Pages | A lightweight , paging view solution for SwiftUI | Frontend Framework library

In practical terms, this is about garbage collection.

Linear logic avoids making copies as well as leaving unused values lying around. So when you create an array with new, you also need to make sure it's eventually cleaned up again.

How can you make sure it is cleaned up? Well, in this example they do it by not giving back the array as the result, but instead “lending” it to the caller. The function Arr ⊸ Arr ⊗ X must give an array back in the end, in addition to the result you're actually interested in. It's assumed that this will be a modified form of the array you started out with. Only the X is passed back to the caller, the Arr is deallocated.

In addition to the provided comments:

%$% also called the Exposition pipe vs. %>%:

This is a short summary of this article https://towardsdatascience.com/3-lesser-known-pipe-operators-in-tidyverse-111d3411803a

"The key difference in using %$% or %>% lies in the type of arguments of used functions."

One advantage, and as far as I can understand it, for me the only one to use %$% over %>% is the fact that we can avoid repetitive input of the dataframe name in functions that have no data as an argument.

For example the lm() has a data argument. In this case we can use both %>% and %$% interchangeable.

But in functions like the cor() which has no data argument:

I tried to answer your question without knowing an example.

You need to extract youtubeId from A tag and then replace A tag into iframe tag.

pseudo code is:

I have the same issue after upgrade to tailwind v3 and fixed it by update @tailwindcss/forms to 0.4.0

After further consideration, I think a simpler solution for replacement should be using C# Reflection instead of relying on JSON. Tell me if it does not satisfy your need:

As long as i know, in react-router v6 it's the only component that's able to be child of

you can change this code

instead that you shoud use !, that typescript ignores the fact that the value could be null which in your case it is not

The code shown is valid (all C++ Standard versions, I believe). The similar restrictions are all listed in [reserved.names]. Since read is not declared in the C++ standard library, nor in the C standard library, nor in older versions of the standard libraries, and is not otherwise listed there, it's fair game as a name in the global namespace.

So is it an implementation defect that it won't link with -static? (Not a "compiler bug" - the compiler piece of the toolchain is fine, and there's nothing forbidding a warning on valid code.) It does at least work with default settings (though because of how the GNU linker doesn't mind duplicated symbols in an unused object of a dynamic library), and one could argue that's all that's needed for Standard compliance.

We also have at [intro.compliance]/8

A conforming implementation may have extensions (including additional library functions), provided they do not alter the behavior of any well-formed program. Implementations are required to diagnose programs that use such extensions that are ill-formed according to this International Standard. Having done so, however, they can compile and execute such programs.

We can consider POSIX functions such an extension. This is intentionally vague on when or how such extensions are enabled. The g++ driver of the GCC toolset links a number of libraries by default, and we can consider that as adding not only the availability of non-standard #include headers but also adding additional translation units to the program. In theory, different arguments to the g++ driver might make it work without the underlying link step using libc.so. But good luck - one could argue it's a problem that there's no simple way to link only names from the C++ and C standard libraries without including other unreserved names.

(Does not altering a well-formed program even mean that an implementation extension can't use non-reserved names for the additional libraries? I hope not, but I could see a strict reading implying that.)

So I haven't claimed a definitive answer to the question, but the practical situation is unlikely to change, and a Standard Defect Report would in my opinion be more nit-picking than a useful clarification.

Yes, alloca is functionally equivalent to a local variable length array, i.e. this: