand the reasoning behind this particular suggestion in Visual Studio 2022, as it doesn't seem to make sense to me. Here's the simple code:

Let's say I have the following rmd:

I'm experimenting with Raku and trying to figure out how I might write a program with subcommands. When I run, ./this_program blah:

I am working on an application in which I am implementing custom permission. There is subscription-based permission that I can't check in auth guard which will be static and I have implemented helper for permission which checks for route and then check it in user subscription for that route and then redirected to any of the pages on role permission. It is working fine but I need a better approach to implement it with clean code. Here is my implementation

Home Component

I am studying parsers in Haskell following definitions from G. Hutton, E. Meijer - Monadic Parsing in Haskell.

C 2018 6.7.6.1 1 says:

If, in the declaration “T D1”, D1 has the form

    * type-qualifier-list_opt D

and the type specified for ident in the declaration “T D” is “derived-declarator-type-list T”, then the type specified for ident is “derived-declarator-type-list type-qualifier-list pointer to T”. For each type qualifier in the list, ident is a so-qualified pointer.

This question is about the final sentence, but let’s work through the first one first.

Consider the declaration int * const * foo. Here T is int, D1 is * const * foo, type-qualifier-list is const, and D is * foo.

Then T D is int * foo, and that specifies “pointer to int” for the ident foo, so derived-declarator-type-list is “pointer to”. (There is no overt explanation of derived-declarator-type-list in the standard, but 6.7.8 3, discussing typedef, says it “is specified by the declarators of D.”)

Substituting these into the final clause of the first sentence tells us that T D1 specifies the type for foo is “pointer to const pointer to int”. Fine so far.

But then the final sentence tells us that for each type qualifier in the list (which is const), ident is a so-qualified pointer. So it says foo is a const pointer.

But it is not; we commonly interpret int * const * foo to declare foo to be a non-const pointer to a const pointer to int.

Is this a mistake in the standard or is there another interpretation for the final sentence?

I have the following dataframe with two columns c1 and c2, I want to add a new column c3 based on the following logic, what I have works but is slow, can anyone suggest a way to vectorize this?

• Must be grouped based on c1 and c2, then for each group, the new column c3 must be populated sequentially from values where the key is the value of c1 and each "sub group" will have subsequent values, IOW values[value_of_c1][idx], where idx is the "sub group", example below
• The first group (1, 'a'), here c1 is 1, the "sub group" "a" index is 0 (first sub group of 1) so c3 for all rows in this group is values[1][0]
• The second group (1, 'b') here c1 is still 1 but "sub group" is "b" so index 1 (second sub group of 1) so for all rows in this group c3 is values[1][1]
• The third group (2, 'y') here c1 is now 2, "sub group" is "a" and the index is 0 (first sub group of 2), so for all rows in this group c3 is values[2][0]
• And so on
• values will have the necessary elements to satisfy this logic.

Code

I have a Cloud Function that is being triggered from a Pub/Sub topic.

I want to rate limit my Cloud Function, so I set the max instances to 5. In my case, there will be a lot more produced messages than Cloud Functions (and I want to limit the number of running Cloud Functions).

I expected this process to behave like Kafka/queue - the topic messages will be accumulated, and the Cloud Function will slowly consume messages until the topic will be empty.

But it seems that all the messages that did not trigger cloud function (ack), simply sent a UNACK - and left behind. My subscription details:

The ack deadline max value is too low for me (it may take a few hours until the Cloud Function will get to messages due to the rate-limiting).

Anything I can change in the Pub/Sub to fit my needs? Or I'll need to add a queue? (Pub/Sub to send to a Task Queue, and Cloud Function consumes the Task Queue?).

BTW, The pub/sub data is actually GCS events. If this was AWS, I would simply send S3 file-created events to SQS and have Lambdas on the other side of the queue to consume.

Any help would be appreciated.