Welcome to Software Development on Codidact!
Will you help us build our independent community of developers helping developers? We're small and trying to grow. We welcome questions about all aspects of software development, from design to code to QA and more. Got questions? Got answers? Got code you'd like someone to review? Please join us.
Activity for Karl Knechtelâ€
| Type | On... | Excerpt | Status | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Comment | Post #291323 |
I agree, at least superficially. When I started writing I had it in mind that "running" the script as an executable is the same sort of thing as invoking Python to run it (since it's still asking a Python runtime to evaluate the code, just the other way around). But looking at it now - especially giv... (more) |
— | 29 days ago |
| Comment | Post #291322 |
Reference questions on Stack Overflow that inspired this question:
* [Why do people write `#!/usr/bin/env python` on the first line of a Python script?](//stackoverflow.com/q/2429511)
* [How do I make a python script executable?](//stackoverflow.com/q/27494758)
* [`./xx.py: line 1: import: command... (more) |
— | 30 days ago |
| Comment | Post #291322 |
This question is intended as a canonical that gathers the important, overlapping ideas from several Stack Overflow questions. The goal is to create a clear overview of Python's model for starting the execution of code.
The question is notably **not** about:
* `import`ing code (except to the ext... (more) |
— | 30 days ago |
| Comment | Post #291286 |
What I meant was that I assume that systemd already has kernel level access and therefore doesn't have to do anything special in order to escalate other processes. But thinking about it further, that doesn't sound right - far too easily exploitable. (more) |
— | about 1 month ago |
| Comment | Post #291265 |
There seem to be many separate questions here. Please start by trying to make functions to implement the *individual* rules that you have in mind, and testing them. Then, the requirements for those rules need to be clearer for anyone to be able to help with them. For example, how should we know which... (more) |
— | about 1 month ago |
| Comment | Post #291089 |
My take is that it failed partly because they lost interest, but mostly because the staff are so far out of touch with the community that they didn't properly understand what they were proposing to implement nor why it would be helpful. So, *the staff conception* of the idea was fundamentally flawed,... (more) |
— | about 2 months ago |
| Comment | Post #291132 |
Well, I think that we accept *library and tool* recommendations, but not recommendations for software that would be targeted at end users. :) There has been a fair amount of discussion on Stack Overflow meta recently about whether people are being too strict or pedantic in excluding those sorts of qu... (more) |
— | about 2 months ago |
| Comment | Post #291125 |
Even if you are not confident in your findings below the line, they certainly come across as a sincere attempt to answer the question above the line. It should be posted as an answer instead. This is a [perfectly acceptable and encouraged](https://meta.codidact.com/posts/290638) use of the site softw... (more) |
— | about 2 months ago |
| Comment | Post #291068 |
> if this place is intended to be basically a wiki but in QA format, I think a lot of help/onboarding parts need a big rewrite.
You're absolutely right to be concerned, IMO. This is exactly the sort of issue that Codidact sought to address, and found fault with in SO, back at the time. However, I ... (more) |
— | about 2 months ago |
| Comment | Post #291068 |
I'm inclined to agree. Just as we don't treat the OP as special with regard to "accepting" answers (a "worked for" reaction can be applied by anyone), I would prefer that the original author of a question (or answer!) is credited in proportion to the work (both quantity and quality) done on that post... (more) |
— | about 2 months ago |
| Comment | Post #291089 |
> So the question is really what to do with those naive newbies. Let them be naive, and work around them? Or have them go away and come back when they get it? I mean obviously you're saying the second, I'm saying the first, but the site collectively has to settle on one and make it clear.
Ideally,... (more) |
— | about 2 months ago |
| Comment | Post #291132 |
A question like this necessarily solicits either speculation or personal experience, in a way that was already found on Stack Overflow not to work well. I strongly feel that this is not something particular to Stack Overflow culture, but a consequence of the true nature of a technical Q&A site. The p... (more) |
— | about 2 months ago |
| Comment | Post #291112 |
I'm afraid I don't follow. With `strcpy` or `memcpy`, it's still necessary to verify that the buffer has enough room, and it comes across to me that this is not any less work or harder to overlook.
I'm familiar with your previous Q&A and I have to admit I didn't find it very convincing. That said,... (more) |
— | about 2 months ago |
| Comment | Post #291068 |
I agree that experts [should be proactively asking](https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/426205/) questions that are of interest to beginners (and as I already pointed out, you've had the same idea on Linux Systems).
Regarding re-asking poorly asked questions, I think you should ask a separate... (more) |
— | about 2 months ago |
| Comment | Post #291089 |
Regarding workable standardized reasons to close a question, I agree that the breakdown on Stack Overflow is somewhat awkward. I've written about other possibilities on our Meta before (it may have been the overall Meta), but it won't be easy for me to find at the moment. (more) |
— | about 2 months ago |
| Comment | Post #291089 |
Abuse and misunderstanding (and everything in between) of close reasons is always a concern, regardless of what the stated reasons are. But in all seriousness, a very large fraction of questions that trigger the "stupid question" emotional response *really are* overly broad, and that broadness is ver... (more) |
— | about 2 months ago |
| Comment | Post #291089 |
To understand "you don't get an answer, written for you, directly to your question" as punitive, one must first presume that the opposite is a privilege. But that's simply not how a Q&A site works. In fact, "your question" already betrays a misunderstanding - that's why there is content licensing. Th... (more) |
— | about 2 months ago |
| Comment | Post #291068 |
Regarding the overhead of reopening closed questions, I think that merits a separate discussion on the network-wide Meta to come up with ideas for streamlining.
Regarding expertise: as someone with a reasonable claim to "expertise" in Python, I would much rather feel responsible for *asking the qu... (more) |
— | 2 months ago |
| Comment | Post #291046 |
Specifically: what I understood from the question so far is that you have solved the problem of making a list of strings from the input file, and now you are trying to group them. The fact that you have something else to do with those groups (compute a Cartesian product) is irrelevant (if you have di... (more) |
— | 2 months ago |
| Comment | Post #291046 |
A Q&A site isn't the right place to get code debugged. Questions are supposed to be of use to future visitors, too. To make this question appropriate, you should first decide: is this about how to solve the grouping problem, or is it about fixing the problem in the code?
If you specifically want ... (more) |
— | 2 months ago |
| Comment | Post #290905 |
Is the question supposed to be about correctness, or style? If it's about correctness, did you *try* each way? Or if you're trying to offer a self-answered canonical, do you have a *reason to expect* that people would get it wrong? If it's about style, then what criteria do you consider relevant to ... (more) |
— | 3 months ago |
| Comment | Post #290682 |
That seems completely unrelated to me. Controlling where the file ends up when it's packaged (so that the existing code properly refers to its path) is a completely separate problem from actually specifying the path in the code. It should be addressed by a separate Q&A. I can imagine that question li... (more) |
— | 3 months ago |
| Comment | Post #278277 |
On Software for example, it seems appropriate that a question motivated by a typo or other similar, simple oversight - provided that the Q&A wouldn't be useful to others, i.e., it doesn't represent a mistake that *someone else* could have realistically made in earnest - should be closed. Presumably, ... (more) |
— | 4 months ago |
| Comment | Post #286185 |
The rest of what you say makes sense from a pragmatic software engineering perspective; but I struggle with the idea that this might have actually been meant as an exercise in recursion. Sure, the stack-based approach could be adapted to use the call stack implicitly, but that doesn't seem like a goo... (more) |
— | 4 months ago |
| Comment | Post #289252 |
I think that's out of scope for this question. The purpose isn't to showcase string formatting, but rather string *assembly*. I did touch on format specifiers, but deep within the nested details tags, and even then saying to read the documentation to understand it properly. (more) |
— | 4 months ago |
| Comment | Post #290343 |
I appreciate the feedback, and agree that certain topics can be split off - I'll think about it in more detail. I don't require answers for them; while you're of course always welcome in the Codidact model to add your own answers, the point here is very explicitly for me to share knowledge that I alr... (more) |
— | 6 months ago |
| Comment | Post #290329 |
It's not clear from this question what level of detail you were hoping to see in answers, or how technical they ought to be. If the point was to set up the opportunity to present your research findings as an answer, it would be better to re-work the question so that it matches and properly introduces... (more) |
— | 6 months ago |
| Comment | Post #290181 |
On a closer read, it appears that there are in fact satirical elements. However, the message is still pretty clear: the advice to start with an empty commit is useless and meant as a workaround for non-problems. (more) |
— | 6 months ago |
| Comment | Post #290181 |
"Apparently, there is also the practice of starting a repo with an empty commit. Read the post a couple of times, but still don't understand the reasoning (and I suspect that it is perhaps a satirical post)." - it's not satirical; it's straightforwardly a critique of the idea - hence the "doing git w... (more) |
— | 6 months ago |
| Comment | Post #290133 |
I'm not sure what the intended scope of the question is. Are you looking for debugging help, or trying to understand a concept?
If it's about debugging, it would be best to help yourself first. Do you understand what the error means generally? Have you been able to figure out *where* in the code i... (more) |
— | 7 months ago |
| Comment | Post #290124 |
Could you please walk us through *how you run* the code? For example, I assume there are some steps you take in order to boot a server, and then you try to visit some URL in your web browser? What URL do you use, and how did you decide it? (more) |
— | 7 months ago |
| Comment | Post #284175 |
This seems like a special case of a more general observation about floating-point inaccuracy, which seems like a more important question to ask and answer (and have near the top of the site listing). (more) |
— | 7 months ago |
| Comment | Post #290057 |
I decided to add an answer to this old question in order to try to expand some detail and give more clarity, taking into account the comment feedback on the original answer. That answer is high-quality and very much to the point; but some readers might want a more in-depth treatment.
At some futur... (more) |
— | 7 months ago |
| Comment | Post #290032 |
I always use `git add -p` for this, and had assumed that the `p` stood for "partial". I checked the documentation and indeed the long version of the flag is "patch". Interesting. (more) |
— | 7 months ago |
| Comment | Post #289985 |
I already touched on this idea [here](https://software.codidact.com/posts/289599). I do like the idea that such questions go in a separate category. In the long run it will make curation easier, since all the viable duplicate targets will be in the Q&A category, which can then be used as a powerful s... (more) |
— | 7 months ago |
| Comment | Post #289907 |
I started writing an answer to this question despite my misgivings, but I think they're too serious to ignore. While the general idea is excellent, there are two serious problems here:
1. Most of the question is language-agnostic (i.e. figuring out what needs to be sent to stdout); the only Python... (more) |
— | 7 months ago |
| Comment | Post #289829 |
Perhaps "local" was meant to mean "only exists locally"? (more) |
— | 8 months ago |
| Comment | Post #289780 |
It's probably worth pointing out that such shifting-and-book-keeping is O(N); that if order doesn't need to be preserved then the last element can simply be moved directly into the vacated space; and that removing multiple elements at once (whether identified by a separate collection of indices, by a... (more) |
— | 8 months ago |
| Comment | Post #289753 |
I want to split this up so that there is a separate question for the workarounds. It feels a bit shoehorned in here, especially since the *underlying* problem (early binding of defaults) has *other effects* (e.g. not supporting a default parameter "based on" another parameter).
Also, I plan to hav... (more) |
— | 8 months ago |
| Comment | Post #285818 |
Stack Exchange is dominated by Stack Overflow because it was originally an idea by and for programmers, who later realized almost as an afterthought that the same software and format could be used to build Q&A about other topics. Codidact comes years later, after seeing how the Stack Exchange model h... (more) |
— | 8 months ago |
| Comment | Post #289725 |
Proper answers to this will depend *strongly* on your exact needs. The Pickle format is about as general as is ever feasible, and is way overkill for most serialization. (more) |
— | 8 months ago |
| Comment | Post #289714 |
This site is for concrete questions and answers. It isn't reasonable to expect "help" with figuring out a possible problem buried within dozens of lines of "code" (which seems to be a mixture of things that you wrote and messages that you got when you tried to do something). It's also impossible to u... (more) |
— | 8 months ago |
| Comment | Post #289251 |
"I just can't imagine that someone would think about tuples in this kind of scenario." I think you've misunderstood. The word "tuple" here is **only** used to describe the **result of** the non-working attempt. (more) |
— | 8 months ago |
| Comment | Post #289700 |
I hadn't actually thought about using a helper class for interpreting the bits of the integer used to represent universe subsets - you might consider adding an answer to refine this idea, or proposing an edit :) (Although it's not exactly clear to me that this makes things any easier than just using ... (more) |
— | 8 months ago |
| Comment | Post #289707 |
Sorry, I don't understand how "code obfuscation" relates to the other concepts here.
Aside from that, this is a good start to the discussion, but I don't feel like I've moved significantly closer towards choosing from the options I presented.... (more) |
— | 8 months ago |
| Comment | Post #289251 |
It seems appropriate to show common non-working attempts, because that will help someone who is redirected here after trying one of them. I'll try to simplify the wording, and move the point about versions to a footnote. (more) |
— | 8 months ago |
| Comment | Post #289691 |
The [site topicality guidelines](https://software.codidact.com/help/on-topic) explicitly permit Q&A about "Software design, architecture, or modeling", which I think this is. (more) |
— | 8 months ago |
| Comment | Post #289692 |
Of course, that will get into language-dependent details. The languages that *do* support large integers tend to represent booleans as separate objects and not necessarily have a bit-vector abstraction, so that can incur a lot of overhead again. But the main idea here is the representation of "subset... (more) |
— | 8 months ago |
| Comment | Post #289605 |
Do you need to be able to interrupt individual calls to `do_big_task`? Or only check in between each call, whether there has been a keypress since the previous call? (more) |
— | 9 months ago |
| Comment | Post #289584 |
"Would this be correct?" - Generally I don't think that this sort of thing forms the basis of a useful question for a Q&A site. Did you **try** the code? Does it give the results you expect? Does anything strange happen? It would be better to identify a concrete problem, if any, to ask about; otherwi... (more) |
— | 9 months ago |