Respect that first entry in the table below: never make up any identifier that starts with an underscore.
(Actually, you can legally use an identifier that starts with an underscore if the second character is a lower-case letter or a digit, and the identifier is used inside a function or a function prototype or as a structure member or label. Easier just not to use leading underscores!)
The parent post uses them inside a function and the second character is lower-case.
The comment on nasty, resource-hogging pipes is interesting, because on my system, using grep instead of -name is consistently faster than find:
$ for ((i=0;i<5;i++)); do time find ~ 2>&1 | grep foo >/dev/null; done 2>&1 | grep real real 0m0.486s real 0m0.482s real 0m0.486s real 0m0.481s real 0m0.484s $ for ((i=0;i<5;i++)); do time find ~ -name foo 2>&1 >/dev/null; done 2>&1 | grep real real 0m0.575s real 0m0.581s real 0m0.577s real 0m0.576s real 0m0.579s
Sure, it's not a huge difference, but the fact that grep is ~16% faster doesn't make me think twice about using the more generic | grep foo.
The speed difference is even larger when you introduce wildcards. For example -name '*.foo' versus grep '.*foo$'
as for the hardcoded pixels. yeah I know it's not perfect but it enables me to arrange the divs in the page so that for text only the important text of the page appears first and then the menus underneath.
The trouble with that is you assume every browser is going to respect your style sheet's choice of font and sizing.
I know someone who is legally blind but can see enough to read large, well contrasted text so he sets his browser to override any suggested fonts and sizes. This feature, combined with a column on a page that's set less than 200 pixels wide can be impressively irritating:-)
That point aside, it's good to see any commercial looking site trying (and mostly succeeding) to be interoperable.
You might want to make sure both your HTML and CSS are correct. cyan and darkblue are not valid standard colors. Try aqua and navy respectively or use full rgb values.
Also, the site seems to be hardcoded to use X pixels horizontally. This could annoy users of devices that can only display way less than X pixels horizontally.
Also, it could actually annoy future users with very high resolution displays because the whole website will take up a tiny fraction of the screen. I see there are already 3840x2200 22" monitors. This would make your website appear about 5 inches wide on that screen at full resolution.
You don't actually have to calculate each pixel to the maximum iteration level, the vast majority of points that do approach infinity - you can either quickly tell they will, or they start repeating in a short cycle. Once they repeat you can give up and go to the next pixel.
Slashdot Mirror
I had to help my uncle Jack off a horse.
Watt's so funny?
From http://web.archive.org/web/20040209031039/http://o akroadsystems.com/tech/c-predef.htm#Groups:
Respect that first entry in the table below: never make up any identifier that starts with an underscore.
(Actually, you can legally use an identifier that starts with an underscore if the second character is a lower-case letter or a digit, and the identifier is used inside a function or a function prototype or as a structure member or label. Easier just not to use leading underscores!)
The parent post uses them inside a function and the second character is lower-case.
as for the hardcoded pixels. yeah I know it's not perfect but it enables me to arrange the divs in the page so that for text only the important text of the page appears first and then the menus underneath.
:-)
The trouble with that is you assume every browser is going to respect your style sheet's choice of font and sizing.
I know someone who is legally blind but can see enough to read large, well contrasted text so he sets his browser to override any suggested fonts and sizes. This feature, combined with a column on a page that's set less than 200 pixels wide can be impressively irritating
That point aside, it's good to see any commercial looking site trying (and mostly succeeding) to be interoperable.
A couple of points.
i =h ttp://www.thebigchoice.com/
Although http://www.thebigchoice.com/ validates as good html 4.01, the CSS file it uses doesn't validate as correct CSS:
http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?ur
You might want to make sure both your HTML and CSS are correct. cyan and darkblue are not valid standard colors. Try aqua and navy respectively or use full rgb values.
Also, the site seems to be hardcoded to use X pixels horizontally. This could annoy users of devices that can only display way less than X pixels horizontally.
Also, it could actually annoy future users with very high resolution displays because the whole website will take up a tiny fraction of the screen. I see there are already 3840x2200 22" monitors. This would make your website appear about 5 inches wide on that screen at full resolution.
You don't actually have to calculate each pixel to the maximum iteration level, the vast majority of points that do approach infinity - you can either quickly tell they will, or they start repeating in a short cycle. Once they repeat you can give up and go to the next pixel.
Fractint allows you to add your own fractal formulas too. Even if it didn't, it's open source, so it wouldn't be difficult to adapt it.
Many movie theatres here in Australia block mobile phone coverage simply using the walls, not any active jamming.