Syntax agreement between programming languages [on hold]

Can we all come to a common syntax agreement for our everyday semantics ?

For e.g.

Lambda expressions some use -> while some use =>
For String interpolation some use {{}} while some use $ {}
For multi line string some use ”’string”’ others use string
For dependency Injection some use @Inject while some @Injectable, @Autowire while a few others have no visible indicator

I’m not talking about semicolons, braces etc. But, For the syntaxes that are taking shape and will take shape can the spec developers of the language sit together and come to an agreement ? It would make life so much simpler for a programmer jumping between multiple languages.

Talking in general sense,
I understand humanity couldn’t fully agree upon using metric system but again most of the humanity moved to it, we might not have agreed upon whether to place a comma or a dot in our currency, we might be still debating on the daylight saving time change however, in all these cases we can atleast group them so we know what to use for things in a common group, making life easy and good that some are being debated for the thing forward.

For something like tab vs spaces, which we couldn’t forever agree, we atleast have tools now to auto convert basing on our configs.

Would like hear your thought. I really hope life of programmers who have to juggle between multiple programming languages are kept in mind when designing new specs as we move forward and things are made easy. Thank you.

My objective of this question is to atleast ignite a thought for some debate and I felt no platform better than stackexchang would suite for it. Please.

W3C and the WHATWG Agreement to Collaborate on Single Version of HTML and DOM

This will make things easier:

Quote:

Today W3C and the WHATWG signed an agreement to collaborate on the development of a single version of the HTML and DOM specifications. The Memorandum of Understanding jointly published as the WHATWG/W3C Joint Working Mode gives the specifics of this collaboration. This is the culmination of a careful exploration of effective partnership mechanisms since December 2017 after the WHATWG adopted many shared features as their work-mode and an IPR policy.

The HTML Working Group which we will soon recharter will assist the W3C community in raising issues and proposing solutions for the HTML and DOM specifications, and bring WHATWG Review Drafts to Recommendation.

Motivated by the belief that having two distinct HTML and DOM specifications claiming to be normative is generally harmful for the community, and the mutual desire to bring the work back together, W3C and WHATWG agree to the following terms:


Continued: W3C and the WHATWG signed an agreement to collaborate on a single version of HTML and DOM
28 May 2019

Magento 2.3: Show content block in terms & agreement popup at checkout

i want to show one or more content blocks in the terms&conditions popup at the checkout.

All of the business terms, revocation terms, data privacy terms are stored in content blocks and so this is one location which has to be up to date if there are changes. Copy & Paste all the different things is not safe if you want to be shure to have allways the same law terms everywhere in your store views.

I want to put one or more

{{block class="Magento\Cms\Block\Block" block_id="your_block_identifier"}} 

into the content field in STORES > Terms and Conditions and maybe some html text and all of this should appear in this popup Box.

Is there a way to achieve this? Thanks!

Give you an International Importer Agreement for Manufacturer, Importer, Wholesaler for $50

Are you a manufacturer and/or Importer, Wholesaler and you needing an International Importer Agreement? This contract which is my own was created by a world-renowned business consultant (New York-based) with lawyers and had a value of several thousand dollars This contract includes 27 points as follows with numerous sub points : § 1. Object § 2. Term § 3. Territory § 4. Duties of the Supplier § 5. Duties of the Importer § 6. Resellers § 7. Identification § 8. Minimum quantities § 9. Pricing § 10. Products § 11. Early Termination § 12. Consequences of the Termination § 13. Default Interest § 14. Set-off and Retention § 15. Warranty and Liability § 16. Penalty § 17. Indexation § 18. Assignment § 19. Form and Time-imits § 20. Appendices and Examples § 21. Entirety § 22. Waiver § 23. Waiver of Rescission § 24. Legal counsel § 25. Governing Law § 26. Place of Performance and Jurisdiction § 27. Severability The Contract can be used immediately by adding your personal details and data.Let me know if you´ve any question before you give the order. Please read my FAQ !! Please note: Strictly NO refund Save yourself a lot of time and money right now!!! ORDER NOW !! Frequently Asked Questions In which language is the contract written ? In English. You can also have the Contract in English and German in one. Please ask for price inquiry What exactly do I get ? You´ll get the agreement which is blank and has 16 pages and come in Word format and is written in English Do i need fill up the agreement ? Yes you´ll get the agreement blank, it´s mean you´ve to adding/fill up your personal details/data. If you need help to adding/fill up, please ask for price inquiry. Do i have entitled to a refund ? Strictly NO refund !

by: webdealer
Created: —
Category: Virtual Assistant
Viewed: 140


Two message key agreement and mutual authentication protocol?

I am looking for, but not finding, a published protocol that does something similar to TLS 1.3 mutual authentication, but simplified by using assumptions to reduce the chattiness of TLS.

If we assume that some set of clients are configured with key/cert pairs and the server’s root cert, and the server has a key/cert pair and the client’s root cert, and that the clients and server already know the cipher suite, can mutual authentication and key establishment be done with two messages?

I am thinking something like this:

C: ECDHE key material, client cert chain, signature (of something)

S: ECDHE key material, server cert chain, signature (also of something), Encrypted Data using AE

At this point, the two sides have apparently agreed on a ECDH key, and both sides have validated a signature and a cert chain. So…good to go?

Does this sound like anything already out there, or is it obviously deeply flawed?

Is the phrase “Justice is above the law” both in agreement with Hoar’s dogma and a LN alignment? [on hold]

We are playing using the forgotten realms setting 3.x edition and in our group there’s a cleric of hoar.
We have “free role” sessions where players talk among themselves trying to stay as much in character as possible. During one of these session the cleric said he doesn’t like guards because they just follow the law and law is not perfect since it is made by humans and it often lacks justice, which is above the law.

We discussed a bit about what he said during the session but we stopped in order to avoid blocking the game but we couldn’t reach an agreement on wheter such a phrase, said by a LN Cleric of Hoar, is in agreement with the dogma and the alignment

We were split into 2 sides.

  • One side says that he’s right to say that and it’s both something a LN would say and within hoar’s dogma (Uphold true and fitting justice and maintain the spirit of law, not the letter of law)

  • The other side says that being right (or better, agreeing with what he said) does not mean it’s something a LN would say. Even though Hoar is a special kind of LN, a LN character should still respect what law represents, even if he doesn’t agree with certain laws. And while the phrase might be something a devotee of Hoar could say, it’s not something a LN character would say

As said, we couldn’t reach an agreement on this

Airline’s agreement to transport passengers to the U.S. under Visa Waiver Program has expired. Do I need a visa?

I’m planning to travel to the United States under the Visa Waiver Program. However, I noticed that my airline’s agreement to transport passengers to the United States under the Visa Waiver Program has expired (i.e. they are listed with yellow highlight on the list of authorized carriers).

Does this mean that if the airline doesn’t renew their agreement by the time of my flight, I can’t travel to the U.S.? If so, will I be denied boarding on my flight with just my ESTA, or is it unlikely that the airline will notice? If it doesn’t notice, will I be denied entry into the U.S.?

Also, if any of the above, will I be able to claim a refund from the airline, since it’s their fault that they didn’t renew their agreement on time?

(Most highlighted airlines there are very minor carriers unlikely to transport a large number of VWP nationals, but I noticed Air France was listed as expired, so that prompted me to ask.)

How should I handle players who ignores the session zero agreement?

My DnD group currently has a campaign which went smoothly for the first half. And then, by request, I allowed two of the current player’s friends to join the campaign, all of them has no prior experience in roleplaying game aside from what this player told them about DnD.

The few next sessions, one of them starts to make me and few fellow players uncomfortable by describing explicit sexual actions and his reasoning is “because my character is chaotic evil” Even though I told him privately that one of our session zero agreement is no explicit sexual activity in this campaign.

I even take the initiative to redo the session zero so he can participates in and for me to hear his reasoning and expectations. He said he doesn’t mind the agreement and want the story to run smoothly and for his character to have a great time. But the very next day, he did the same thing I told him not to “because his character has nothing to do in the night before we do a long rest”

My question is : Is there any way to get around it or should I give a possible “punishment” that have a lasting effect on his character? Or is it my fault as a DM for not being stern enough with the session zero rules? I want to make kicking him out as the last resort.

Thanks in advance for the responses!

What does the GettyImages iStock non-exclusive Agreement say?

I have been offered to join GettyImages as an iStock Contributor under their Artist’s Supply Non-Exclusive Agreement. Could someone please explain to me what the Getty Images iStock non-exclusive Agreement says or at least point me in the correct direction to finding someone who can explain it to me? Should I get a lawyer to explain it like they suggest? I live in America and take my photos in America currently.