So if the C++ committee decided that always detaching or always joining was a bad idea, why is writing a RAII wrapper which always detaches or always joins safe? Or under what conditions is always detaching or always joining the wrong answer?
|Site Feedback||Can't stream silverlight video?||0||Apr 13, 2012 at 7:44 AM|
|Site Feedback||SmoothStreaming down?||16||Apr 29, 2011 at 7:53 AM|
|Site Feedback||Authentication Required dialogs in Chrome||5||Jul 20, 2010 at 11:36 AM|
This is awesome stuff! Can't wait until I can use things like this.
Sound is really off, and the video seems to jump around a bit.
Great video, has really helped me understand unity/prism better so I can decide how best to use it in my projects.
Maybe minor question but in all your View's you always set the DataContext in a lamda which fires on the FrameworkElement.Loaded event.
Is there a case when deferring this assignment until the Loaded event is better than just assigning immediately in the class constructor?
"... It could send an email to your boss that you quit. It could format your harddrive! Anything could happen!"
Best part of the movie!
Feb 17, 2010 at 1:52 PM
Video and audio don't appear to be synced.
You can notice a little jump in the video right at about 21 seconds in that beings the desync.
Dec 28, 2009 at 9:10 AM
In trying to prove that
reverse ((x:xs) ++ ys) = (reverse ys) ++ (reverse x:xs)
Why do we need to prove that?
reverse ((x:xs) ++ ys) = (reverse ys) ++ reverse (x:xs)
Proving that (xs ++ ys) ++ zs == xs ++ (ys ++ zs) is enough.
reverse ((x:xs) ++ ys) = (reverse ys) ++ (reverse (x:xs)) reverse (x:(xs ++ ys)) = (reverse ys) ++ (reverse xs ++ [x]) reverse (xs ++ ys) ++ [x] = (reverse ys) ++ ((reverse xs) ++ [x]) reverse (xs ++ ys) ++ [x] == ((reverse ys) ++ (reverse xs)) ++ [x] reverse (xs ++ ys) == (reverse ys) ++ (reverse xs)!