Search Results

Search found 4 results on 1 pages for 'alan2here'.

Page 1/1 | 1 

  • Function like C# properties?

    - by alan2here
    I was directed here from SO as a better stack exchange site for this question. I've been thinking about the neatness and expression of C# properties over functions, although they only currently work where no parameters are used, and wondered. Is is possible, and if so why not, to have a stand alone function like C# property. For example: public class test { private byte n = 4; public test() { func = 2; byte n2 = func; func; } private byte func { get { return n; } set { n = value; } func { n++; } } } edit: Sorry for the vagueness first time round. I'm going to add some info and motivation. The 'n++' here is just a simple example, a placeholder, it's not intended to be representative of the actual code that would be used. I'm also looking at this from the point of view of looking at the property command as is, not in the context of using it for 'get_xyz' and 'set_xyz' member functions, which is certainly useful, but of instead comparing it more abstractly to functions and other programic elements. A 'get' property can be used instead of a function that takes no parameters, and syntactically they are perhaps only aesthetically, but as I see it noticeably nicer. However, properties also add the potential for an extra layer of polymorphism, one that relates to the 'func = 4;' getting, 'int n = func;' setting or 'func;' function like context in which they are used as well as the more common parameter based polymorphism. Potentially allowing for a lot of expression and contextual information reguarding how other would use your functions. As in many places uses and definitions would remain the same, it shouldn't break existing code. private byte func { get { } get bool { } set { } func { } func(bool) { } func(byte, myType) { } // etc... } So a read only function would look like this: private byte func { get { } } A normal function like this: private void func { func { } } A function with parameter polymorphism like this: private byte func { func(bool) { } func(byte, myType) { } } And a function that could return a value, or just compute, depending on the context it is used, that also has more conventional parameter polymorphism as well, like so: private byte func { get { } func(bool) { } func(byte, myType) { } }

    Read the article

  • What does path finding in internet routing do and how is it different from A*?

    - by alan2here
    Note: If you don't understand this question then feel free to ask clarification in the comments instead of voting down, it might be that this question needs some more work at the moment. I've been directed here from the Stack Excange chat room Root Access because my question didn't fit on Super User. In many aspects path finding algorithms like A star are very similar to internet routing. For example: A node in an A* path finding system can search for a path though edges between other nodes. A router that's part of the internet can search for a route though cables between other routers. In the case of A*, open and closed lists are kept by the system as a whole, sepratly from any individual node as well as each node being able to temporarily store a state involving several numbers. Routers on the internet seem to have remarkable properties, as I understand it: They are very performant. New nodes can be added at any time that use a free address from a finite (not tree like) address space. It's real routing, like A*, there's never any doubling back for example. Similar IP addresses don't have to be geographically nearby. The network reacts quickly to changes to the networks shape, for example if a line is down. Routers share information and it takes time for new IP's to be registered everywhere, but presumably every router doesn't have to store a list of all the addresses each of it's directions leads most directly to. I'm looking for a basic, general, high level description of the algorithms workings from the point of view of an individual router. Does anyone have one? I presume public internet routers don't use A* as the overheads would be to large, and scale to poorly. I also presume there is a single method worldwide because it seems as if must involve a lot of transferring data to update and communicate a reasonable amount of state between neighboring routers. For example, perhaps the amount of data that needs to be stored in each router scales logarithmically with the number of routers that exist worldwide, the detail and reliability of the routing is reduced over increasing distances, there is increasing backtracking involved in parts of the network that are less geographically uniform or maybe each router really does perform an A* style search, temporarily maintaining open and closed lists when a packet arrives.

    Read the article

  • A star vs internet routing pathfinding

    - by alan2here
    In many respects pathfinding algorythms like A star for finding the shortest route though graphs are similar to the pathfinding on the internet when routing trafic. However the pathfinding routers perform seem to have remarkable properties. As I understand it: It's very perfromant. New nodes can be added at any time that use a free address from a finite (not tree like) address space. It's real routing, like A*, theres never any doubling back for example. IP addresses don't have to be geographicly nearby. The network reacts quickly to changes to the networks shape, for example if a line is down. Routers share information and it takes time for new IP's to be registered everywhere, but presumably every router dosn't have to store a list of all the addresses each of it's directions leads most directly to. I can't find this information elsewhere however I don't know where to look or what search tearms to use. I'm looking for a basic, general, high level description to the algorithms workings, from the point of view of an individual router.

    Read the article

  • c++ casting base class to derived class mess

    - by alan2here
    If I were to create a base class called base and derived classes called derived_1, derived_2 etc... I use a collection of instances of the base class, then when I retrieved an element and tried to use it I would find that C++ thinks it's type is that of the base class, probably because I retrieved it from a std::vector of base. Which is a problem when I want to use features that only exist for the specific derived class who's type I knew this object was when I put it into the vector. So I cast the element into the type it is supposed to be and found this wouldn't work. (derived_3)obj_to_be_fixed; And remembered that it's a pointer thing. After some tweaking this now worked. *((derived_3*)&obj_to_be_fixed); Is this right or is there for example an abc_cast() function that does it with less mess?

    Read the article

1