voyou
In both cases, you can share behaviour between objects by putting that behaviour in another object and attaching it in a special way to the objects that should have similar behaviour - in JavaScript it's called __proto__, in Python it's called __class__, etc. Python (and Ruby, Smalltalk, and others) introduce an additional "meta" level of shared behaviour between all these class objects, whereas JavaScript (and Self) don't, but that's a comparatively technical implementation detail. Most languages other than JavaScript are include slightly more language-level support for one particular pattern of using this shared behaviour, which gives users of these languages a strong hint as to how to use these capabilities.
The addition of a class keyword to JavaScript is good because it emphasises what JavaScript shares with other dynamic OO languages.
I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here, but I don't think this is right. cleaned_data is a dictionary, and so the second argument to get is a default value to use if there is no value corresponding to the key. So, in your example, if there's no value for "formfield1" in cleaned_data, it would return a string with a space in.
This is probably not what you want to do. cleaned_data will always contain values for declared form fields, so the only way the default would be used is if you've made a mistake in specifying the key (for instance, if there's a typo and you've written 'formfeild1' instead of 'formfield1'). If you've made that kind of mistake, you don't want the program to continue using a single space instead of the valid data (you'll lose data) - you want the program to report that there's something wrong.
So I think you should probably use
form.cleaned_data['formfield1']
which will do the same thing if formfield1 is a real field name specified in the form, but will raise an exception if it isn't.Can you say more about that? I can't make any sense of it. In a 1 hour electronics lesson, you'ld presumably cover the gates, i.e., propositional calculus. In a first logic module, you'ld learn that and another, richer, form of logic, the predicate calculus. You'ld also learn about the proof procedures for both, which ought to lead on to learning the (to my mind, interesting and important) fact that there's a mechanical procedure that's guaranteed to prove or disprove any argument in propositional calculus, but there's no such procedure for predicate calculus. Later logic courses would probably include some formal semantics, so you'ld learn about the (again, to my mind significant) distinction between what makes something true, and how we prove that something is true. Did you learn all these things in your one hour high school electronics lesson? Or are they somehow not "meaningful" or "complicated"?
Advent of Code 2016
Maybe I Was Wrong about Java
The idea that the end of a block is invisible isn't really right, though. The newline doesn't end the block. The block ends at the next line containing non-whitespace text at a lower indentation level. In other words, it only ends when it becomes visible that it has ended.
A Git Workflow for Humans
In C++, directly using pointers to access arrays is often discouraged, in favour of using the standard collection types and their associated iterator types. So in code that follows this style, it is possible to warn about uses of pointer arithmetic, and the core C++ guidelines do suggest such a warning. But the guidelines also point out that "this rule would generate a huge number of false positives if applied to an older code base": https://github.com/isocpp/CppCoreGuidelines/blob/master/CppC...
This sounds a lot like PyJS: http://pyjs.org/
"An Electric Monk is a labour-saving device, like a dishwasher or a video recorder. Dishwashers wash tedious dishes for you, thus saving you the bother of washing them yourself, video recorders watch tedious television for you, thus saving you the bother of looking at it yourself; Electric Monks believe things for you, thus saving you what is becoming an increasingly onerous task, that of believing all the things the world expect you to believe."
Let's Stop Requiring Advanced Math, a New Book Argues
Currently, if your followers scroll through all their tweets, they are guaranteed to see everything you post. The same is true with the new system, as it's described in the blog post, although they might see some other tweets before yours, if the algorithm decides to prioritise them. Perhaps Twitter will later introduce a more Facebook-like system where users have "the option to only see popularly selected tweets", but that's not what they're currently proposing.
At least up until now, there have been ad sales, which you can think of as an incredibly heath-robinson micropayment system: a small amount of what I pay for every product I buy goes to their marketing department, which passes on a smaller amount to advertising firms, which give it to websites. The viability of advertising largely removed the incentive to develop micropayment systems; hopefully that's now changing.
Magazines exercise editorial control, so they provide some some kind of signal of the kind and quality of writing you're going to get. Medium doesn't do that, so in an analogy to print publication, it would be more like... paper? a printing press?
Actually, Medium is just like the internet, except there's only one Medium and there's lots of the rest of the internet. Medium is the next generation of AOL.
The actual reason that DOS uses "/" to mark options isn't technical, it's purely historic: that was the character that CP/M used.
"For us list addicts, Forster proposes a minimalist alternative system. On a piece of paper, write down only the five most important tasks you can think of. Then do them, in order, crossing them off as you go. (If you stop before completing one, add it again at the end.) Once the list is only two items long, add three more, to bring the total back to five. Then repeat.
"The point of this austere approach is that you’re regularly required to ask what really needs doing, since there are only five slots. With a conventional list, there are unlimited slots – and it’s hugely tempting to plough through inessential tasks, just to cross them off. But what if you forget crucial things, using Forster’s method, because you didn’t write them down? His response: they probably didn’t matter to begin with."
Dazzle camouflage
Maybe that's the desired behaviour?