Timeline for Making Future Posts Runnable Online with Stack Snippets
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 11, 2017 at 10:32 | comment | added | Khaled.K | Chrome version 57, output is empty | |
| Oct 18, 2015 at 14:38 | history | edited | manatwork | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body
|
| Oct 26, 2014 at 16:19 | comment | added | manatwork | It still works for me in Firefox 33. Sometimes there is a longer delay before the output appears, but until now it never failed. Anyway, a Stack CDN would be necessary to start using the Stack Snippets this way. :( | |
| Oct 26, 2014 at 16:13 | comment | added | Ingo Bürk |
@Calvin'sHobbies bitbucket must have changed the MIME type to text/plain which is then not executed for safety reasons. It used to work, though.
|
|
| Oct 22, 2014 at 1:38 | comment | added | Calvin's Hobbies | Also, am I missing something or is your snippet not working right now? | |
| Oct 22, 2014 at 1:38 | comment | added | Calvin's Hobbies | Gotcha. My only gripe with this method is that there's no way for the viewer to easily be confident that the supposed code is actually being interpreted to yield the output. The js could just be printing the output in an obfuscated way. When it's dynamically runnable the existence of the interpreter is more certain. (As for your input crisis, take a peek at my answer.) | |
| Oct 21, 2014 at 17:47 | comment | added | manatwork | My answer also may better fit to meta. Is influenced by Chris Jester-Young♦'s comment “I actually want to port the GS interpreter to JS.” My approach was designed having such cases in view, not for my dozen line Deadfish interpreter. | |
| Oct 21, 2014 at 17:37 | comment | added | Calvin's Hobbies | Good idea. Though loading the code from a non-SE site goes against the idea of being self contained, so I'd avoid it if possible. | |
| Oct 21, 2014 at 14:48 | comment | added | manatwork |
A <pre> (or generally any tag) would appear displayed and syntax highlighted in green. As JavaScript is able to extract the input part anyway, I would not include extra markup. The main difference between using the CSS piece vs. the HTML piece is that CSS not appears in the document, while HTML does. Still undecided.
|
|
| Oct 21, 2014 at 14:29 | comment | added | SztupY |
I think the code is fine in the CSS, and the input can go after the <script> tags (maybe in a small container, like <pre>, so the script could get access to it. Hopefully a pre wouldn't distort the input much as well).
|
|
| Oct 21, 2014 at 14:08 | comment | added | manatwork | Certainly, @SztupY. For now I am undecided whether to include the input also in the CSS piece or in the HTML one. Would not use the JavaScript piece for that, as the browsers will execute it before and some code may result endless loop in JavaScript. Sadly, there is no other way as other pieces are not copied over to the stack snippets server. :( | |
| Oct 21, 2014 at 13:58 | comment | added | SztupY | there should be a way to easily include the input as well I guess | |
| S Oct 21, 2014 at 11:56 | history | answered | manatwork | CC BY-SA 3.0 | |
| S Oct 21, 2014 at 11:56 | history | made wiki | Post Made Community Wiki by manatwork |