How Much Do You Love Your Family?
The 500k Life Policy Below will show them How Much You Care
- Update policy while your healthy / http://www.bedhaj.com/May/policy/update.index
Different Life Stages and Experiences offer different benefits.
~ Living the Single Life?
~ Getting Married?
~ Planning for Retirement?
See how your policy is affected by this -> http://www.bedhaj.com/May/policy/update.index
We hope that you enjoyed receiving this update -
to stop further updates write Update Notice Messages
at,,, /118/ Kecks Lane/ Ruff Dale, Pennsylvania/ 15679/
or http://www.bedhaj.com/39oru/skfte3.sgeiw2
Definitely the correct way to do it. This alters only the behavior of Powershell, not every other .NET app on your machineThis works well but affects all your PowerShell. If you want just some of the functionality make a copy of the powershell folder and then edit the file there.I added a file as noted above. However, I can no longer run PowerShell with that file present - I get the error "The volume for a file has been externally altered so that the opened file is no longer valid." Any ideas?You may also want to create a powersonfig file (with the same contents). I've provided a link to this answer to people a couple of times, and have just added some quick setup notes to help expedite carrying it out - on a 64 bit system, I've found the .exe.config needs to go into SysdowsPowershell (the 32 bit folder), even if you're trying to run 64 bit powershell. Otherwise you get the 'externally altered' erroI cannot access that folder, meaning that It is not possible for me to create or edit files, not even trying to create them on Desktop and then using the shell to copy them! Access Denied! (ps: I ran the shell by right-clicking on its link and choosing: "Start as Admin"). Has anyone seen this working on Windows 7 32 bits? I'm on a system that does not include .NET 3.5 (which is the requirement for ISE v2), and I've never been able to run ISE against .NET 4 using this trick.dding this config file gives me the following error in the Event Log: Activation context generation failed for "C:\Windows\System32\WindowsPowerShell\v1.0\powee".Error in manifest or policy file "C:\Windows\System32\WindowsPowerShell\v1.0\My immediate thought would be the function takes a method parameter for the time, and the caller simply supplies the current time. This way, supplied with the same arguments it gives the same result, and it is up to the caller to change the argumthink most (or all) functional languages are not so strict and combine functional and imperative programming. At least, this is my impression from : How would the caller know the current time in the first plaz Oh I see what you are getting at, I thought you were referring to creation of a function that internally used the current time. Well, I'm sure it's not illegal to return different values if the condition changes, and a change in time is a change in condition Actually it is illegal (as in: impossible) in purely functional languages. interesting stuff, so if a purely functional system needed to work with a time element, it would need to be provided externally? As in, taken as an argument.: Pretty much. A general purpose language which is pure usually offers some facility to get at the "world state" (i.e. things like the current time, files in a directory etc.) without breaking referential transparency. In Haskell that's the IO monad and in Clean it's the world type. So in those languages a function which needs the current time would either take it as an argument or it would need to return an IO action instead of its actual result (Haskell) or take the world state as its argument (Clean)your impression is correct F# is multiparadigm with emphasis on FP but you can do pure OO in F# if you so wishWhen thinking about FP it's easy to forget: a computer is a big chunk of mutable state. FP doesn't change that, it merely conceals itSome languages have a pseudo constant variable such as CURRENT_TIMESTAMP. It's a constant that's different every seco. that made me laugh. Why people would call it constant in the first place then, whose value changes every second? Just to "feel" consistent? Same thing when dealing with a random number generator in F#. Easy to do but 'impure', honestly no idea... It's not a "variable" that can vary or be set... so it's a constant, at least for the duration of a single run.Simply consider every previous output of your 'time' function from this current run as part of the input to the function. Thus it can never be called twice with the same inputs during the same run.: Isn't that too much of philosophy and that too, esoteric one? :| Moreover, using such esoteric philosophy, even imperative programming can be called functional programming. would really recommend reading the 1.2 Von Neumann Languages (or really the whole first chapter) in Introduction to Functional Programming Systems Using Haskell. The author does a really great job at explaining why referential transparency is so important to mathematics. il and in Haskell, we call everything - including functions - variables, though changing them is impossiYou might want to check out this video. He talks about pure functional programming for a while, then he says something like, "Okay, but if we just write completely pure functions all the time, we can never get any input from the user, or produce any output -- our program can't actually do anything." A program can't be made entirely of pure (non-IO) functions. But you could have a huge Haskell program that's almost entirely pure functions, and then main = interact processInput is the only part that does any IO. Great question, but I think it's more fitting on Programme
1 I disagree. IMHO this is a perfectly valid question for SO - it is about a programming topic and not about "meta" stuff. l, if it were about "meta
No comments:
Post a Comment