3 ms·

This doesn’t mention the API used, and the best Google gives me (via https://stackoverflow.com/questions/18680028/prevent-screen-capture-in-an-ios-app https://s

This doesn’t mention the API used, and the best Google gives me (via https://stackoverflow.com/questions/18680028/prevent-screen-capture-in-an-ios-app https://stackoverflow.com/questions/18680028/prevent-screen-...) is https://developer.apple.com/documentation/uikit/uitextinputtraits/1624427-issecuretextentry https://developer.apple.com/documentation/uikit/uitextinputt...: “A Boolean value that indicates whether a text object disables copying, and in some cases, prevents recording/broadcasting and also hides the text.” ⇒ it seems people creatively use this feature to hide views below such fields from screenshots, as in https://github.com/Stampoo/SnapshotSafeView https://github.com/Stampoo/SnapshotSafeView (and, possibly, the commercial https://screenshieldkit.com/ https://screenshieldkit.com/) I do wonder what those “some cases” are, though, and also why we would want to not show a secure text field in a screen recording. Is giving away the length of your password deemed such a risk?

trinovantes 4y ago
This is a case where the oxford comma would help remove ambiguity I think it's supposed to list: - disables copying - (in some cases) prevents recording/broadcasting - hides the text Where "some cases" is simply some minimum iOS version and/or some other unknown hardware configuration that allows the device to prevent video recording
- bananarchist 4y ago
  Only if your interpretation is correct - otherwise the serial comma is wrong. I read it differently because of the use of “also”
  - trinovantes 4y ago
    I don't think the comma usage was wrong. The commas around "and in some cases" serve as both serializing the list and inserting the extra information that otherwise could've been removed from the sentence. However, it might have been better to use parenthesis to avoid the ambiguity. The use of parallel verbs "disables", "prevents", and "hides" was a strong indicator to me that it was a list. I interpreted the "and also" at the end as a stylistic choice since the first two items follows the form "[verb] [ing-verb]" whereas the last item doesn't.
    - bananarchist 4y ago
      The fact that you you recognize the termination of grammatical parallelism in the final phrase yet inject authorial intentions of style into your analysis thereof to interpret the sentence as yet another example of the moral decay in English orthography indicates to me I need to leave the internet forever. This is a silly place.
      - trinovantes 4y ago
        TIL allowing objects after their respective parallel verbs to not follow the same form is considered moral decay of the English language And yes, the internet is a silly place where we'd rather have an off-topic argument about the subtleties of grammar than wait for an iOS developer to resolve the original question

trinovantes 4y ago

This is a case where the oxford comma would help remove ambiguity I think it's supposed to list: - disables copying - (in some cases) prevents recording/broadcasting - hides the text Where "some cases" is simply some minimum iOS version and/or some other unknown hardware configuration that allows the device to prevent video recording

bananarchist 4y ago
Only if your interpretation is correct - otherwise the serial comma is wrong. I read it differently because of the use of “also”
- trinovantes 4y ago
  I don't think the comma usage was wrong. The commas around "and in some cases" serve as both serializing the list and inserting the extra information that otherwise could've been removed from the sentence. However, it might have been better to use parenthesis to avoid the ambiguity. The use of parallel verbs "disables", "prevents", and "hides" was a strong indicator to me that it was a list. I interpreted the "and also" at the end as a stylistic choice since the first two items follows the form "[verb] [ing-verb]" whereas the last item doesn't.
  - bananarchist 4y ago
    The fact that you you recognize the termination of grammatical parallelism in the final phrase yet inject authorial intentions of style into your analysis thereof to interpret the sentence as yet another example of the moral decay in English orthography indicates to me I need to leave the internet forever. This is a silly place.
    - trinovantes 4y ago
      TIL allowing objects after their respective parallel verbs to not follow the same form is considered moral decay of the English language And yes, the internet is a silly place where we'd rather have an off-topic argument about the subtleties of grammar than wait for an iOS developer to resolve the original question