vodik

shift-insert works in X if you can't middle click. In gvim too, out-of-the-box if you're in insert mode.

The point is its still http.

Think of TOR as acting like a VPN or point-to-point tunnel. You can conceptually think of it as another network interface plugged into your network. The policy you choose what to route over it is your own. It doesn't affect how any other protocols function.

I can still access regular sites over TOR. I can also access regular websites over a VPN. openvpn+http:// isn't exactly useful either for the same reason.

And there are other special tld. Your multicast domain group (e.g. .local) is also special. Your dns resolver sees the TLD and resolves it specially. But once again, doing multicast DNS doesn't impact http, git, ssh, etc. So it be silly to have to write mdns+http://... as well.

And if you where to join them, then you have to describe what kind of behaviour should happen if, for example, on openvpn+http://foobar.tld you hit a hyperlink to http://baz.tld. Do I rewrite this to prepend openvpn+? Fail? etc.

Probably even easier to just show pictures in pairs and have the participant to select the one they think is more attractive.

ITts a lot better. I've ported libdbus-1 code to sd-bus and in practise I saw 100s of lines are replaced by about 20, with better error reporting on top of it.

What about files with newlines? evil smirk

The core difference is that:

- `[` is treated as a statement

- `[[` is treated as an expression

Which, for example, is why you can't use `>` in `[` based expressions. Bash thinks you want to redirect the output of `[` to somewhere else. This restriction is lifted for `[[` and makes for much more natural looking code.

Ironically, if the given example was written in pure bash, it would be violating best practices. You don't parse ls line-by-line because you can't make the assumption that filenames will map to lines.

Taking this contrived example at face value, imho, I'd instead place the "best of bash" for the particular task with file globbing.

For what its worth, it is only MSVC without support. gcc compiler extensions are otherwise still rather portable. To clang and icc at least.

As far as I know, using `new` or not has nothing to really do if it goes onto the stack or not. That's simply a common implementation details.

What its really saying is if the lifetime is automatic or manual.

Maybe I'm confusing C with C++ or just outright confused, but to my understanding, nothing says that:

    int foo[] = <massive amount of data>;

actually has to live on the stack.

> But if you tried to give me a C++ with using blocks but no RAII (read: you gave me C)

If you don't care about MSVC, IMHO new C code should be using the gcc cleanup extension: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_Acquisition_Is_Initial...

Well the core of the issue here is you can't really staticly link against a library that depends on dlopen/dlsym (nss system is built around this).

I mean, you could, but now your staticly linked binary still depends on other dlsym'd code. So whats the point?

(Not trying to make an argument that this is good or bad behaviour)