« first day (395 days earlier)   

12:28 AM
I made a userscript that gives access CMC answer quicklinks.
Uh, adds CMC Quicklinks, even.
 
12:55 AM
@MDXF Syncing.
@ATaco Don't use window.onload. The alternative addEventListener("load", ...) means you won't have to worry about multiple userscripts.
 
Oh, neat.
Contrary to popular belief I still don't know Javascript.
 
1:10 AM
@Pavel It currently requires cd-ing into the directory to run it.
 
TIO needs automatic CWD Handling :P
 
That's not really possible, as the homedir should be writable.
 
@ATaco Please add to a-ta.co
 
I can't, not yet atleast.
It's not designed to do anything but chat userscripts.
 
@Dennis This pull request should fix the issue.
@ATaco Feature request: When the code contains multiple lines, don't include backticks to put "Try it online!" in code markdown.
 
1:25 AM
(oh i see)
 
@ATaco backslashes are not properly escaped, the link tio.run/##K/r/P@b/fwA causes this: R, 1 byte ``
Escaping a single backslash is weird, you need to do this:
``\``
In other cases you just put two backslashes.
 
@Pavel require "./codepage" still fails.
Also, there's no ./codepage. Only ./codepage.txt.
 
Yeah no screw markdown
 
@Dennis There's a codepage.rb
@Dennis Should be fixed now, I think.
 
@Dennis @Pavel Just pushed a handful of patches.
 
1:39 AM
R, 3 bytes `a\`
@ATaco still bork
 
gah
 
Also, a single backslash now becomes 4 backticks
 
Stop having \s at the end of your code! :(
 
@ATaco please treat 0 byte code the same as multiline code, rather than with just two backticks
@ATaco BRB making language with \ at the end of it's name
 
That will work fine.
 
1:46 AM
@ATaco No it won't ^
 
The complexities of Markdown are rather getting on my nerves.
 
2:29 AM
@Dennis Thanks!
 
@Pavel I'm no Ruby expert, but require ".#{__dir__}/codepage" looks pretty weird.
 
That seems to work just fine. I'd like to wait until this is merged though.
 
2:54 AM
Shoot I forgot to push earlier, could you please pull again when you have a second?
 
@MDXF Syncing.
Also, still UB. ._.
 
@Dennis ?
 
Sep 6 at 14:26, by Dennis
Btw compilation printed a lot of warnings. The sign differences and parens suggestions may be safe to ignore, but the lack of a return statement in int implicit_input(int, int) is undefined behavior.
Sep 7 at 14:38, by Dennis
But please fix the UB. :P
 
Oh sorry I've been using mobile for chat mostly since my old RasPi is really cruddy for chat access, I never noticed those
I'm guessing you're compiling with -Wall? I haven't seen any warnings
 
-Wall -Wextra
-Wall is a must anyway. A missing return statement is something that should definitely be caught.
-Wextra can be a bit over the top.
simplestack.c: In function ‘main’:
simplestack.c:120:12: warning: pointer targets in passing argument 1 of ‘wcscpy’ differ in signedness [-Wpointer-sign]
     wcscpy(command,L"UNINITIALIZED");
            ^~~~~~~
In file included from simplestack.c:6:0:
/usr/include/wchar.h:148:17: note: expected ‘wchar_t * restrict {aka int * restrict}’ but argument is of type ‘wint_t * {aka unsigned int *}’
 extern wchar_t *wcscpy (wchar_t *__restrict __dest,
                 ^~~~~~
simplestack.c:131:29: warning: pointer targets in passing argument 1 of ‘wcscmp’ differ in signedness [-Wpointer-sign]
 
3:11 AM
I literally have #define wchar_t wint_t (or maybe it's typedef wint_t wchar_t) on my system so that doesn't even show up in -Wextra for me
 
4:05 AM
@Dennis has been merged
 
4:37 AM
Thanks!
 

« first day (395 days earlier)