記得之前談過 ,在 T3 過後應為「歷史不可改」,所以之後的故事順著下去就可以。但這背後有一點尷尬:既然歷史不可更改,那送人回去又有何用?但不送人回去,就沒有 Skynet 和 John Connor 了?因果纏結得一團糟。
即使變成是 T2 的「
Suppose that you have code that generates an abstract 'list' of somesort and returns it inside a try:/finally: block. There are two commonways to code this; you can return a real list, or you can use yield tobe a generator. You might even code it one way and change it to the otherlater, which is generally a transparent change.
Not this time, though. If you are using finally: , the two options canhave quite different behavior. Constructing an example
There are at least two ways to set up vacation messages; they cango to the envelope sender (the SMTP MAIL FROM ), or they can go tothe apparent author of the mail message, usually plucked from the From: header. It's my personal view that mailing list managers shouldimmediately unsubscribe people who have the second sort of vacationmessage system.
(I admit that I haven't always had the courage to do this for liststhat I run.)
It's one thing to harass
記得之前談過 ,在 T3 過後應為「歷史不可改」,所以之後的故事順著下去就可以。但這背後有一點尷尬:既然歷史不可更改,那送人回去又有何用?但不送人回去,就沒有 Skynet 和 John Connor 了?因果纏結得一團糟。
即使變成是 T2 的「
One of the reasons that alerting is a tough problem to solve well iswhat I'll call the dependency problem. It goes like this: imagine thatyou have a nice monitoring system and it's keeping track of all sortsof things in your environment. One day you get a huge string of alerts,reporting that server after server is down. Oh, and also a networkswitch isn't responding.
Of course, the real problem is that the switch has died. It's beingcamouflaged behind