calcopiritus

This user was not using git though, he was using vs code. That button doesn't say "git reset" it says "discard all changes". And btw, what it does is "git clean", which is something that git can do.

Just below the button there is a list of all the changes. In his case, there were 3000 changes of the type "file creation". Discarding a file creation can only be made one way: deleting the file.

Anyway, this user is presumably in his learning phase, I would not assume that he knows what git reset or git restore actually do.

There is a warning. IIRC it says "are you sure you want to discard all changes? This action is unreverisble". In the context of version management. Creating a file is a change. And just below the button to discard all changes is the list of changes. In that list he could've seen 3000 changes of the type "file creation", when you discard a file creation, it means to undo the creation, which is a deletion.

The button days what is going to do. There is a warning about what it's going to do. And there is a list of the exact changes it's going to undo.

The only way to avoid this from happening is to not have the button exist. In that case, the users that actually want to discard all changes would be unable to do so.

Of course it would output JavaScript. What else?

I don't even know why people ITT are blaming the IDE and completely ignoring this.

When you learn git, you do so on a dummy project, that has 5 files which are 10 characters long each.

An IDE is not made so you can't break things, it is tool, and it should let you do things. It's like complaining that Linux will let you delete your desktop environment. Some people actually want to delete your desktop environment. You can't remove that option just because someone can accidentally do it by ignoring all the warnings.

And unfortunately, this means that WG21, the C++ committee, has to take action because people are demanding it

Why does this mean that they have to take action? Why do they need to make C++ memory safe?

C++ was not designed to be memory safe. If you try to make C++ memory safe, you'll have to break retro compatibility. If you're going to break retro compatibility, can you say it's still C++? Or another language called C++2? At that point, why not just use another language that was designed from the start to be memory safe?

The action that should be taken is to completely avoid starting any new project in C++, and let the language die. A programming language is nothing more than a tool, once the tool no longer works, you search for another that does.

C++ should go the way of fortran and cobol. The only development of C++ should be done is to maintain existing huge codebases that would be too expensive to rewrite.

I have had many mouses. Most of them broke the side buttons. The scroll wheel usually lasts as much as the side buttons. After that. The left/right main buttons fail.

I have never had a mouse with a broken sensor though. I would look for solutions in the software (calibration and settings). But it's not impossible that it's broken.

If governments cut down less forests (or even plant new ones!) it's not cheating. That should be the goal.

To fix global warming we have to do both. Stop using fossil fuels and get out more CO2 from the atmosphere.

They could use fixed point numbers instead of floating point ones. Fixed point is exact

I didn't answer your "request" because that has nothing to do with what I originally said.

If I wanted to get into an hours long conversation about gender I would've said something completely different. Got better things to waste my time on.

If other opinions matter, then it is not an irrelevant question. Since it prompts people to tell their opinions.

If the question is so irrelevant, why do you even try to answer it in the same comment? Not only answering it, but also making it a fact. As if your opinion is the only one that matters and suddenly it's irrelevant when there's a different opinion.

You can just use an unsafe block though. Or make a thin wrapper that is just safe functions that inside just have an unsafe block with the C ABI function.

Even if rust had a stable ABI, you would still need that unsafe block.