Want to collaborate on code errors? Have bugs you need feedback on? Looking for an extra set of eyes on your latest project? Get support with fellow developers, designers, and programmers of all backgrounds and skill levels here with the Treehouse Community! While you're at it, check out some resources Treehouse students have shared here.

I'd say that 'maybe' is comprised of the logic that 'leads up to' the final True or False. So that the 'final question' in a program is always starting with 'maybe' and the process of how information is evaluated throughout the program makes the maybe either True or False in the end. If that makes any sense :)

Download Maybe You App

Download 🔥 https://urllio.com/2yGavL 🔥

Would you say that this is correct? Or is there no such thing as maybes in programming? What about on an 'conceptual' level? Would this interpretation of maybes be OK to teach someone about logic in computer science? If not, why? Would it add confusion?

-valued_logic has some mention of SQL. an article at mentions a 3 state concept but then says "Trinary logic is not often used. Binary logic, in which there are only two states represented by 0 and 1, is the most common in computer science and electronics." (or maybe i'm misunderstanding the question.)

Hi there! The only conceptual thing I know that might correlate to a "maybe" in computer logic would be Artificial Intelligence. And I know very little about that. As I understand it, decisions are made by the computer based on a number that is generated between 0 and 1, but one not being inclusive.

In general, no, I don't think we really have "maybe"s in computer logic. And if you ever get a chance, you might take discrete mathematics or possibly a beginning electrical engineering course. When we operate a computer we are quite literally just flipping a bunch of switches. And these switches are either "on" or "off". If the switch is "on" it's a 1. If the switch is "off" it's a 0. This is why computers use binary and why you've forever heard that computers operate on 0's and 1's. That's how the state of the switch is represented at the electrical level.

Very interesting points, i guess that since programmers need to account for all possibilities and 'create' the logic in a program no room is left for the computer to make choices. What i am saying is that all 'leeway' has been put inside constraints enforced by the programmer which a 'normal' computer is not able to operate outside of. Thus, True or False are the only options. Steven brings up a very interesting point though, that of a null object. I would argue that the null object is a container for an 'unaccounted' (false) action that has been predetermined to be 'evaluated for'. Thus the concept of null objects being a sort-of-a maybe falls in my opinion. What are your thoughts on this ? Steven Parker and Jennifer Nordell ? As Steven highlighted, would you say that "i don't know" is the same thing as 'maybe' ?

At the hardware level, most computers are essentially large collections of switches as Jennifer described. But in software, the concept of representing multiple states is very common, and just what the states are will depend on what it is that is being represented in the program.

But you would also need to determine what "maybe" represents. In most cases, "maybe" is not an actual state but an admission of insufficient information to make a determination or decision. The concept of "I don't know" is often indicated in computers by a "null" value. This value is actually stored as an alternative to "true" or "false", so it might be considered to mean "maybe". Whether it is used by the logic to produce a result, or just used to indicate that the result process needs to be deferred to a later time depends on the program.

The Maybe type encapsulates an optional value. A value of type Maybe a either contains a value of type a (represented as Just a), or it is empty (represented as Nothing). Using Maybe is a good way to deal with errors or exceptional cases without resorting to drastic measures such as error.

The maybe function takes a default value, a function, and a Maybe value. If the Maybe value is Nothing, the function returns the default value. Otherwise, it applies the function to the value inside the Just and returns the result.

The mapMaybe function is a version of map which can throw out elements. In particular, the functional argument returns something of type Maybe b. If this is Nothing, no element is added on to the result list. If it is Just b, then b is included in the result list.

Now, when I do my weekly review I want to review a list of my someday/maybe projects separately from the other projects in my OmniFocus database - so that I can burn through them quickly in one lot. But it seems this is not possible with the someday/maybe projects mixed in with my other projects in the folder structure.

Expanding this question beyond OmniFocus, what about keeping someday/maybe projects outside of OmniFocus entirely, in text file lists or spreadsheets for example? Or maybe keeping some in OmniFocus and some outside? Then, what would be the organizing logic behind what goes inside OmniFocus, and what stays outside?

I have a @someday/maybe context, which I assign to tasks which populate a Someday perspective

I currently have two main folders (areas of responsibility?), each holding two different types of On-Hold projects

How to review them separately? For the moment, only on the Mac app, by making have use of the Focus feature (just Focus on the folder I want, them go to the Review perspective.) A pity FOCUS is not yet on iOS.

Yes. I use the review perspective. My Single Actions Lists (SALs) such as Office Actions, House Actions changes a lot. These are my one-off tasks and it needs to get reviewed more frequently (usually every one to three days).

My Active projects are set to be reviewed on a weekly basis. But I can set it to a shorter cycle such as every 3 days if there are a lot of changes in the project and I need to update it more frequently.

Any project or SAL that has a lot of changes (daily or weekly) will get a shorter review frequency. This allows me to always be aware of any changes. Projects and SALS that do not have a lot of changes will be reviewed weekly or bi-weekly. Someday/Maybe projects are reviewed monthly of bi-weekly because I am not actively working on them. They are on the back burner. But I will see them in my review perspective and will consider activating it or keeping it on hold. When I change status from active or on hold, I will also change the review cycle.

Typically my someday/maybe projects are reviewed only to decide whether or not I want to activate any, so it would be nice to be able to separate them out so that I can burn through them quickly. Or, if I know that my plate is already full, just do a Ctrl-A and push them all off to the next review period in one fell swoop.

Why do we have synchronous calls to OS services at all? Why do read() and friends hang up the caller for ages rather than return immediately and then indicate completion later, with some kind of signal or event? Or even crudely providing something that can be polled for completion?

Without synchronous, blocking, system calls normal threading as we know it, pthreads in C, std::thread in Rust and many other may never have needed to exist. Would all languages then be async by default?

So I guess your proposal is that we don't need "maybe async" at the type level, because we can document when implementations are actually sync and block_on them (or now_or_never them, if you want to panic for an await instead of busy looping (like you do, which is the absolute worst thing to do) or using a lightweight but not nothing executor (like block_on)) instead?

It works in the sense that if you only write correct code things work as they would with proper "maybe async" support, but it immediately crumbles into a giant silent footgun the moment any actual async work is done... or the moment your "not actually async" implementation is called from code that wants to be async and now is suddenly blocking the executor.

The point of trait generics is writing generic code. If you're solely trying to fit through an existing interface, "async in name only" can be a reasonable internal, non-public implementation detail choice to make things work. But it's a horrible choice for public API that's supposed to play well and integrate with other code. The point of "maybe async" is that being async isn't just the permission to await (which includes the scheduling a wakeup) but it's also a communication of intent; intent that polling doesn't take any significant amount of time and it definitely shouldn't be calling OS functionality to block the thread.

If you have an environment where IO blocking doesn't exist, then everything "being async" is almost enough of a solution, sure. But Rust lives in an environment with blocking, await cancellation point visibility is critical to writing unsafe code because cancellation safety (leaking stack frames) is stricter than unwind safety (running stack destructors), busy looping is the absolute worst way to handle "polling" an underlying blocking resource (you want to block/suspend execution instead of wasting electricity and starving out other threads), and it still doesn't handle actual compute loads starving out tasks (i.e. those structurally multiplexed via select! and/or join! and thus polled from the same thread instead of being spawned as independent tasks).

I do fundamentally believe that "everything async" is the better choice for a new "scripting" language. Go is kind of that. But as much as "systems" versus "scripting" is a false dichotomy, Rust is firmly on the systems side that strongly wants if not needs to be able to reason about async effects at a type system level.

The point of "maybe async" is that being async isn't just the permission to await (which includes the scheduling a wakeup) but it's also a communication of intent; intent that polling doesn't take any significant amount of time and it definitely shouldn't be calling OS functionality to block the thread. 152ee80cbc

joker art mod ml 1.5 88 apk download

windows server 2016 technical preview 5 available for download

ram navami animated gif download