lenary

They are likely to remove this in the next C standard (or may have already), because a declaration with a static size is “compatible” with a declaration with no static size, and thus you can get unsoundness.

So your compiler should accept (though the semantics of static suggest this program would be wrong):

    void foo(int a[static 3]);
    void foo(int a[]);

According to the spec, this is fine, but when you come to define the function foo, should it respect the ‘static’ annotation? The spec doesn’t say, and doing static analysis of subsumption for the expressions after ‘static’ is much more complex to keep sound than C prefers in its specification.

It is not ready for production use.

Do try it out though!

It seems you still want to micro-manage your remote team, which at the same time isn't that remote as you want to meet them once a week.

Come back when you have some sensible suggestions for a truly remote team.

I love that research is going into disproving already superseded theories.

FINALLY! Been waiting for this for ages!

is it just me, or does anyone else think that though the design is prettier, it kinda makes other parts of the app look bad - for instance compare the commit style to the tree listings. it's not that one or the other look bad, it's just the dissimilarity is jarring.

yes, seems really slow from my end too.

no need to restart the server. if you're using passenger, just `$ touch tmp/restart.txt` (in your rails app). That will restart just that app in passenger (and lots of other servers too)

this is not quite what it makes out to be. of course at one level you only need an ethernet cord, but at some level you need to supply power to the cord itself. That power requires a power cable + PoE box if done close to the monitor, or you can buy a rack PoE unit and do it further away, which will have a limit on how far away from the unit you can be.

PoE units are useful when having only one cable enter the housing for waterproofing issues. otherwise, why go to all the hassle?

nope, i don't do that... maybe i will someday

doesn't heart kinda solve the cyclic "who restarts who thing". I think heart (if enabled) sits there until the erlang process exits, restarts the erlang vm, which in turn also brings up an instance of heart. yeah, complicated and not perfect, but it works.