c++ – Which non-standard C features can I use?

C and C++ have standards, but support isn’t perfect, the only available copies on the internet are drafts, and there are immensely useful things that aren’t standard, such as __attribute__((cleanup)). Apparently the glib authors feel that’s sufficiently ubiquitous even though it’s a GCC extension.

Then there are other GCC extensions (such as empty __VA_ARGS__ in macros and the ability to token-paste away superfluous commas when __VA_ARGS__ is empty) which clang has decided should throw a warning.

In the web development world, there’s caniuse, which tells you specifically which versions of each browser you’re supporting if you use a particular language feature. Is there any equivalent service for C++ compilers, that would give me a quick way to search for e.g. __attribute__((cleanup)) and get a list of compilers that support it?

Why were custom scripts made non-standard except if they’re P2SH?

Custom script = nonstandard

P2SH custom script = standard


dplyr – can not use Non-standard evaluation in self-define function in r

I want to write a function that extracts some information from gam model.
I can do this without self-define function (df is what I wanted):

model = gam(mpg ~ cyl, data = mtcars)

result = summary(model)$p.table

estimate = result(2,1)
se = result(2,2)

df = data.frame(estimate = estimate, se = se)

Then I wrapped it with a self-define function:

my_gam <- function(y, x, data){
  model = gam(y ~ x, data = data)
  result = summary(model)$p.table
  estimate = result(2,1)
  se = result(2,2)
  df = data.frame(estimate = estimate, se = se)

But I can not use my function correctly.

my_gam(y = mpg, x = cyl, data = mtcars)

Error in eval(predvars, data, env) : object ‘cyl’ not found

my_gam(y = 'mpg', x = 'cyl', data = mtcars)

Error in gam(y ~ x, data = data) :
Not enough (non-NA) data to do anything meaningful

Is that a way I can get the df just as the first code block when I run my_gam(y = mpg, x = cyl, data = mtcars).

Any help will be highly appreciated!!

docker – Traefik SSL for a service that runs on non-standard port

Disclaimer: My Docker and my Traefik knowledge is weak. I have several times tried following the Traefik docs and I usually just get confused, possibly because I want to tackle more than the simplest of cases but also, I’m sure I am missing some fundamentals.

In my current setup, I can create a web-based (port 80) Docker service that Traefik v2 picks up, creates a LE cert, redirects from http:80 to https:443, and exposes. Below is my docker-compose.yml for Traefik and also one for a sample service that works.

Let’s say, however, that my web-based service really wants to run on a port other than 80. For instance, I want to run statping, which runs on port 8080. Is it possible, given the SSL setup that I currently have, to wire it up such that I can expose the entry point http://statping.MYTLD and rely on Traefik to: 1. redirect to https://statping.MYTLD, 2. obtain the certificate, and 3. expose my statping Docker container? Can Traefik handle the Acme http challenge even though the underlying service is not running on port 80? I figure it can, since my working sample isn’t even exposing a port past the container level.

Note: I am most familiar with Docker Compose but perhaps for a service like statping, I need to figure out how to write my own DOCKERFILE so that I can cajole it into running on port 80 instead of port 8080?

Thanks for any insight!

Traefik docker-compose.yml:

version: "3.3"

    external: true


    image: "traefik:v2.3"
    container_name: "traefik"
      #- "--log.level=DEBUG"
      - "--api.insecure=true"
      - "--providers.docker=true"
      - "--providers.docker.exposedbydefault=false"
      - "--entrypoints.web.address=:80"
      - "--entrypoints.websecure.address=:443"
      - "--entrypoints.web.http.redirections.entryPoint.to=websecure"
      - "--entrypoints.web.http.redirections.entryPoint.scheme=https"
      - "--entrypoints.web.http.redirections.entrypoint.permanent=true"

      - "--certificatesresolvers.myresolver.acme.httpchallenge=true"
      - "--certificatesresolvers.myresolver.acme.httpchallenge.entrypoint=web"

      # FOR TESTING.
      #- "--certificatesresolvers.myresolver.acme.caserver=https://acme-staging-v02.api.letsencrypt.org/directory"

      - "--certificatesresolvers.myresolver.acme.email=craig@wereallconnected.ca"
      - "--certificatesresolvers.myresolver.acme.storage=/letsencrypt/acme.json"

      - "80:80"
      - "443:443"
      - "8080:8080"

      - "./letsencrypt:/letsencrypt"
      - "/var/run/docker.sock:/var/run/docker.sock:ro"

Sample service docker-compose.yml:

version: "3.3"

    external: true


    image: "traefik/whoami"
    container_name: "simple-service2"
      - "traefik.enable=true"
      - "traefik.http.routers.whoami2.rule=Host(`whoami2.MYTLD`)"
      - "traefik.http.routers.whoami2.entrypoints=websecure"
      - "traefik.http.routers.whoami2.tls.certresolver=myresolver"

      - traefik

    restart: unless-stopped

authentication – ZTE F609, non-standard telnet login/password

I have modem ZTE F609 (Software Version V7.0.10P7N1) and I can’t telnet it because of wrong login/password. I tried many different variants (all that Google and my imagination provided me:D), like root/Zte521, root/root, root/admin, root/Telkom135 and another – noone worked. If I type login ‘root’ – system demands a password. If I type any other login – system returns an error and says that login is incorrect. So at least I know that login ‘root’ is right:D
Reset doesn’t help. Modem configuration file is encrypted (AES + zlib) so I can’t just get xml-file (but I’m trying:D) and look what correct login/password are.
Has anyone encountered a similar problem? Maybe someone knows which login/password could be correct?
Sorry if this topic is not quite suitable for ‘Information Security’ theme. Thank you:)

Is it possible to book a non-standard Russia-Poland border crossing?

Is there any bureau or agency that can allow crossing the border from Russia to Poland on a given time outside of the standard checkpoints? My idea is sending a formal request, paying some fee and receiving some kind of notarized approval for a given time and place. The on-site guards would probably need to be informed about this too.

But is it even possible to arrange it like this? I mean after getting a proper visa and everything and entering Russia through an official checkpoint.

The goal here is to go cross the border at the Vistula Spit as a tourist (no business travel) on foot or on a bicycle.

dg.differential geometry – Complexification of a map under nonstandard complexifications of vector spaces

I started studying the book of Daniel Huybrechts, Complex Geometry An Introduction. I tried studying backwards as much as possible, but I have been stuck on the concepts of almost complex structures and complexification. I have studied several books and articles on the matter including ones by Keith Conrad, Jordan Bell, Gregory W. Moore, Steven Roman, Suetin, Kostrikin and Mainin, Gauthier

I have several questions on the concepts of almost complex structures and complexification. Here are some:

Definitions, Assumptions, Notations

Let $V$ be $mathbb R$-vector space, possibly infinite-dimensional.

Complexification of space definition: Its complexification can be defined as $V^{mathbb C} := (V^2,J)$ where $J$ is the almost complex structure $J: V^2 to V^2, J(v,w):=(-w,v)$ which corresponds to the complex structure $s_{(J,V^2)}: mathbb C times V^2 to V^2,$$ s_{(J,V^2)}(a+bi,(v,w))$$:=s_{V^2}(a,(v,w))+s_{V^2}(b,J(v,w))$$=a(v,w)+bJ(v,w)$ where $s_{V^2}$ is the real scalar multiplication on $V^2$ extended to $s_{(J,V^2)}$. In particular, $i(v,w)=(-w,v)$.

Note on Complexification of space definition: The above definition however depends on $J$, so to denote this dependence, we may write $V^{(mathbb C,J)}=V^{mathbb C}$. We could have another definition replacing $J$ with any other almost complex structure $K$ which necessarily relates to $J$ by $K = S circ J circ S^{-1}$ for some $S in Aut_{mathbb R}(V^2)$. For example with $K = – J$ (I think $S$ would be $S(v,w):=(v,-w)$, which is $mathbb C$-antilinear with respect to $J$, and even to $K=-J$ I think), we get $i(v,w)=(w,-v)$.

Complexification of map definition: Based on Conrad, Bell, Suetin, Kostrikin and Mainin (12.10-11 of Part I) and Roman (Chapter 2), it looks like we can define the complexification (with respect to $J$) $f^{mathbb C}: V^{mathbb C} to V^{mathbb C}$ of $f: V to V$, $f in End_{mathbb R}V$ as any of the following equivalent, I think, ways (Note: we could actually have different vector spaces such that $f: V to U$, but I’ll just talk about the case where $V=U$)

Definition 1. $f^{mathbb C}(v,w):=(f(v),f(w))$

  • I think ‘$mathbb C$-linear (with respect to $J$)’ isn’t part of this definition but is deduced anyway.

Definition 2. $f^{mathbb C}$ the unique $mathbb C$-linear (with respect to $J$) map such that $f^{mathbb C} circ cpx = cpx circ f$, where $cpx: V to V^{mathbb C}$ is the complexification map, as Roman (Chapter 1) calls it, or the standard embedding, as Conrad calls it. (Note: I think $cpx$ doesn’t depend on $J$.)

Definition 3. $f^{mathbb C}$ the unique $mathbb C$-linear (with respect to $J$) map such that $(f^{mathbb C})_{mathbb R} = f oplus f$

Definition 4. $f^{mathbb C} := (f oplus f)^J$ and again ‘$mathbb C$-linear (with respect to $J$)’ isn’t part of this definition but is deduced anyway. Here, the notation $(cdot)^I$ is:

  • Complex structure on map definition: The operator ‘$(cdot)^I$‘ is supposed to be something like an inverse of the realification functor $(cdot)_{mathbb R}$ (see Jordan Bell and Suetin, Kostrikin and Mainin). If $(cdot)^I$ is some kind of functor, then $W^I := (W,I)$.

  • I couldn’t find any book that uses this kind of notation, but the point of this ‘$g^I$‘ is mainly to be specific and allow shortcuts. Example: The statement ‘$g$ is $mathbb C$-linear with respect to $I$‘ becomes just ‘$g^I$ is $mathbb C$-linear’. Another example: For any almost complex structure $K$ on $W$, $K^K$ is $mathbb C$-linear, but $I^K$ and $K^I$ are not necessarily $mathbb C$-linear. However, with $-I$ as another almost complex structure on $W$, I think $I^{-I}$and ${-I}^{I}$ are $mathbb C$-linear.

  • Proposition: $g^I$ is $mathbb C$-linear if and only if $g$ is $mathbb R$-linear and $g$ ‘commutes with scalar multiplication by i (with respect to $I$)’, meaning $g circ I = I circ g$.

  • We can also extend to defining maps like $g^{(I,H)}: (W,I) to (U,H)$ and saying $g^{(I,H)}$ is $mathbb C$-linear if and only if $g$ is $mathbb R$-linear and $g circ I = H circ g$. In this notation and for the case of $W=U$, $g^{(I,I)}=g^I$.

Regardless of the definition, we end up with the formula given in Definition 1 (Even if the definitions aren’t equivalent, whichever definitions are correct, I think will give this formula in Definition 1).

Note on Complexification of map definition: The above definition/s however depends on $J$, so to denote this dependence, we may write $f^{(mathbb C,J)}=f^{mathbb C}$.


Question 1: What is the formula for $f^{(mathbb C,K)}$ for any almost complex structure $K$ on $V^2$, assuming it exists, whether uniquely or not?

  • Note: I actually didn’t think $f^{(mathbb C,K)}$ wouldn’t be unique or even exist until mid way through typing this (so I added 2 more questions below), so there might be kind of a definition issue here, but I guess it’s ok to define $f^{(mathbb C,K)}$ as any $mathbb C$-linear (with respect to $K$) map such that $f^{(mathbb C,K)} circ cpx = cpx circ f$

  • Example: For $K=-J$, I think we get still $f^{(mathbb C,-J)}(v,w)=(f(v),f(w))$ (I derived this in a similar way that Conrad derived the formula for $K=J$).

  • Example: Suppose $V$ in turn has an almost complex structure $k$. Then $k oplus k$ is an almost complex structure on $V^2$. For $K=k oplus k$, I don’t know how to get the formula for $f^{(mathbb C,k oplus k)}(v,w)$, similar to the cases of $K= pm J$. Maybe it doesn’t exist.

Question 2: Does $f^{(mathbb C,K)}$ always exist even if not uniquely?

Question 3: Whenever $f^{(mathbb C,K)}$ exists, is $f^{(mathbb C,K)}$ unique?

Note: This question might be answered by the answer, that I’m still analysing, to another question I posted.

More thoughts based on these:

It appears that:

  1. complexification relies not only on an almost complex structure $K$ on $V^2$ but also on a choice of subspace $A$ of $V^2$, where $A$ is not $V^2$ or $0$. This $A$ is what we use to identify $V$ as an embedded $mathbb R$-subspace of $V^2$

  2. For any subspace $A$ of $V^2$, except $V^2$ and $0$, and for any almost complex structure $K$ on $V^2$, there exists a unique involutive $mathbb R$-linear map $sigma_{A,K}$, on $V^2$, such that $sigma_{A,K}$ anti-commutes with $K$ and the set of fixed points of $sigma_{A,K}$ is equal to $A$.

  • 2.1. For example, $sigma_{V times 0,J} = chi$, where $chi(v,w):=(v,-w)$
  1. Therefore, I should ask about $f^{(mathbb C,K,A)}$, not $f^{(mathbb C,K)}$.

relay – OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY generates a non-standard transaction

I create a transaction in my most recent environment with OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY
are my transaction details:

  "txid": "55bfb3b57ad2fe3d3c70d5696e3a7cd0fd4e25c8bf41d7bfa3ab57a457b31776",
  "hash": "55bfb3b57ad2fe3d3c70d5696e3a7cd0fd4e25c8bf41d7bfa3ab57a457b31776",
  "version": 2,
  "size": 223,
  "vsize": 223,
  "weight": 892,
  "locktime": 1591344300,
  "vin": [
      "txid": "f7abaa72e71a823fed9cb715aad4026918acd9aa67d3245b7cafa422034149b9",
      "vout": 0,
      "scriptSig": {
        "asm": "3045022100ded7ee34b12e829a0957a852049546ff909d33129c8c1d3769db227cafffcbdd022033b1e9ed37682470b77450d791c8b5dde67f4de2d14b772d2bbcfbe22b3a453b[ALL] 03f99b855c961eb142cc237d37db22ae67b4a80f2d2f178762110087c1e54f90c5 76a914d1d03865cf22d10d9d1ed68889be6bc99513cd6d88ac",
        "hex": "483045022100ded7ee34b12e829a0957a852049546ff909d33129c8c1d3769db227cafffcbdd022033b1e9ed37682470b77450d791c8b5dde67f4de2d14b772d2bbcfbe22b3a453b012103f99b855c961eb142cc237d37db22ae67b4a80f2d2f178762110087c1e54f90c51976a914d1d03865cf22d10d9d1ed68889be6bc99513cd6d88ac"
      "sequence": 4294967294
  "vout": [
      "value": 49.991,
      "n": 0,
      "scriptPubKey": {
        "asm": "1591344300 OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY OP_DROP OP_HASH160 1a759e10e92cd4d855ba8bee9cd4f4a276033d10 OP_EQUAL",
        "hex": "04acfcd95eb175a9141a759e10e92cd4d855ba8bee9cd4f4a276033d1087",
        "type": "nonstandard"

Is it normal that if I use OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY Do I receive a non-standard transaction? I am able to retransmit it if I change acceptnonstdtxn=1 But it is not my purpose.

Is it possible to edit Bitcoin Core to transmit non-standard transactions?

You can change your node to transmit a non-standard transaction, but other nodes that follow the consensus rules will not transmit your transaction. The only way to include a non-standard transaction in the blockchain is to contact a miner and ask them to include it in a block.

The Bitcoin testnet has IsStandard disabled. If you are trying to test scripts, it is recommended to do it in testnet or regtest.