Software Engineering Stack Exchange may be more appropriate for this kind of question: softwareengineering.stackexchange.com — vasilyrud 58 secs ago

hi, deepk, thank you very much, this also works!!!, javascript got a few ways to make this happen, in which nature would programmers select rxjs to apply the same? what will be your opinion? — Jean Val Jean 32 secs ago

Please have a look at TOUR and How to Ask. Bonus readings: How do I ask and answer homework questions? and Open letter to students with homework problems — fantaghirocco 47 secs ago

Hi @stefan, @jad, and @engineersmnky! Thank you very much for looking into my question. I posted the question for two reasons: to make a record of this interesting behavior which other Ruby programmers might also encounter, and to satisfy my curiosity :) That being said, looking at your comments, it seems there is no obvious reason as to why prepend and include behaves like this. It could simply be "performance reasons" :) I'd like to ask how you'd like to resolve this question? Leave it unanswered? Delete it? Rephrase it so that it's answerable? I'd appreciate to hear your thoughts. — gsmendoza 5 secs ago

@matt Well aware of the tooling issue vs. programming (2 decades+ into this) but programmers use git all the time and have to unwind bad commits. I have simply not been able to get these commands to execute. It would seem more helpful here. — Patrick 42 secs ago

Why are programmers and DBAs on separate sites? Because we practice different trades. It's best to ask your questions where people know the answers. — O. Jones 36 secs ago

Understood, I am quite fresh to R and do not have much experience in looking for such things on my own. That is why I posted this question - maybe it is a trivial thing for more experienced programmers. Personally I found function xlsx_names from tidyxl package which enables us to create a df with named ranges and their formulas but unfortunately not final values :/ — Carl6455 34 secs ago

@programmerskitchen Use arrays[] to filter for arrays and select its elements, and add that before the update: Problem 1 Problem 2. If you want both (finding .ip and .ip[]) then include the original input as well by adding .: Problem 1 Problem 2. — pmf 23 secs ago

@yan As a teacher, I encourage new users to try to find information in the documentation BUT I recognize the struggle of new users. I know that despite decades of tech work, I often come across docs that are difficult for me to understand. New vocabularly I don't yet understand OR words used in ways I don't expect. Often when searching for how to do something I don't have the vocabulary to search 'cause I don't know what the concept is called in the new technology. Docs are written by experts/skilled programmers, who may not be experts in writing technical content geared toward learners. — E. Ducateme 13 secs ago

Software recommendations are explicitly off-topic here. Please consider trying Software Recommendations but make sure about their guidelines. — Filburt 7 secs ago

@anonymouscoward: Either use a compiler that doesn't support strict aliasing (Microsoft's, Apple's), or disable strict aliasing in the compiler (e.g. -f-no-strict-aliasing in GCC). The performance benefits (< 10%) isn't worth the extremely high risk of unintended consequences (even if you can find a programmer that tolerates strict aliasing you can guarantee they will get it wrong eventually as there's too many other things programmers need to worry about). — Brendan 26 secs ago

Please read this open letter to students with homework problems. — azurefrog 59 secs ago

I was wondering why you would introduce this, instead of just encouraging core designers to make MOV execute in zero cycles at register renaming, as some machines can do. That would seem to have the same effect, since after all it isn't mandatory that MOVPRFX be fused, and then programmers could just write MOV z0, z1 ; SDIV z0, z2 as usual. But it seems that zero-cycle move is patented by Apple, so maybe this was an attempt to design around that patent? Juts a guess. — Nate Eldredge 18 secs ago

I understand that the problem can be solved by recreating the stored procedure back into the MYPRODLIB library. But it is hard for programmers to remember that. Most programming changes do not involve changing entry parameters. So, there is no need to make changes to stored procedure at all, and most of the time programmers do not even realized that the program they are changing is being called from a stored procedure until production website starts to break. — HockChai Lim 20 secs ago

Open letter to students with homework problems — David Makogon 31 secs ago

@AndrewHenle: The Standard uses the term "Undefined Behavior" to refer, among other things, to constructs which are non-portable but correct. Quality general-purpose compilers will support constructs that are useful but non-portable regardless of whether the Standard mandates such support. The fact that the Standard doesn't forbid poor-quality C compilers from processing useful but non-portable programs in gratuitously meaningless fashion does not imply that they intended that all programmers jump through hoops to accommodate poor quality compilers. — supercat 44 secs ago

Or maybe Software Engineering, again I don't know the rules there. — halfer just now

@AndrewHenle: Where, exactly, did I say it's OK to deliberately write code with UB? I'm saying is that it's unrealistic to expect programmers to write code that doesn't accidentally have UB (and that telling people "don't write code with UB" is detached from reality). For anyone that cares about code quality (Linux, Microsoft, Apple, ...) the goal is risk minimization. Also, note that the saying is "a poor tradesman blames his tools" and comes from the fact that tradesman are responsible for their tools (essentially, if your tools are bad it's your fault for choosing bad tools). — Brendan 6 secs ago

@Brendan I'm saying it's unrealistic to expect programmers to write code that doesn't accidentally have UB (and that telling people "don't write code with UB" is detached from reality) No, it's not unrealistic - it has to be your goal. Because otherwise, you accept UB as "acceptable". It can never be acceptable even if human coders can't be expected to be perfect. But that perfection damn well better be your goal. And I'd opine that if you're not continuously trying to improve your skills so you don't do things like inadvertently writing code with UB ever, you're not serious. — Andrew Henle 5 secs ago