mnarayan01

41 ms·

391.
by mnarayan01 14y ago
The reason people use JavaScript for scripting in the browser is because there is no other option. The biggest reason I see to use it outside the browser is because you're already using it inside the browser. There are plenty of things to d
392.
by mnarayan01 14y ago
0 == false or even better "0" == false edit: I should note that I don't think JS is a horrible language or anything, but it does have more than its share of oddities.
393.
by mnarayan01 14y ago
The commercial areas are built as far as possible from residential ones This is because of urban planning.
394.
by mnarayan01 14y ago
Seems to be trolling. I find that refusal to link to a claimed source in the face of requests to do so almost always corresponds to trolling. Also There's actually a mathematical proof out there that no regular expression engine will sa
395.
by mnarayan01 14y ago
The author declares that well-formed HTML can be recognized with a CFG, but it's far from clear to me whether that's the case. It's almost certainly not true for HTML5.
396.
by mnarayan01 14y ago
It may be pedantic, but that seems more like a description of TeX to me. That said, I have no idea how to describe LaTeX in an easily accessible manner.
397.
by mnarayan01 14y ago
That makes his use of the term "solidus" a bit baffling (maybe it's referred to as such somewhere in the HTML5 specs?). I actually assumed he must mean both the characters in "/>" -- glad you mentioned it before I made a fool of myself
398.
by mnarayan01 14y ago
Ruby makes a number of tradeoffs in favor of "expressibility" at the expense of readability (without a _high_ degree of ruby proficiency) and ability to reason about programs. You can disagree with these tradeoffs, but they're not mistakes.
399.
by mnarayan01 14y ago
If I installed it at the system level, then anything that linked against libxml/libxml2 would have the enhancement. Which is also the biggest reason I'm not going to do it...I'd invariably end up distributing XML with the sugarfied close ta
400.
by mnarayan01 14y ago
// check if we're toobusy() - note, this call is extremely fast, and returns // state that is calculated asynchronously. if (toobusy()) res.send(503, "I'm busy right now, sorry."); Saying it is calculated "asynchronously" seem
401.
by mnarayan01 14y ago
God knows something to ease the closing tag verbosity would make XML at least twice as useable. I wonder if there's anything in the grammar that would conflict with </> as a closing tag? I'm almost tempted to muck with libxml and ad
402.
by mnarayan01 14y ago
For any non-flat configuration file XML is far from a bad choice. It obviously has its issues, often YAML or something less syntactically burdensome might be better, but I'd need to hear a convincing argument before I would say that it's al
403.
by mnarayan01 14y ago
You will only get that error if you upgrade to 3.2.11 (or whatever) and do not disable XML. If you disable XML, you'll just silently not parse the XML (regardless of update status).
404.
by mnarayan01 14y ago
You originally wrote: > I think if you have nearly 1KB of GET data, something is definitely wrong. The only point anyone is trying to make is that this is incorrect; retrieving multiple records is a perfectly good use case for having a
405.
by mnarayan01 14y ago
Part of me wonders what would happen if someone where to Base64 encode something like ({:project-id {:conditions "true); DELETE FROM projects WHERE (true"}})
406.
by mnarayan01 14y ago
Initially I was going to say to make the URL shorter, but it actually appears to do the opposite.
407.
by mnarayan01 14y ago
Or you could just use a PUT request with the ids in the request body. I get the reasoning behind doing it with a POST -> GET, but doing that as a default case would be nuts. If nothing else either I can a) DOS you trivially or b) you mi
408.
by mnarayan01 14y ago
Even 125 is not all that much if the resources are not being directly shown to the user (e.g. automated services, etc).
409.
by mnarayan01 14y ago
Reading to the bottom and then viewing the subsequent post makes it pretty clear they are not doing it in Java; hence the need to change the title.
410.
by mnarayan01 14y ago
Title really needs to be postfixed with "in Scala".
411.
by mnarayan01 14y ago
Just to expand on what others have already said...Rails converts params to http://api.rubyonrails.org/classes/ActiveSupport/HashWithInd... which means that `params[:foo]` and `params["foo"]` will both return the same thing. The function [
412.
by mnarayan01 14y ago
Yea I'm not seeing it either. Maybe if someone explicitly called `params.symbolize_keys!`? If that's the only time its vulnerable it seems like less of a big deal, though still obviously something that should be patched ASAP. edit: Above sa