readonly

I heard that in C, if I do char *s = "hello world". the "hello world" is actually stored in read-only memory. I am not so clear about read-only memory. What is the explanation? Is that like a flag to the compiler that tells the compiler to do not write into that section? Nils Pipenbrinck That's not a feature of the C language but a feature of the compiler/linker and the operating system working together. When you compile such code the following happens: The compiler will put the string into a read-only data-section. The linker collects all the data in such read-only sections and puts them into

How can I make a model completely read-only in the admin interface? It's for a kind of log table, where I'm using the admin features to search, sort, filter etc, but there is no need to modify the log. In case this looks like a duplicate, here's not what I'm trying to do: I'm not looking for readonly fields (even making every field readonly would still let you create new records) I'm not looking to create a readonly user : every user should be readonly. See https://djangosnippets.org/snippets/10539/ class ReadOnlyAdminMixin(object): """Disables all editing capabilities.""" change_form_template

im currently looking for a way to connect to a Microsoft SQL Server Database via VBA (ADODB) with the focus on a minimal risk in harming, block and change the structure of the database. Therefor the access is readonly. My attemp is the following: Set DBConn = New ADODB.Connection Set TmpRecset = New Recordset DBConn.ConnectionString = pConnStr DBConn.Open On Error GoTo TermConnection With TmpRecset .ActiveConnection = DBConn .Source = pQuery .LockType = adLockReadOnly .CursorType = adOpenForwardOnly .CursorLocation = adUseClient .Open End With On Error GoTo TermRecordset //Doing something

Let's say we have a textbox that's readonly, like so: <input type="text" readonly /> In IE 9 and FF 4, when I click on this field, a (non-blinking) cursor appears in the field. In Chrome, however, the cursor does not show. (See for yourself at http://jsfiddle.net/hqBsW/ .) I suppose I understand why IE/FF opt to show the cursor—so the user knows he or she can still select the value in the field. Nonetheless, it's evidently confusing our users and we would like to change IE/FF to not show the cursor, as Chrome does for readonly fields. Is there a way to do this? s4y Sounds like a bug! There is

Const is baked into the client code. Readonly isn't. But const is faster. May be only slightly though. The question is, is there ever any scenario where you should prefer const over readonly ? Or to rephrase, are we not practically always better off using a readonly instead of a const (keeping in mind the above-said baking thing)? I believe the only time "const" is appropriate is when there is a spec that you're coding against that is more durable than the program you're writing. For instance, if you're implementing the HTTP protocol, having a const member for "GET" is appropriate because that

I've been working on creating a class and suddenly a thought came to my mind of what is the difference between the two codes: public readonly string ProductLocation; AND public string ProductLocation { get; private set; } Can you guys give me idea when to use the following better. thanks. Bruno Reis The first one is a read-only field, while the second one gets compiled as a pair of methods (and all reads of the property ProductLocation gets compiled into calls to the corresponding get method and writes to it gets compiled into calls to the set method; internally, these methods will read from /