Search Results

Search found 100 results on 4 pages for 'operands'.

Page 1/4 | 1 2 3 4  | Next Page >

  • map operator [] operands

    - by Jamie Cook
    Hi all I have the following in a member function int tt = 6; vector<set<int>>& temp = m_egressCandidatesByDestAndOtMode[tt]; set<int>& egressCandidateStops = temp.at(dest); and the following declaration of a member variable map<int, vector<set<int>>> m_egressCandidatesByDestAndOtMode; However I get an error when compiling (Intel Compiler 11.0) 1>C:\projects\svn\bdk\Source\ZenithAssignment\src\Iteration\PtBranchAndBoundIterationOriginRunner.cpp(85): error: no operator "[]" matches these operands 1> operand types are: const std::map<int, std::vector<std::set<int, std::less<int>, std::allocator<int>>, std::allocator<std::set<int, std::less<int>, std::allocator<int>>>>, std::less<int>, std::allocator<std::pair<const int, std::vector<std::set<int, std::less<int>, std::allocator<int>>, std::allocator<std::set<int, std::less<int>, std::allocator<int>>>>>>> [ const int ] 1> vector<set<int>>& temp = m_egressCandidatesByDestAndOtMode[tt]; 1> ^ I know it's got to be something silly but I can't see what I've done wrong.

    Read the article

  • error A2070: invalid instruction operands IN SSE MASM64

    - by Green
    when compiling this in ml64.exe 64bit (masm64) the SSE command give me an error what do i need to do to include the SSE commands in 64 bit? .code test PROC movlps [rdx], xmm7 ;;error A2070: invalid instruction operands ;//Inc in vec ptr add rsi, 16 movhlps xmm6, xmm7 movss [rdx+8], xmm6 ;;rror A2070: invalid instruction operands ret test ENDP end i get the error: 1>Performing Custom Build Step 1> Assembling: extasm.asm 1>extasm.asm(6) : error A2070: invalid instruction operands 1>extasm.asm(10) : error A2070: invalid instruction operands 1>Microsoft (R) Macro Assembler (x64) Version 8.00.50727.215 1>Copyright (C) Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. 1>Project : error PRJ0019: A tool returned an error code from "Performing Custom Build Step"

    Read the article

  • How do CUDA devices handle immediate operands?

    - by Jack Lloyd
    Compiling CUDA code with immediate (integer) operands, are they held in the instruction stream, or are they placed into memory? Specifically I'm thinking about 24 or 32 bit unsigned integer operands. I haven't been able to find information about this in any of the CUDA documentation I've examined so far. So references to any documents on specific uarch details like this would be perfect, as I don't currently have a good model for how CUDA works at this level.

    Read the article

  • Grouping with operands question

    - by Filip
    I have a table: mysql> desc kursy_bid; +-----------+-------------+------+-----+---------+-------+ | Field | Type | Null | Key | Default | Extra | +-----------+-------------+------+-----+---------+-------+ | datetime | datetime | NO | PRI | NULL | | | currency | varchar(6) | NO | PRI | NULL | | | value | varchar(10) | YES | | NULL | | +-----------+-------------+------+-----+---------+-------+ 3 rows in set (0.01 sec) I would like to select some rows from a table, grouped by some time interval (can be one day) where I will have the first row and the last row of the group, the max(value) and min(value). I tried: select datetime, (select value order by datetime asc limit 1) open, (select value order by datetime desc limit 1) close, max(value), min(value) from kursy_bid_test where datetime > '2009-09-14 00:00:00' and currency = 'eurpln' group by month(datetime), day(datetime), hour(datetime); but the output is: | open | close | datetime | max(value) | min(value) | +--------+--------+---------------------+------------+------------+ | 1.4581 | 1.4581 | 2009-09-14 00:00:05 | 4.1712 | 1.4581 | | 1.4581 | 1.4581 | 2009-09-14 01:00:01 | 1.4581 | 1.4581 | As you see open and close is the same (but they shouldn't be). What should be the query to do what I want?

    Read the article

  • == Operator and operands

    - by rahul
    I want to check whether a value is equal to 1. Is there any difference in the following lines of code Evaluated value == 1 1 == evaluated value in terms of the compiler execution

    Read the article

  • Neccessity of push and pop operands on CPUs

    - by Hawken
    Why do we have commands like push and pop? From what I understand pop and push are basically the same as doing a (mov then add) and (sub then mov) on esp respectively. For example wouldn't: pushl %eax be equivalent to: subl $4, %esp movl %eax, (%esp-4) please correct me if stack access is not (%esp-4), I'm still learning assembly The only true benefit I can see is if doing both operation simultaneously offers some advantage; however I don't see how it could.

    Read the article

  • Finding shared list IDs in a MySQL table using bitwise operands

    - by landons
    I want to find items in common from the "following_list" column in a table of users: +----+--------------------+-------------------------------------+ | id | name | following_list | +----+--------------------+-------------------------------------+ | 9 | User 1 | 26,6,12,10,21,24,19,16 | | 10 | User 2 | 21,24 | | 12 | User 3 | 9,20,21,26,30 | | 16 | User 4 | 6,52,9,10 | | 19 | User 5 | 9,10,6,24 | | 21 | User 6 | 9,10,6,12 | | 24 | User 7 | 9,10,6 | | 46 | User 8 | 45 | | 52 | User 9 | 10,12,16,21,19,20,18,17,23,25,24,22 | +----+--------------------+-------------------------------------+ I was hoping to be able to sort by the number of matches for a given user id. For example, I want to match all users except #9 against #9 to see which of the IDs in the "following_list" column they have in common. I found a way of doing this through the "SET" datatype and some bit trickery: http://dev.mysql.com/tech-resources/articles/mysql-set-datatype.html#bits However, I need to do this on an arbitrary list of IDs. I was hoping this could be done entirely through the database, but this is a little out of my league. Any bit gurus out there? Thanks, Landon

    Read the article

  • Multiplying char and int together in C

    - by teehoo
    Today I found the following: #include <stdio.h> int main(){ char x = 255; int z = ((int)x)*2; printf("%d\n", z); //prints -2 return 0; } So basically I'm getting an overflow because the size limit is determined by the operands on the right side of the = sign?? Why doesn't casting it to int before multiplying work? In this case I'm using a char and int, but if I use "long" and "long long int" (c99), then I get similar behaviour. Is it generally advised against doing arithmetic with operands of different sizes?

    Read the article

  • Simple Java calculator

    - by Kevin Duke
    Firstly this is not a homework question. I am practicing my knowledge on java. I figured a good way to do this is to write a simple program without help. Unfortunately, my compiler is telling me errors I don't know how to fix. Without changing much logic and code, could someone kindly point out where some of my errors are? Thanks import java.lang.*; import java.util.*; public class Calculator { private int solution; private int x; private int y; private char operators; public Calculator() { solution = 0; Scanner operators = new Scanner(System.in); Scanner operands = new Scanner(System.in); } public int addition(int x, int y) { return x + y; } public int subtraction(int x, int y) { return x - y; } public int multiplication(int x, int y) { return x * y; } public int division(int x, int y) { solution = x / y; return solution; } public void main (String[] args) { System.out.println("What operation? ('+', '-', '*', '/')"); System.out.println("Insert 2 numbers to be subtracted"); System.out.println("operand 1: "); x = operands; System.out.println("operand 2: "); y = operands.next(); switch(operators) { case('+'): addition(operands); operands.next(); break; case('-'): subtraction(operands); operands.next(); break; case('*'): multiplication(operands); operands.next(); break; case('/'): division(operands); operands.next(); break; } } }

    Read the article

  • How does the last integer promotion rule ever get applied in C?

    - by SiegeX
    6.3.1.8p1: Otherwise, the integer promotions are performed on both operands. Then the following rules are applied to the promoted operands: If both operands have the same type, then no further conversion is needed. Otherwise, if both operands have signed integer types or both have unsigned integer types, the operand with the type of lesser integer conversion rank is converted to the type of the operand with greater rank. Otherwise, if the operand that has unsigned integer type has rank greater or equal to the rank of the type of the other operand, then the operand with signed integer type is converted to the type of the operand with unsigned integer type. Otherwise, if the type of the operand with signed integer type can represent all of the values of the type of the operand with unsigned integer type, then the operand with unsigned integer type is converted to the type of the operand with signed integer type. Otherwise, both operands are converted to the unsigned integer type corresponding to the type of the operand with signed integer type. For the bolded rule to be applied it would seem to imply you need to have have an unsigned interger type who's rank is less than the signed integer type and the signed integer type cannot hold all the values of the unsigned integer type. Is there a real world example of such a case or is this statement serving as a catch-all to cover all possible permutations?

    Read the article

  • Need advice about pointers and time elapsed program. How to fix invalid operands and cannot convert errors?

    - by user1781382
    I am trying to write a program that tells the difference between the two times the user inputs. I am not sure how to go about this. I get the errors : Line 27|error: invalid operands of types 'int' and 'const MyTime*' to binary 'operator-'| Line |39|error: cannot convert 'MyTime' to 'const MyTime*' for argument '1' to 'int DetermineElapsedTime(const MyTime*, const MyTime*)'| I also need a lot of help in this problem. I don't have a good curriculum, and my class textbook is like cliffnotes for programming. This will be my last class at this university. The C++ teztbook I use(my own not for class) is Sam's C++ One hour a day. #include <iostream> #include<cstdlib> #include<cstring> using namespace std; struct MyTime { int hours, minutes, seconds; }; int DetermineElapsedTime(const MyTime *t1, const MyTime *t2); long t1, t2; int DetermineElapsedTime(const MyTime *t1, const MyTime *t2) { return((int)t2-t1); } int main(void) { char delim1, delim2; MyTime tm, tm2; cout << "Input two formats for the time. Separate each with a space. Ex: hr:min:sec\n"; cin >> tm.hours >> delim1 >> tm.minutes >> delim2 >> tm.seconds; cin >> tm2.hours >> delim1 >> tm2.minutes >> delim2 >> tm2.seconds; DetermineElapsedTime(tm, tm2); return 0; } I have to fix the errors first. Anyone have any ideas??

    Read the article

  • build error with boost spirit grammar (boost 1.43 and g++ 4.4.1)

    - by lurscher
    I'm having issues getting a small spirit/qi grammar to compile. The build stack trace is fugly enought to not make any sense to me (despite some assertion_failed i could notice in there but that didn't brought much information) the input grammar header: inputGrammar.h #include <boost/config/warning_disable.hpp> #include <boost/spirit/include/qi.hpp> #include <boost/spirit/include/phoenix_core.hpp> #include <boost/spirit/include/phoenix_operator.hpp> #include <boost/spirit/include/phoenix_fusion.hpp> #include <boost/spirit/include/phoenix_stl.hpp> #include <boost/fusion/include/adapt_struct.hpp> #include <boost/variant/recursive_variant.hpp> #include <boost/foreach.hpp> #include <iostream> #include <fstream> #include <string> #include <vector> namespace sp = boost::spirit; namespace qi = boost::spirit::qi; using namespace boost::spirit::ascii; //using namespace boost::spirit::arg_names; namespace fusion = boost::fusion; namespace phoenix = boost::phoenix; using phoenix::at_c; using phoenix::push_back; template< typename Iterator , typename ExpressionAST > struct InputGrammar : qi::grammar<Iterator, ExpressionAST(), space_type> { InputGrammar() : InputGrammar::base_type( block ) { tag = sp::lexeme[+(alpha) [sp::_val += sp::_1]];//[+(char_ - '<') [_val += _1]]; block = sp::lit("block") [ at_c<0>(sp::_val) = sp::_1] >> "(" >> *instruction[ push_back( at_c<1>(sp::_val) , sp::_1 ) ] >> ")"; command = tag [ at_c<0>(sp::_val) = sp::_1] >> "(" >> *instruction [ push_back( at_c<1>(sp::_val) , sp::_1 )] >> ")"; instruction = ( command | tag ) [sp::_val = sp::_1]; } qi::rule< Iterator , std::string() , space_type > tag; qi::rule< Iterator , ExpressionAST() , space_type > block; qi::rule< Iterator , ExpressionAST() , space_type > function_def; qi::rule< Iterator , ExpressionAST() , space_type > command; qi::rule< Iterator , ExpressionAST() , space_type > instruction; }; the test build program: i seems the build fails at qi::phrase_parse, i am using boost 1.43 and g++ 4.4.1 #include <iostream> #include <string> #include <vector> using namespace std; //my grammar #include <InputGrammar.h> struct MockExpressionNode { std::string name; std::vector< MockExpressionNode > operands; typedef std::vector< MockExpressionNode >::iterator iterator; typedef std::vector< MockExpressionNode >::const_iterator const_iterator; iterator begin() { return operands.begin(); } const_iterator begin() const { return operands.begin(); } iterator end() { return operands.end(); } const_iterator end() const { return operands.end(); } bool is_leaf() const { return ( operands.begin() == operands.end() ); } }; BOOST_FUSION_ADAPT_STRUCT( MockExpressionNode, (std::string, name) (std::vector<MockExpressionNode>, operands) ) int const tabsize = 4; void tab(int indent) { for (int i = 0; i < indent; ++i) std::cout << ' '; } template< typename ExpressionNode > struct ExpressionNodePrinter { ExpressionNodePrinter(int indent = 0) : indent(indent) { } void operator()(ExpressionNode const& node) const { cout << " tag: " << node.name << endl; for (int i=0 ; i < node.operands.size() ; i++ ) { tab( indent ); cout << " arg "<<i<<": "; ExpressionNodePrinter(indent + 2)( node.operands[i]); cout << endl; } } int indent; }; int test() { MockExpressionNode root; InputGrammar< string::const_iterator , MockExpressionNode > g(); std::string litA = "litA"; std::string litB = "litB"; std::string litC = "litC"; std::string litD = "litD"; std::string litE = "litE"; std::string litF = "litF"; std::string source = litA+"( "+litB+" ,"+litC+" , "+ litD+" ( "+litE+", "+litF+" ) "+ " )"; string::const_iterator iter = source.begin(); string::const_iterator end = source.end(); bool r = qi::phrase_parse( iter , end , g , root , space ); ExpressionNodePrinter< MockExpressionNode > np; np( root ); }; int main() { test(); } finally, the build error is the following: /usr/bin/make -f nbproject/Makefile-linux_amd64_devel.mk SUBPROJECTS= .build-conf make[1]: se ingresa al directorio `/home/mineq/NetBeansProjects/InputParserTests' /usr/bin/make -f nbproject/Makefile-linux_amd64_devel.mk dist/linux_amd64_devel/GNU-Linux-x86/vpuinputparsertests make[2]: se ingresa al directorio `/home/mineq/NetBeansProjects/InputParserTests' mkdir -p build/linux_amd64_devel/GNU-Linux-x86 rm -f build/linux_amd64_devel/GNU-Linux-x86/tests_main.o.d g++ `llvm-config --cxxflags` `pkg-config --cflags unittest-cpp` `pkg-config --cflags boost-1.43` `pkg-config --cflags boost-coroutines` -c -g -I../InputParser -MMD -MP -MF build/linux_amd64_devel/GNU-Linux-x86/tests_main.o.d -o build/linux_amd64_devel/GNU-Linux-x86/tests_main.o tests_main.cpp from /home/mineq/third_party/boost_1_43_0/boost/spirit/home/qi/auto.hpp:16, from /home/mineq/third_party/boost_1_43_0/boost/spirit/home/qi.hpp:15, from /home/mineq/third_party/boost_1_43_0/boost/spirit/include/qi.hpp:16, from ../InputParser/InputGrammar.h:12, from tests_main.cpp:14: /home/mineq/third_party/boost_1_43_0/boost/spirit/home/qi/parse.hpp: In function ‘bool boost::spirit::qi::phrase_parse(Iterator&, Iterator, const Expr&, const Skipper&, boost::spirit::qi::skip_flag::enum_type, Attr&) [with Iterator = __gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator<const char*, std::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> > >, Expr = InputGrammar<__gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator<const char*, std::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> > >, MockExpressionNode>(), Skipper = MockExpressionNode, Attr = const boost::proto::exprns_::expr<boost::proto::tag::terminal, boost::proto::argsns_::term<boost::spirit::tag::char_code<boost::spirit::tag::space, boost::spirit::char_encoding::ascii> >, 0l>]’: In file included from /home/mineq/third_party/boost_1_43_0/boost/spirit/home/qi/detail/parse_auto.hpp:14, /home/mineq/third_party/boost_1_43_0/boost/spirit/home/qi/parse.hpp:125: instantiated from ‘bool boost::spirit::qi::phrase_parse(Iterator&, Iterator, const Expr&, const Skipper&, Attr&) [with Iterator = __gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator<const char*, std::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> > >, Expr = InputGrammar<__gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator<const char*, std::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> > >, MockExpressionNode>(), Skipper = MockExpressionNode, Attr = const boost::spirit::ascii::space_type]’ tests_main.cpp:206: instantiated from here /home/mineq/third_party/boost_1_43_0/boost/spirit/home/qi/parse.hpp:99: error: no matching function for call to ‘assertion_failed(mpl_::failed************ (boost::spirit::qi::phrase_parse(Iterator&, Iterator, const Expr&, const Skipper&, boost::spirit::qi::skip_flag::enum_type, Attr&) [with Iterator = __gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator<const char*, std::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> > >, Expr = InputGrammar<__gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator<const char*, std::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> > >, MockExpressionNode>(), Skipper = MockExpressionNode, Attr = const boost::proto::exprns_::expr<boost::proto::tag::terminal, boost::proto::argsns_::term<boost::spirit::tag::char_code<boost::spirit::tag::space, boost::spirit::char_encoding::ascii> >, 0l>]::error_invalid_expression::************)(InputGrammar<__gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator<const char*, std::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> > >, MockExpressionNode> (*)()))’ /home/mineq/third_party/boost_1_43_0/boost/spirit/home/qi/parse.hpp:125: instantiated from ‘bool boost::spirit::qi::phrase_parse(Iterator&, Iterator, const Expr&, const Skipper&, Attr&) [with Iterator = __gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator<const char*, std::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> > >, Expr = InputGrammar<__gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator<const char*, std::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> > >, MockExpressionNode>(), Skipper = MockExpressionNode, Attr = const boost::spirit::ascii::space_type]’ tests_main.cpp:206: instantiated from here /home/mineq/third_party/boost_1_43_0/boost/spirit/home/qi/parse.hpp:100: error: no matching function for call to ‘assertion_failed(mpl_::failed************ (boost::spirit::qi::phrase_parse(Iterator&, Iterator, const Expr&, const Skipper&, boost::spirit::qi::skip_flag::enum_type, Attr&) [with Iterator = __gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator<const char*, std::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> > >, Expr = InputGrammar<__gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator<const char*, std::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> > >, MockExpressionNode>(), Skipper = MockExpressionNode, Attr = const boost::proto::exprns_::expr<boost::proto::tag::terminal, boost::proto::argsns_::term<boost::spirit::tag::char_code<boost::spirit::tag::space, boost::spirit::char_encoding::ascii> >, 0l>]::error_invalid_expression::************)(MockExpressionNode))’ from /home/mineq/third_party/boost_1_43_0/boost/proto/proto.hpp:12, from /home/mineq/third_party/boost_1_43_0/boost/spirit/home/support/meta_compiler.hpp:17, from /home/mineq/third_party/boost_1_43_0/boost/spirit/home/qi/meta_compiler.hpp:14, from /home/mineq/third_party/boost_1_43_0/boost/spirit/home/qi/action/action.hpp:14, from /home/mineq/third_party/boost_1_43_0/boost/spirit/home/qi/action.hpp:14, from /home/mineq/third_party/boost_1_43_0/boost/spirit/home/qi.hpp:14, from /home/mineq/third_party/boost_1_43_0/boost/spirit/include/qi.hpp:16, from ../InputParser/InputGrammar.h:12, from tests_main.cpp:14: /home/mineq/third_party/boost_1_43_0/boost/proto/detail/expr0.hpp: At global scope: /home/mineq/third_party/boost_1_43_0/boost/proto/proto_fwd.hpp: In instantiation of ‘boost::proto::exprns_::expr<boost::proto::tag::terminal, boost::proto::argsns_::term<InputGrammar<__gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator<const char*, std::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> > >, MockExpressionNode>()>, 0l>’: In file included from /home/mineq/third_party/boost_1_43_0/boost/proto/core.hpp:13, /home/mineq/third_party/boost_1_43_0/boost/utility/enable_if.hpp:59: instantiated from ‘boost::disable_if<boost::proto::result_of::is_expr<boost::proto::exprns_::expr<boost::proto::tag::terminal, boost::proto::argsns_::term<InputGrammar<__gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator<const char*, std::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> > >, MockExpressionNode>()>, 0l>, void>, void>’ /home/mineq/third_party/boost_1_43_0/boost/spirit/home/support/meta_compiler.hpp:200: instantiated from ‘boost::spirit::result_of::compile<boost::spirit::qi::domain, InputGrammar<__gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator<const char*, std::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> > >, MockExpressionNode>(), boost::fusion::unused_type, void>’ /home/mineq/third_party/boost_1_43_0/boost/spirit/home/qi/parse.hpp:107: instantiated from ‘bool boost::spirit::qi::phrase_parse(Iterator&, Iterator, const Expr&, const Skipper&, boost::spirit::qi::skip_flag::enum_type, Attr&) [with Iterator = __gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator<const char*, std::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> > >, Expr = InputGrammar<__gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator<const char*, std::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> > >, MockExpressionNode>(), Skipper = MockExpressionNode, Attr = const boost::proto::exprns_::expr<boost::proto::tag::terminal, boost::proto::argsns_::term<boost::spirit::tag::char_code<boost::spirit::tag::space, boost::spirit::char_encoding::ascii> >, 0l>]’ /home/mineq/third_party/boost_1_43_0/boost/spirit/home/qi/parse.hpp:125: instantiated from ‘bool boost::spirit::qi::phrase_parse(Iterator&, Iterator, const Expr&, const Skipper&, Attr&) [with Iterator = __gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator<const char*, std::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> > >, Expr = InputGrammar<__gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator<const char*, std::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> > >, MockExpressionNode>(), Skipper = MockExpressionNode, Attr = const boost::spirit::ascii::space_type]’ tests_main.cpp:206: instantiated from here /home/mineq/third_party/boost_1_43_0/boost/proto/detail/expr0.hpp:64: error: field ‘boost::proto::exprns_::expr<boost::proto::tag::terminal, boost::proto::argsns_::term<InputGrammar<__gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator<const char*, std::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> > >, MockExpressionNode>()>, 0l>::child0’ invalidly declared function type from /home/mineq/third_party/boost_1_43_0/boost/spirit/home/qi/auto.hpp:16, from /home/mineq/third_party/boost_1_43_0/boost/spirit/home/qi.hpp:15, from /home/mineq/third_party/boost_1_43_0/boost/spirit/include/qi.hpp:16, from ../InputParser/InputGrammar.h:12, from tests_main.cpp:14: /home/mineq/third_party/boost_1_43_0/boost/spirit/home/qi/parse.hpp: In function ‘bool boost::spirit::qi::phrase_parse(Iterator&, Iterator, const Expr&, const Skipper&, boost::spirit::qi::skip_flag::enum_type, Attr&) [with Iterator = __gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator<const char*, std::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> > >, Expr = InputGrammar<__gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator<const char*, std::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> > >, MockExpressionNode>(), Skipper = MockExpressionNode, Attr = const boost::proto::exprns_::expr<boost::proto::tag::terminal, boost::proto::argsns_::term<boost::spirit::tag::char_code<boost::spirit::tag::space, boost::spirit::char_encoding::ascii> >, 0l>]’: In file included from /home/mineq/third_party/boost_1_43_0/boost/spirit/home/qi/detail/parse_auto.hpp:14, /home/mineq/third_party/boost_1_43_0/boost/spirit/home/qi/parse.hpp:125: instantiated from ‘bool boost::spirit::qi::phrase_parse(Iterator&, Iterator, const Expr&, const Skipper&, Attr&) [with Iterator = __gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator<const char*, std::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> > >, Expr = InputGrammar<__gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator<const char*, std::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> > >, MockExpressionNode>(), Skipper = MockExpressionNode, Attr = const boost::spirit::ascii::space_type]’ tests_main.cpp:206: instantiated from here /home/mineq/third_party/boost_1_43_0/boost/spirit/home/qi/parse.hpp:107: error: request for member ‘parse’ in ‘boost::spirit::compile [with Domain = boost::spirit::qi::domain, Expr = InputGrammar<__gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator<const char*, std::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> > >, MockExpressionNode>()](((InputGrammar<__gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator<const char*, std::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> > >, MockExpressionNode> (&)())((InputGrammar<__gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator<const char*, std::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> > >, MockExpressionNode> (*)())expr)))’, which is of non-class type ‘InputGrammar<__gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator<const char*, std::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> > >, MockExpressionNode>()’ from /home/mineq/third_party/boost_1_43_0/boost/spirit/home/qi/auto.hpp:15, from /home/mineq/third_party/boost_1_43_0/boost/spirit/home/qi.hpp:15, from /home/mineq/third_party/boost_1_43_0/boost/spirit/include/qi.hpp:16, from ../InputParser/InputGrammar.h:12, from tests_main.cpp:14: /home/mineq/third_party/boost_1_43_0/boost/spirit/home/qi/skip_over.hpp: In function ‘void boost::spirit::qi::skip_over(Iterator&, const Iterator&, const T&) [with Iterator = __gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator<const char*, std::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> > >, T = boost::spirit::qi::phrase_parse(Iterator&, Iterator, const Expr&, const Skipper&, boost::spirit::qi::skip_flag::enum_type, Attr&) [with Iterator = __gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator<const char*, std::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> > >, Expr = InputGrammar<__gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator<const char*, std::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> > >, MockExpressionNode>(), Skipper = MockExpressionNode, Attr = const boost::proto::exprns_::expr<boost::proto::tag::terminal, boost::proto::argsns_::term<boost::spirit::tag::char_code<boost::spirit::tag::space, boost::spirit::char_encoding::ascii> >, 0l>]::skipper_type]’: In file included from /home/mineq/third_party/boost_1_43_0/boost/spirit/home/qi/auto/auto.hpp:19, /home/mineq/third_party/boost_1_43_0/boost/spirit/home/qi/parse.hpp:112: instantiated from ‘bool boost::spirit::qi::phrase_parse(Iterator&, Iterator, const Expr&, const Skipper&, boost::spirit::qi::skip_flag::enum_type, Attr&) [with Iterator = __gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator<const char*, std::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> > >, Expr = InputGrammar<__gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator<const char*, std::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> > >, MockExpressionNode>(), Skipper = MockExpressionNode, Attr = const boost::proto::exprns_::expr<boost::proto::tag::terminal, boost::proto::argsns_::term<boost::spirit::tag::char_code<boost::spirit::tag::space, boost::spirit::char_encoding::ascii> >, 0l>]’ /home/mineq/third_party/boost_1_43_0/boost/spirit/home/qi/parse.hpp:125: instantiated from ‘bool boost::spirit::qi::phrase_parse(Iterator&, Iterator, const Expr&, const Skipper&, Attr&) [with Iterator = __gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator<const char*, std::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> > >, Expr = InputGrammar<__gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator<const char*, std::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> > >, MockExpressionNode>(), Skipper = MockExpressionNode, Attr = const boost::spirit::ascii::space_type]’ tests_main.cpp:206: instantiated from here /home/mineq/third_party/boost_1_43_0/boost/spirit/home/qi/skip_over.hpp:27: error: ‘const struct MockExpressionNode’ has no member named ‘parse’ make[2]: *** [build/linux_amd64_devel/GNU-Linux-x86/tests_main.o] Error 1 make[2]: se sale del directorio `/home/mineq/NetBeansProjects/InputParserTests' make[1]: *** [.build-conf] Error 2 make[1]: se sale del directorio `/home/mineq/NetBeansProjects/InputParserTests' make: *** [.build-impl] Error 2 BUILD FAILED (exit value 2, total time: 1m 48s)

    Read the article

  • build error with boost spirit grammar (boost 1.43 and g++ 4.4.1) part II

    - by lurscher
    I'm having issues getting a small spirit/qi grammar to compile. i am using boost 1.43 and g++ 4.4.1. the input grammar header: inputGrammar.h #include <boost/config/warning_disable.hpp> #include <boost/spirit/include/qi.hpp> #include <boost/spirit/include/phoenix_core.hpp> #include <boost/spirit/include/phoenix_operator.hpp> #include <boost/spirit/include/phoenix_fusion.hpp> #include <boost/spirit/include/phoenix_stl.hpp> #include <boost/fusion/include/adapt_struct.hpp> #include <boost/variant/recursive_variant.hpp> #include <boost/foreach.hpp> #include <iostream> #include <fstream> #include <string> #include <vector> namespace sp = boost::spirit; namespace qi = boost::spirit::qi; using namespace boost::spirit::ascii; //using namespace boost::spirit::arg_names; namespace fusion = boost::fusion; namespace phoenix = boost::phoenix; using phoenix::at_c; using phoenix::push_back; template< typename Iterator , typename ExpressionAST > struct InputGrammar : qi::grammar<Iterator, ExpressionAST(), space_type> { InputGrammar() : InputGrammar::base_type( block ) { tag = sp::lexeme[+(alpha) [sp::_val += sp::_1]];//[+(char_ - '<') [_val += _1]]; block = sp::lit("block") [ at_c<0>(sp::_val) = sp::_1] >> "(" >> *instruction[ push_back( at_c<1>(sp::_val) , sp::_1 ) ] >> ")"; command = tag [ at_c<0>(sp::_val) = sp::_1] >> "(" >> *instruction [ push_back( at_c<1>(sp::_val) , sp::_1 )] >> ")"; instruction = ( command | tag ) [sp::_val = sp::_1]; } qi::rule< Iterator , std::string() , space_type > tag; qi::rule< Iterator , ExpressionAST() , space_type > block; qi::rule< Iterator , ExpressionAST() , space_type > function_def; qi::rule< Iterator , ExpressionAST() , space_type > command; qi::rule< Iterator , ExpressionAST() , space_type > instruction; }; the test build program: #include <iostream> #include <string> #include <vector> using namespace std; //my grammar #include <InputGrammar.h> struct MockExpressionNode { std::string name; std::vector< MockExpressionNode > operands; typedef std::vector< MockExpressionNode >::iterator iterator; typedef std::vector< MockExpressionNode >::const_iterator const_iterator; iterator begin() { return operands.begin(); } const_iterator begin() const { return operands.begin(); } iterator end() { return operands.end(); } const_iterator end() const { return operands.end(); } bool is_leaf() const { return ( operands.begin() == operands.end() ); } }; BOOST_FUSION_ADAPT_STRUCT( MockExpressionNode, (std::string, name) (std::vector<MockExpressionNode>, operands) ) int const tabsize = 4; void tab(int indent) { for (int i = 0; i < indent; ++i) std::cout << ' '; } template< typename ExpressionNode > struct ExpressionNodePrinter { ExpressionNodePrinter(int indent = 0) : indent(indent) { } void operator()(ExpressionNode const& node) const { cout << " tag: " << node.name << endl; for (int i=0 ; i < node.operands.size() ; i++ ) { tab( indent ); cout << " arg "<<i<<": "; ExpressionNodePrinter(indent + 2)( node.operands[i]); cout << endl; } } int indent; }; int test() { MockExpressionNode root; InputGrammar< string::const_iterator , MockExpressionNode > g; std::string litA = "litA"; std::string litB = "litB"; std::string litC = "litC"; std::string litD = "litD"; std::string litE = "litE"; std::string litF = "litF"; std::string source = litA+"( "+litB+" ,"+litC+" , "+ litD+" ( "+litE+", "+litF+" ) "+ " )"; string::const_iterator iter = source.begin(); string::const_iterator end = source.end(); bool r = qi::phrase_parse( iter , end , g , space , root ); ExpressionNodePrinter< MockExpressionNode > np; np( root ); }; int main() { test(); } finally, the build error is the following: (the full error trace is 20 times bigger than the allowed size for a stackoverflow question, so i posted the full version of it at http://codepad.org/Q74IVCUc) /usr/bin/make -f nbproject/Makefile-linux_amd64_devel.mk SUBPROJECTS= .build-conf make[1]: se ingresa al directorio `/home/mineq/NetBeansProjects/InputParserTests' /usr/bin/make -f nbproject/Makefile-linux_amd64_devel.mk dist/linux_amd64_devel/GNU-Linux-x86/vpuinputparsertests make[2]: se ingresa al directorio `/home/mineq/NetBeansProjects/InputParserTests' mkdir -p build/linux_amd64_devel/GNU-Linux-x86 rm -f build/linux_amd64_devel/GNU-Linux-x86/tests_main.o.d g++ `llvm-config --cxxflags` `pkg-config --cflags unittest-cpp` `pkg-config --cflags boost-1.43` `pkg-config --cflags boost-coroutines` -c -g -I../InputParser -MMD -MP -MF build/linux_amd64_devel/GNU-Linux-x86/tests_main.o.d -o build/linux_amd64_devel/GNU-Linux-x86/tests_main.o tests_main.cpp from /home/mineq/third_party/boost_1_43_0/boost/spirit/include/phoenix_operator.hpp:11, from ../InputParser/InputGrammar.h:14, from tests_main.cpp:14: /home/mineq/third_party/boost_1_43_0/boost/spirit/home/phoenix/operator/self.hpp: In instantiation of ‘const int boost::phoenix::result_of_assign<MockExpressionNode&, boost::variant<MockExpressionNode, std::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> >, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_>&>::size’: In file included from /home/mineq/third_party/boost_1_43_0/boost/spirit/home/phoenix/operator.hpp:16, /home/mineq/third_party/boost_1_43_0/boost/spirit/home/phoenix/operator/self.hpp:27: instantiated from ‘const int boost::phoenix::result_of_assign<MockExpressionNode&, boost::variant<MockExpressionNode, std::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> >, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_>&>::index’ /home/mineq/third_party/boost_1_43_0/boost/spirit/home/phoenix/operator/self.hpp:27: instantiated from ‘boost::phoenix::result_of_assign<MockExpressionNode&, boost::variant<MockExpressionNode, std::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> >, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_>&>’ /home/mineq/third_party/boost_1_43_0/boost/mpl/eval_if.hpp:38: instantiated from ‘boost::mpl::eval_if<boost::mpl::or_<boost::phoenix::is_actor<MockExpressionNode&>, boost::phoenix::is_actor<boost::variant<MockExpressionNode, std::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> >, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_>&>, mpl_::bool_<false>, mpl_::bool_<false>, mpl_::bool_<false> >, boost::phoenix::re_curry<boost::phoenix::assign_eval, MockExpressionNode&, boost::variant<MockExpressionNode, std::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> >, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_>&, boost::fusion::void_, boost::fusion::void_, boost::fusion::void_, boost::fusion::void_, boost::fusion::void_, boost::fusion::void_, boost::fusion::void_, boost::fusion::void_>, boost::phoenix::result_of_assign<MockExpressionNode&, boost::variant<MockExpressionNode, std::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> >, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_>&> >’ /home/mineq/third_party/boost_1_43_0/boost/spirit/home/phoenix/operator/self.hpp:69: instantiated from ‘boost::phoenix::assign_eval::result<boost::phoenix::basic_environment<boost::fusion::vector1<boost::variant<MockExpressionNode, std::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> >, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_>&>, boost::spirit::context<boost::fusion::cons<MockExpressionNode&, boost::fusion::nil>, boost::fusion::vector0<void> >, bool, boost::fusion::void_, boost::fusion::void_, boost::fusion::void_, boost::fusion::void_, boost::fusion::void_, boost::fusion::void_, boost::fusion::void_>, boost::spirit::attribute<0>, boost::spirit::argument<0> >’ /home/mineq/third_party/boost_1_43_0/boost/spirit/home/phoenix/core/detail/composite_eval.hpp:89: instantiated from ‘boost::phoenix::detail::composite_eval<2>::result<boost::phoenix::composite<boost::phoenix::assign_eval, boost::fusion::vector<boost::spirit::attribute<0>, boost::spirit::argument<0>, boost::fusion::void_, boost::fusion::void_, boost::fusion::void_, boost::fusion::void_, boost::fusion::void_, boost::fusion::void_, boost::fusion::void_, boost::fusion::void_> >, boost::phoenix::basic_environment<boost::fusion::vector1<boost::variant<MockExpressionNode, std::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> >, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_>&>, boost::spirit::context<boost::fusion::cons<MockExpressionNode&, boost::fusion::nil>, boost::fusion::vector0<void> >, bool, boost::fusion::void_, boost::fusion::void_, boost::fusion::void_, boost::fusion::void_, boost::fusion::void_, boost::fusion::void_, boost::fusion::void_> >’ /home/mineq/third_party/boost_1_43_0/boost/spirit/home/phoenix/core/composite.hpp:61: instantiated from ‘boost::phoenix::composite<boost::phoenix::assign_eval, boost::fusion::vector<boost::spirit::attribute<0>, boost::spirit::argument<0>, boost::fusion::void_, boost::fusion::void_, boost::fusion::void_, boost::fusion::void_, boost::fusion::void_, boost::fusion::void_, boost::fusion::void_, boost::fusion::void_> >::result<boost::phoenix::basic_environment<boost::fusion::vector1<boost::variant<MockExpressionNode, std::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> >, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_>&>, boost::spirit::context<boost::fusion::cons<MockExpressionNode&, boost::fusion::nil>, boost::fusion::vector0<void> >, bool, boost::fusion::void_, boost::fusion::void_, boost::fusion::void_, boost::fusion::void_, boost::fusion::void_, boost::fusion::void_, boost::fusion::void_> >’ /home/mineq/third_party/boost_1_43_0/boost/spirit/home/phoenix/core/actor.hpp:56: instantiated from ‘boost::phoenix::eval_result<boost::phoenix::composite<boost::phoenix::assign_eval, boost::fusion::vector<boost::spirit::attribute<0>, boost::spirit::argument<0>, boost::fusion::void_, boost::fusion::void_, boost::fusion::void_, boost::fusion::void_, boost::fusion::void_, boost::fusion::void_, boost::fusion::void_, boost::fusion::void_> >, boost::phoenix::basic_environment<boost::fusion::vector1<boost::variant<MockExpressionNode, std::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> >, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_>&>, boost::spirit::context<boost::fusion::cons<MockExpressionNode&, boost::fusion::nil>, boost::fusion::vector0<void> >, bool, boost::fusion::void_, boost::fusion::void_, boost::fusion::void_, boost::fusion::void_, boost::fusion::void_, boost::fusion::void_, boost::fusion::void_> >’ /home/mineq/third_party/boost_1_43_0/boost/spirit/home/phoenix/core/actor.hpp:65: instantiated from ‘boost::phoenix::actor<boost::phoenix::composite<boost::phoenix::assign_eval, boost::fusion::vector<boost::spirit::attribute<0>, boost::spirit::argument<0>, boost::fusion::void_, boost::fusion::void_, boost::fusion::void_, boost::fusion::void_, boost::fusion::void_, boost::fusion::void_, boost::fusion::void_, boost::fusion::void_> > >::result<boost::phoenix::actor<boost::phoenix::composite<boost::phoenix::assign_eval, boost::fusion::vector<boost::spirit::attribute<0>, boost::spirit::argument<0>, boost::fusion::void_, boost::fusion::void_, boost::fusion::void_, boost::fusion::void_, boost::fusion::void_, boost::fusion::void_, boost::fusion::void_, boost::fusion::void_> > >(boost::fusion::vector1<boost::variant<MockExpressionNode, std::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> >, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_>&>&, boost::spirit::context<boost::fusion::cons<MockExpressionNode&, boost::fusion::nil>, boost::fusion::vector0<void> >&, bool&)>’ /home/mineq/third_party/boost_1_43_0/boost/spirit/home/support/action_dispatch.hpp:44: instantiated from ‘bool boost::spirit::traits::action_dispatch<Component>::operator()(const boost::phoenix::actor<Eval>&, Attribute&, Context&) [with Eval = boost::phoenix::composite<boost::phoenix::assign_eval, boost::fusion::vector<boost::spirit::attribute<0>, boost::spirit::argument<0>, boost::fusion::void_, boost::fusion::void_, boost::fusion::void_, boost::fusion::void_, boost::fusion::void_, boost::fusion::void_, boost::fusion::void_, boost::fusion::void_> >, Attribute = boost::variant<MockExpressionNode, std::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> >, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_, boost::detail::variant::void_>, Context = boost::spirit::context<boost::fusion::cons<MockExpressionNode&, boost::fusion::nil>, boost::fusion::vector0<void> >, Component = boost::spirit::qi::alternative<boost::fusion::cons<boost::spirit::qi::reference<const boost::spirit::qi::rule<__gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator<const char*, std::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> > >, MockExpressionNode(), boost::proto::exprns_::expr<boost::proto::tag::terminal, boost::proto::argsns_::term<boost::spirit::tag::char_code<boost::spirit::tag::space, boost::spirit::char_encoding::ascii> >, 0l>, boost::fusion::unused_type, boost::fusion::unused_type> >, boost::fusion::cons<boost::spirit::qi::reference<const boost::spirit::qi::rule<__gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator<const char*, std::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> > >, std::string(), boost::proto::exprns_::expr<boost::proto::tag::terminal, boost::proto::argsns_::term<boost::spirit::tag::char_code<boost::spirit::tag::space, boost::spirit::char_encoding::ascii> >, 0l>, boost::fusion::unused_type, boost::fusion::unused_type> >, boost::fusion::nil> > >]’ /home/mineq/third_party/boost_1_43_0/boost/spirit/home/qi/action/action.hpp:62: instantiated from ‘bool boost::spirit::qi::action<Subject, Action>::parse(Iterator&, const Iterator&, Context&, const Skipper&, Attribute&) const [with Iterator = __gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator<const char*, std::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> > >, Context = boost::spirit::context<boost::fusion::cons<MockExpressionNode&, boost::fusion::nil>, boost::fusion::vector0<void> >, Skipper = boost::spirit::qi::char_class<boost::spirit::tag::char_code<boost::spirit::tag::space, boost::spirit::char_encoding::ascii> >, Attribute = const boost::fusion::unused_type, Subject = boost::spirit::qi::alternative<boost::fusion::cons<boost::spirit::qi::reference<const boost::spirit::qi::rule<__gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator<const char*, std::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> > >, MockExpressionNode(), boost::proto::exprns_::expr<boost::proto::tag::terminal, boost::proto::argsns_::term<boost::spirit::tag::char_code<boost::spirit::tag::space, boost::spirit::char_encoding::ascii> >, 0l>, boost::fusion::unused_type, boost::fusion::unused_type> >, boost::fusion::cons<boost::spirit::qi::reference<const boost::spirit::qi::rule<__gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator<const char*, std::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> > >, std::string(), boost::proto::exprns_::expr<boost::proto::tag::terminal, boost::proto::argsns_::term<boost::spirit::tag::char_code<boost::spirit::tag::space, boost::spirit::char_encoding::ascii> >, 0l>, boost::fusion::unused_type, boost::fusion::unused_type> >, boost::fusion::nil> > >, Action = boost::phoenix::actor<boost::phoenix::composite<boost::phoenix::assign_eval, boost::fusion::vector<boost::spirit::attribute<0>, boost::spirit::argument<0>, boost::fusion::void_, boost::fusion::void_, boost::fusion::void_, boost::fusion::void_, boost::fusion::void_, boost::fusion::void_, boost::fusion::void_, boost::fusion::void_> > >]’ /home/mineq/third_party/boost_1_43_0/boost/spirit/home/qi/nonterminal/detail/parser_binder.hpp:33: instantiated from ‘bool boost::spirit::qi::detail::parser_binder<Parser, Auto>::call(Iterator&, const Iterator&, Context&, const Skipper&, mpl_::true_) const [with Iterator = __gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator<const char*, std::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> > >, Skipper = boost::spirit::qi::char_class<boost::spirit::tag::char_code<boost::spirit::tag::space, boost::spirit::char_encoding::ascii> >, Context = boost::spirit::context<boost::fusion::cons<MockExpressionNode&, boost::fusion::nil>, boost::fusion::vector0<void> >, Parser = boost::spirit::qi::action<boost::spirit::qi::alternative<boost::fusion::cons<boost::spirit::qi::reference<const boost::spirit::qi::rule<__gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator<const char*, std::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> > >, MockExpressionNode(), boost::proto::exprns_::expr<boost::proto::tag::terminal, boost::proto::argsns_::term<boost::spirit::tag::char_code<boost::spirit::tag::space, boost::spirit::char_encoding::ascii> >, 0l>, boost::fusion::unused_type, boost::fusion::unused_type> >, boost::fusion::cons<boost::spirit::qi::reference<const boost::spirit::qi::rule<__gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator<const char*, std::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> > >, std::string(), boost::proto::exprns_::expr<boost::proto::tag::terminal, boost::proto::argsns_::term<boost::spirit::tag::char_code<boost::spirit::tag::space, boost::spirit::char_encoding::ascii> >, 0l>, boost::fusion::unused_type, boost::fusion::unused_type> >, boost::fusion::nil> > >, boost::phoenix::actor<boost::phoenix::composite<boost::phoenix::assign_eval, boost::fusion::vector<boost::spirit::attribute<0>, boost::spirit::argument<0>, boost::fusion::void_, boost::fusion::void_, boost::fusion::void_, boost::fusion::void_, boost::fusion::void_, boost::fusion::void_, boost::fusion::void_, boost::fusion::void_> > > >, Auto = mpl_::bool_<false>]’ /home/mineq/third_party/boost_1_43_0/boost/spirit/home/qi/nonterminal/detail/parser_binder.hpp:53: instantiated from ‘bool boost::spirit::qi::detail::parser_binder<Parser, Auto>::operator()(Iterator&, const Iterator&, Context&, const Skipper&) const [with Iterator = __gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator<const char*, std::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> > >, Skipper = boost::spirit::qi::char_class<boost::spirit::tag::char_code<boost::spirit::tag::space, boost::spirit::char_encoding::ascii> >, Context = boost::spirit::context<boost::fusion::cons<MockExpressionNode&, boost::fusion::nil>, boost::fusion::vector0<void> >, Parser = boost::spirit::qi::action<boost::spirit::qi::alternative<boost::fusion::cons<boost::spirit::qi::reference<const boost::spirit::qi::rule<__gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator<const char*, std::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> > >, MockExpressionNode(), boost::proto::exprns_::expr<boost::proto::tag::terminal, boost::proto::argsns_::term<boost::spirit::tag::char_code<boost::spirit::tag::space, boost::spirit::char_encoding::ascii> >, 0l>, boost::fusion::unused_type, boost::fusion::unused_type> >, boost::fusion::cons<boost::spirit::qi::reference<const boost::spirit::qi::rule<__gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator<const char*, std::basic_string<char, std::char_traits<char>, std::allocator<char> > >, std::string(), boost::proto::exprns_::expr<boost::proto::tag::terminal, boost::proto::argsns_::term<boost::spirit::tag::char_code<boost::spirit::tag::space, boost::spirit::char_encoding::ascii> >, 0l>, boost::fusion::unused_type, boost::fusion::unused_type> >, boost::fusion::nil> > >, ... ... more errors but i had to truncate to fit the 30k limit make[2]: *** [build/linux_amd64_devel/GNU-Linux-x86/tests_main.o] Error 1 make[2]: se sale del directorio `/home/mineq/NetBeansProjects/InputParserTests' make[1]: *** [.build-conf] Error 2 make[1]: se sale del directorio `/home/mineq/NetBeansProjects/InputParserTests' make: *** [.build-impl] Error 2 BUILD FAILED (exit value 2, total time: 2m 13s)

    Read the article

  • Can't operator == be applied to generic types in C#?

    - by Hosam Aly
    According to the documentation of the == operator in MSDN, For predefined value types, the equality operator (==) returns true if the values of its operands are equal, false otherwise. For reference types other than string, == returns true if its two operands refer to the same object. For the string type, == compares the values of the strings. User-defined value types can overload the == operator (see operator). So can user-defined reference types, although by default == behaves as described above for both predefined and user-defined reference types. So why does this code snippet fail to compile? void Compare<T>(T x, T y) { return x == y; } I get the error Operator '==' cannot be applied to operands of type 'T' and 'T'. I wonder why, since as far as I understand the == operator is predefined for all types? Edit: Thanks everybody. I didn't notice at first that the statement was about reference types only. I also thought that bit-by-bit comparison is provided for all value types, which I now know is not correct. But, in case I'm using a reference type, would the the == operator use the predefined reference comparison, or would it use the overloaded version of the operator if a type defined one? Edit 2: Through trial and error, we learned that the == operator will use the predefined reference comparison when using an unrestricted generic type. Actually, the compiler will use the best method it can find for the restricted type argument, but will look no further. For example, the code below will always print true, even when Test.test<B>(new B(), new B()) is called: class A { public static bool operator==(A x, A y) { return true; } } class B : A { public static bool operator==(B x, B y) { return false; } } class Test { void test<T>(T a, T b) where T : A { Console.WriteLine(a == b); } }

    Read the article

  • Rails - Scalable calculation model

    - by H O
    I currently have a calculation structure in my rails app that has models metric, operand and operation_type. Presently, the metric model has many operands, and can perform calculations based on the operation_type (e.g. sum, multiply, etc.), and each operand is defined as being right or left (i.e. so that if the operation is division, the numerator and denominator can be identified). Presently, an operand is always an attribute of some model, e.g. @customer.sales.selling_price.sum. In order to make this scalable, in need to allow an operand to be either an attribute of some kind, or the results of a previous operation, i.e. an operand can be a metric. I have included a diagram of how my models currently look: Can anyone assist me with the most elegant way of allowing an operand to be an actual operand, or another metric? Thanks! EDIT: It seems based on the only answer so far that perhaps polymorphic associations are the way to go on this, but the answer is so brief I have no idea how they could be used in this way - can anyone elaborate? EDIT 2: OK, I think I'm getting somewhere - essentially i presently have a metric, which has_many operands, and an operand has_many metrics. I need a polymorphic self join, where a metric can also have many metrics - do I need to call this something else, perhaps calculated_metrics, so that the metric model can use itself? That would leave me with a situation where a metric has_many operands, and a metric has many calculated_metrics.

    Read the article

  • A way of doing real-world test-driven development (and some thoughts about it)

    - by Thomas Weller
    Lately, I exchanged some arguments with Derick Bailey about some details of the red-green-refactor cycle of the Test-driven development process. In short, the issue revolved around the fact that it’s not enough to have a test red or green, but it’s also important to have it red or green for the right reasons. While for me, it’s sufficient to initially have a NotImplementedException in place, Derick argues that this is not totally correct (see these two posts: Red/Green/Refactor, For The Right Reasons and Red For The Right Reason: Fail By Assertion, Not By Anything Else). And he’s right. But on the other hand, I had no idea how his insights could have any practical consequence for my own individual interpretation of the red-green-refactor cycle (which is not really red-green-refactor, at least not in its pure sense, see the rest of this article). This made me think deeply for some days now. In the end I found out that the ‘right reason’ changes in my understanding depending on what development phase I’m in. To make this clear (at least I hope it becomes clear…) I started to describe my way of working in some detail, and then something strange happened: The scope of the article slightly shifted from focusing ‘only’ on the ‘right reason’ issue to something more general, which you might describe as something like  'Doing real-world TDD in .NET , with massive use of third-party add-ins’. This is because I feel that there is a more general statement about Test-driven development to make:  It’s high time to speak about the ‘How’ of TDD, not always only the ‘Why’. Much has been said about this, and me myself also contributed to that (see here: TDD is not about testing, it's about how we develop software). But always justifying what you do is very unsatisfying in the long run, it is inherently defensive, and it costs time and effort that could be used for better and more important things. And frankly: I’m somewhat sick and tired of repeating time and again that the test-driven way of software development is highly preferable for many reasons - I don’t want to spent my time exclusively on stating the obvious… So, again, let’s say it clearly: TDD is programming, and programming is TDD. Other ways of programming (code-first, sometimes called cowboy-coding) are exceptional and need justification. – I know that there are many people out there who will disagree with this radical statement, and I also know that it’s not a description of the real world but more of a mission statement or something. But nevertheless I’m absolutely sure that in some years this statement will be nothing but a platitude. Side note: Some parts of this post read as if I were paid by Jetbrains (the manufacturer of the ReSharper add-in – R#), but I swear I’m not. Rather I think that Visual Studio is just not production-complete without it, and I wouldn’t even consider to do professional work without having this add-in installed... The three parts of a software component Before I go into some details, I first should describe my understanding of what belongs to a software component (assembly, type, or method) during the production process (i.e. the coding phase). Roughly, I come up with the three parts shown below:   First, we need to have some initial sort of requirement. This can be a multi-page formal document, a vague idea in some programmer’s brain of what might be needed, or anything in between. In either way, there has to be some sort of requirement, be it explicit or not. – At the C# micro-level, the best way that I found to formulate that is to define interfaces for just about everything, even for internal classes, and to provide them with exhaustive xml comments. The next step then is to re-formulate these requirements in an executable form. This is specific to the respective programming language. - For C#/.NET, the Gallio framework (which includes MbUnit) in conjunction with the ReSharper add-in for Visual Studio is my toolset of choice. The third part then finally is the production code itself. It’s development is entirely driven by the requirements and their executable formulation. This is the delivery, the two other parts are ‘only’ there to make its production possible, to give it a decent quality and reliability, and to significantly reduce related costs down the maintenance timeline. So while the first two parts are not really relevant for the customer, they are very important for the developer. The customer (or in Scrum terms: the Product Owner) is not interested at all in how  the product is developed, he is only interested in the fact that it is developed as cost-effective as possible, and that it meets his functional and non-functional requirements. The rest is solely a matter of the developer’s craftsmanship, and this is what I want to talk about during the remainder of this article… An example To demonstrate my way of doing real-world TDD, I decided to show the development of a (very) simple Calculator component. The example is deliberately trivial and silly, as examples always are. I am totally aware of the fact that real life is never that simple, but I only want to show some development principles here… The requirement As already said above, I start with writing down some words on the initial requirement, and I normally use interfaces for that, even for internal classes - the typical question “intf or not” doesn’t even come to mind. I need them for my usual workflow and using them automatically produces high componentized and testable code anyway. To think about their usage in every single situation would slow down the production process unnecessarily. So this is what I begin with: namespace Calculator {     /// <summary>     /// Defines a very simple calculator component for demo purposes.     /// </summary>     public interface ICalculator     {         /// <summary>         /// Gets the result of the last successful operation.         /// </summary>         /// <value>The last result.</value>         /// <remarks>         /// Will be <see langword="null" /> before the first successful operation.         /// </remarks>         double? LastResult { get; }       } // interface ICalculator   } // namespace Calculator So, I’m not beginning with a test, but with a sort of code declaration - and still I insist on being 100% test-driven. There are three important things here: Starting this way gives me a method signature, which allows to use IntelliSense and AutoCompletion and thus eliminates the danger of typos - one of the most regular, annoying, time-consuming, and therefore expensive sources of error in the development process. In my understanding, the interface definition as a whole is more of a readable requirement document and technical documentation than anything else. So this is at least as much about documentation than about coding. The documentation must completely describe the behavior of the documented element. I normally use an IoC container or some sort of self-written provider-like model in my architecture. In either case, I need my components defined via service interfaces anyway. - I will use the LinFu IoC framework here, for no other reason as that is is very simple to use. The ‘Red’ (pt. 1)   First I create a folder for the project’s third-party libraries and put the LinFu.Core dll there. Then I set up a test project (via a Gallio project template), and add references to the Calculator project and the LinFu dll. Finally I’m ready to write the first test, which will look like the following: namespace Calculator.Test {     [TestFixture]     public class CalculatorTest     {         private readonly ServiceContainer container = new ServiceContainer();           [Test]         public void CalculatorLastResultIsInitiallyNull()         {             ICalculator calculator = container.GetService<ICalculator>();               Assert.IsNull(calculator.LastResult);         }       } // class CalculatorTest   } // namespace Calculator.Test       This is basically the executable formulation of what the interface definition states (part of). Side note: There’s one principle of TDD that is just plain wrong in my eyes: I’m talking about the Red is 'does not compile' thing. How could a compiler error ever be interpreted as a valid test outcome? I never understood that, it just makes no sense to me. (Or, in Derick’s terms: this reason is as wrong as a reason ever could be…) A compiler error tells me: Your code is incorrect, but nothing more.  Instead, the ‘Red’ part of the red-green-refactor cycle has a clearly defined meaning to me: It means that the test works as intended and fails only if its assumptions are not met for some reason. Back to our Calculator. When I execute the above test with R#, the Gallio plugin will give me this output: So this tells me that the test is red for the wrong reason: There’s no implementation that the IoC-container could load, of course. So let’s fix that. With R#, this is very easy: First, create an ICalculator - derived type:        Next, implement the interface members: And finally, move the new class to its own file: So far my ‘work’ was six mouse clicks long, the only thing that’s left to do manually here, is to add the Ioc-specific wiring-declaration and also to make the respective class non-public, which I regularly do to force my components to communicate exclusively via interfaces: This is what my Calculator class looks like as of now: using System; using LinFu.IoC.Configuration;   namespace Calculator {     [Implements(typeof(ICalculator))]     internal class Calculator : ICalculator     {         public double? LastResult         {             get             {                 throw new NotImplementedException();             }         }     } } Back to the test fixture, we have to put our IoC container to work: [TestFixture] public class CalculatorTest {     #region Fields       private readonly ServiceContainer container = new ServiceContainer();       #endregion // Fields       #region Setup/TearDown       [FixtureSetUp]     public void FixtureSetUp()     {        container.LoadFrom(AppDomain.CurrentDomain.BaseDirectory, "Calculator.dll");     }       ... Because I have a R# live template defined for the setup/teardown method skeleton as well, the only manual coding here again is the IoC-specific stuff: two lines, not more… The ‘Red’ (pt. 2) Now, the execution of the above test gives the following result: This time, the test outcome tells me that the method under test is called. And this is the point, where Derick and I seem to have somewhat different views on the subject: Of course, the test still is worthless regarding the red/green outcome (or: it’s still red for the wrong reasons, in that it gives a false negative). But as far as I am concerned, I’m not really interested in the test outcome at this point of the red-green-refactor cycle. Rather, I only want to assert that my test actually calls the right method. If that’s the case, I will happily go on to the ‘Green’ part… The ‘Green’ Making the test green is quite trivial. Just make LastResult an automatic property:     [Implements(typeof(ICalculator))]     internal class Calculator : ICalculator     {         public double? LastResult { get; private set; }     }         One more round… Now on to something slightly more demanding (cough…). Let’s state that our Calculator exposes an Add() method:         ...   /// <summary>         /// Adds the specified operands.         /// </summary>         /// <param name="operand1">The operand1.</param>         /// <param name="operand2">The operand2.</param>         /// <returns>The result of the additon.</returns>         /// <exception cref="ArgumentException">         /// Argument <paramref name="operand1"/> is &lt; 0.<br/>         /// -- or --<br/>         /// Argument <paramref name="operand2"/> is &lt; 0.         /// </exception>         double Add(double operand1, double operand2);       } // interface ICalculator A remark: I sometimes hear the complaint that xml comment stuff like the above is hard to read. That’s certainly true, but irrelevant to me, because I read xml code comments with the CR_Documentor tool window. And using that, it looks like this:   Apart from that, I’m heavily using xml code comments (see e.g. here for a detailed guide) because there is the possibility of automating help generation with nightly CI builds (using MS Sandcastle and the Sandcastle Help File Builder), and then publishing the results to some intranet location.  This way, a team always has first class, up-to-date technical documentation at hand about the current codebase. (And, also very important for speeding up things and avoiding typos: You have IntelliSense/AutoCompletion and R# support, and the comments are subject to compiler checking…).     Back to our Calculator again: Two more R# – clicks implement the Add() skeleton:         ...           public double Add(double operand1, double operand2)         {             throw new NotImplementedException();         }       } // class Calculator As we have stated in the interface definition (which actually serves as our requirement document!), the operands are not allowed to be negative. So let’s start implementing that. Here’s the test: [Test] [Row(-0.5, 2)] public void AddThrowsOnNegativeOperands(double operand1, double operand2) {     ICalculator calculator = container.GetService<ICalculator>();       Assert.Throws<ArgumentException>(() => calculator.Add(operand1, operand2)); } As you can see, I’m using a data-driven unit test method here, mainly for these two reasons: Because I know that I will have to do the same test for the second operand in a few seconds, I save myself from implementing another test method for this purpose. Rather, I only will have to add another Row attribute to the existing one. From the test report below, you can see that the argument values are explicitly printed out. This can be a valuable documentation feature even when everything is green: One can quickly review what values were tested exactly - the complete Gallio HTML-report (as it will be produced by the Continuous Integration runs) shows these values in a quite clear format (see below for an example). Back to our Calculator development again, this is what the test result tells us at the moment: So we’re red again, because there is not yet an implementation… Next we go on and implement the necessary parameter verification to become green again, and then we do the same thing for the second operand. To make a long story short, here’s the test and the method implementation at the end of the second cycle: // in CalculatorTest:   [Test] [Row(-0.5, 2)] [Row(295, -123)] public void AddThrowsOnNegativeOperands(double operand1, double operand2) {     ICalculator calculator = container.GetService<ICalculator>();       Assert.Throws<ArgumentException>(() => calculator.Add(operand1, operand2)); }   // in Calculator: public double Add(double operand1, double operand2) {     if (operand1 < 0.0)     {         throw new ArgumentException("Value must not be negative.", "operand1");     }     if (operand2 < 0.0)     {         throw new ArgumentException("Value must not be negative.", "operand2");     }     throw new NotImplementedException(); } So far, we have sheltered our method from unwanted input, and now we can safely operate on the parameters without further caring about their validity (this is my interpretation of the Fail Fast principle, which is regarded here in more detail). Now we can think about the method’s successful outcomes. First let’s write another test for that: [Test] [Row(1, 1, 2)] public void TestAdd(double operand1, double operand2, double expectedResult) {     ICalculator calculator = container.GetService<ICalculator>();       double result = calculator.Add(operand1, operand2);       Assert.AreEqual(expectedResult, result); } Again, I’m regularly using row based test methods for these kinds of unit tests. The above shown pattern proved to be extremely helpful for my development work, I call it the Defined-Input/Expected-Output test idiom: You define your input arguments together with the expected method result. There are two major benefits from that way of testing: In the course of refining a method, it’s very likely to come up with additional test cases. In our case, we might add tests for some edge cases like ‘one of the operands is zero’ or ‘the sum of the two operands causes an overflow’, or maybe there’s an external test protocol that has to be fulfilled (e.g. an ISO norm for medical software), and this results in the need of testing against additional values. In all these scenarios we only have to add another Row attribute to the test. Remember that the argument values are written to the test report, so as a side-effect this produces valuable documentation. (This can become especially important if the fulfillment of some sort of external requirements has to be proven). So your test method might look something like that in the end: [Test, Description("Arguments: operand1, operand2, expectedResult")] [Row(1, 1, 2)] [Row(0, 999999999, 999999999)] [Row(0, 0, 0)] [Row(0, double.MaxValue, double.MaxValue)] [Row(4, double.MaxValue - 2.5, double.MaxValue)] public void TestAdd(double operand1, double operand2, double expectedResult) {     ICalculator calculator = container.GetService<ICalculator>();       double result = calculator.Add(operand1, operand2);       Assert.AreEqual(expectedResult, result); } And this will produce the following HTML report (with Gallio):   Not bad for the amount of work we invested in it, huh? - There might be scenarios where reports like that can be useful for demonstration purposes during a Scrum sprint review… The last requirement to fulfill is that the LastResult property is expected to store the result of the last operation. I don’t show this here, it’s trivial enough and brings nothing new… And finally: Refactor (for the right reasons) To demonstrate my way of going through the refactoring portion of the red-green-refactor cycle, I added another method to our Calculator component, namely Subtract(). Here’s the code (tests and production): // CalculatorTest.cs:   [Test, Description("Arguments: operand1, operand2, expectedResult")] [Row(1, 1, 0)] [Row(0, 999999999, -999999999)] [Row(0, 0, 0)] [Row(0, double.MaxValue, -double.MaxValue)] [Row(4, double.MaxValue - 2.5, -double.MaxValue)] public void TestSubtract(double operand1, double operand2, double expectedResult) {     ICalculator calculator = container.GetService<ICalculator>();       double result = calculator.Subtract(operand1, operand2);       Assert.AreEqual(expectedResult, result); }   [Test, Description("Arguments: operand1, operand2, expectedResult")] [Row(1, 1, 0)] [Row(0, 999999999, -999999999)] [Row(0, 0, 0)] [Row(0, double.MaxValue, -double.MaxValue)] [Row(4, double.MaxValue - 2.5, -double.MaxValue)] public void TestSubtractGivesExpectedLastResult(double operand1, double operand2, double expectedResult) {     ICalculator calculator = container.GetService<ICalculator>();       calculator.Subtract(operand1, operand2);       Assert.AreEqual(expectedResult, calculator.LastResult); }   ...   // ICalculator.cs: /// <summary> /// Subtracts the specified operands. /// </summary> /// <param name="operand1">The operand1.</param> /// <param name="operand2">The operand2.</param> /// <returns>The result of the subtraction.</returns> /// <exception cref="ArgumentException"> /// Argument <paramref name="operand1"/> is &lt; 0.<br/> /// -- or --<br/> /// Argument <paramref name="operand2"/> is &lt; 0. /// </exception> double Subtract(double operand1, double operand2);   ...   // Calculator.cs:   public double Subtract(double operand1, double operand2) {     if (operand1 < 0.0)     {         throw new ArgumentException("Value must not be negative.", "operand1");     }       if (operand2 < 0.0)     {         throw new ArgumentException("Value must not be negative.", "operand2");     }       return (this.LastResult = operand1 - operand2).Value; }   Obviously, the argument validation stuff that was produced during the red-green part of our cycle duplicates the code from the previous Add() method. So, to avoid code duplication and minimize the number of code lines of the production code, we do an Extract Method refactoring. One more time, this is only a matter of a few mouse clicks (and giving the new method a name) with R#: Having done that, our production code finally looks like that: using System; using LinFu.IoC.Configuration;   namespace Calculator {     [Implements(typeof(ICalculator))]     internal class Calculator : ICalculator     {         #region ICalculator           public double? LastResult { get; private set; }           public double Add(double operand1, double operand2)         {             ThrowIfOneOperandIsInvalid(operand1, operand2);               return (this.LastResult = operand1 + operand2).Value;         }           public double Subtract(double operand1, double operand2)         {             ThrowIfOneOperandIsInvalid(operand1, operand2);               return (this.LastResult = operand1 - operand2).Value;         }           #endregion // ICalculator           #region Implementation (Helper)           private static void ThrowIfOneOperandIsInvalid(double operand1, double operand2)         {             if (operand1 < 0.0)             {                 throw new ArgumentException("Value must not be negative.", "operand1");             }               if (operand2 < 0.0)             {                 throw new ArgumentException("Value must not be negative.", "operand2");             }         }           #endregion // Implementation (Helper)       } // class Calculator   } // namespace Calculator But is the above worth the effort at all? It’s obviously trivial and not very impressive. All our tests were green (for the right reasons), and refactoring the code did not change anything. It’s not immediately clear how this refactoring work adds value to the project. Derick puts it like this: STOP! Hold on a second… before you go any further and before you even think about refactoring what you just wrote to make your test pass, you need to understand something: if your done with your requirements after making the test green, you are not required to refactor the code. I know… I’m speaking heresy, here. Toss me to the wolves, I’ve gone over to the dark side! Seriously, though… if your test is passing for the right reasons, and you do not need to write any test or any more code for you class at this point, what value does refactoring add? Derick immediately answers his own question: So why should you follow the refactor portion of red/green/refactor? When you have added code that makes the system less readable, less understandable, less expressive of the domain or concern’s intentions, less architecturally sound, less DRY, etc, then you should refactor it. I couldn’t state it more precise. From my personal perspective, I’d add the following: You have to keep in mind that real-world software systems are usually quite large and there are dozens or even hundreds of occasions where micro-refactorings like the above can be applied. It’s the sum of them all that counts. And to have a good overall quality of the system (e.g. in terms of the Code Duplication Percentage metric) you have to be pedantic on the individual, seemingly trivial cases. My job regularly requires the reading and understanding of ‘foreign’ code. So code quality/readability really makes a HUGE difference for me – sometimes it can be even the difference between project success and failure… Conclusions The above described development process emerged over the years, and there were mainly two things that guided its evolution (you might call it eternal principles, personal beliefs, or anything in between): Test-driven development is the normal, natural way of writing software, code-first is exceptional. So ‘doing TDD or not’ is not a question. And good, stable code can only reliably be produced by doing TDD (yes, I know: many will strongly disagree here again, but I’ve never seen high-quality code – and high-quality code is code that stood the test of time and causes low maintenance costs – that was produced code-first…) It’s the production code that pays our bills in the end. (Though I have seen customers these days who demand an acceptance test battery as part of the final delivery. Things seem to go into the right direction…). The test code serves ‘only’ to make the production code work. But it’s the number of delivered features which solely counts at the end of the day - no matter how much test code you wrote or how good it is. With these two things in mind, I tried to optimize my coding process for coding speed – or, in business terms: productivity - without sacrificing the principles of TDD (more than I’d do either way…).  As a result, I consider a ratio of about 3-5/1 for test code vs. production code as normal and desirable. In other words: roughly 60-80% of my code is test code (This might sound heavy, but that is mainly due to the fact that software development standards only begin to evolve. The entire software development profession is very young, historically seen; only at the very beginning, and there are no viable standards yet. If you think about software development as a kind of casting process, where the test code is the mold and the resulting production code is the final product, then the above ratio sounds no longer extraordinary…) Although the above might look like very much unnecessary work at first sight, it’s not. With the aid of the mentioned add-ins, doing all the above is a matter of minutes, sometimes seconds (while writing this post took hours and days…). The most important thing is to have the right tools at hand. Slow developer machines or the lack of a tool or something like that - for ‘saving’ a few 100 bucks -  is just not acceptable and a very bad decision in business terms (though I quite some times have seen and heard that…). Production of high-quality products needs the usage of high-quality tools. This is a platitude that every craftsman knows… The here described round-trip will take me about five to ten minutes in my real-world development practice. I guess it’s about 30% more time compared to developing the ‘traditional’ (code-first) way. But the so manufactured ‘product’ is of much higher quality and massively reduces maintenance costs, which is by far the single biggest cost factor, as I showed in this previous post: It's the maintenance, stupid! (or: Something is rotten in developerland.). In the end, this is a highly cost-effective way of software development… But on the other hand, there clearly is a trade-off here: coding speed vs. code quality/later maintenance costs. The here described development method might be a perfect fit for the overwhelming majority of software projects, but there certainly are some scenarios where it’s not - e.g. if time-to-market is crucial for a software project. So this is a business decision in the end. It’s just that you have to know what you’re doing and what consequences this might have… Some last words First, I’d like to thank Derick Bailey again. His two aforementioned posts (which I strongly recommend for reading) inspired me to think deeply about my own personal way of doing TDD and to clarify my thoughts about it. I wouldn’t have done that without this inspiration. I really enjoy that kind of discussions… I agree with him in all respects. But I don’t know (yet?) how to bring his insights into the described production process without slowing things down. The above described method proved to be very “good enough” in my practical experience. But of course, I’m open to suggestions here… My rationale for now is: If the test is initially red during the red-green-refactor cycle, the ‘right reason’ is: it actually calls the right method, but this method is not yet operational. Later on, when the cycle is finished and the tests become part of the regular, automated Continuous Integration process, ‘red’ certainly must occur for the ‘right reason’: in this phase, ‘red’ MUST mean nothing but an unfulfilled assertion - Fail By Assertion, Not By Anything Else!

    Read the article

  • Autoscaling in a modern world&hellip;. Part 2

    - by Steve Loethen
    When we last left off, we had a web application spinning away in the cloud, and a local console application watching it and reacting to changes in demand.  Reactions that were specified by a set of rules.  Let’s talk about those rules. Constraints.  The first set of rules this application answered to were the constraints. Here is what they looked like: <constraintRules> <rule name="default" enabled="true" rank="1" description="The default constraint rule"> <actions> <range min="1" max="4" target="AutoscalingApplicationRole"/> </actions> </rule> </constraintRules> Pretty basic.  We have one role, the “AutoscalingApplicationRole”, and we have decided to have it live within a range of 1 to 4.  This rule does not adjust, but instead, set’s limits on what other rules can do.  It has a rank, so you can have you can specify other sets of constraints, perhaps based on time or date, to allow for deviations from this set.  But for now, let’s keep it simple.  In the real world, you would probably use the minimum to set a lower end SLA.  A common value might be a 2, to prevent the reactive rules from ever taking you down to 1 role.  The maximum is often used to keep a rule from driving the cost up, setting an upper limit to prevent you waking up one morning and find a bill for hundreds of instances you didn’t expect.  So, here we have the range we want our application to live inside.  This is good for our investigation and testing.  Next, let’s take a look at the reactive rules.  These rules are what you use to react (hence reactive rules) to changing demands on your application.  The HOL has two simple rules.  One that looks at a queue depth, and one that looks at a performance counter that reports cpu utilization.  the XML in the rules file looks like this: <reactiveRules> <rule name="ScaleUp" rank="10" description="Scale Up the web role" enabled="true"> <when> <any> <greaterOrEqual operand="Length_05_holqueue" than="10"/> <greaterOrEqual operand="CPU_05_holwebrole" than="65"/> </any> </when> <actions> <scale target="AutoscalingApplicationRole" by="1"/> </actions> </rule> <rule name="ScaleDown" rank="10" description="Scale down the web role" enabled="true"> <when> <all> <less operand="Length_05_holqueue" than="5"/> <less operand="CPU_05_holwebrole" than="40"/> </all> </when> <actions> <scale target="AutoscalingApplicationRole" by="-1"/> </actions> </rule> </reactiveRules> <operands> <performanceCounter alias="CPU_05_holwebrole" performanceCounterName="\Processor(_Total)\% Processor Time" source="AutoscalingApplicationRole" timespan="00:05:00" aggregate="Average" /> <queueLength alias="Length_05_holqueue" queue="hol-queue" timespan="00:05:00" aggregate="Average"/> </operands> These rules are currently contained in a file called rules.xml, that is in the root of the console application.  The console app, starts up, grabs the rules and starts watching the 2 operands.  When it detects a rule has been satisfied, it performs the desired action.  (here, scale up or down my 1). But I want to host the autoscaler  in the cloud.  For my first trick, I will move the rules (and another file called services.xml) to azure blob storage.  Look for part 3.

    Read the article

  • Linq, Left Join and Dates...

    - by BitFiddler
    So my situation is that I have a linq-to-sql model that does not allow dates to be null in one of my tables. This is intended, because the database does not allow nulls in that field. My problem, is that when I try to write a Linq query with this model, I cannot do a left join with that table anymore because the date is not a 'nullable' field and so I can't compare it to "Nothing". Example: There is a Movie table, {ID,MovieTitle}, and a Showings table, {ID,MovieID,ShowingTime,Location} Now I am trying to write a statement that will return all those movies that have no showings. In T.SQL this would look like: Select m.* From Movies m Left Join Showings s On m.ID = s.MovieID Where s.ShowingTime is Null Now in this situation I could test for Null on the 'Location' field but this is not what I have in reality (just a simplified example). All I have are non-null dates. I am trying to write in Linq: From m In dbContext.Movies _ Group Join s In Showings on m.ID Equals s.MovieID into MovieShowings = Group _ From ms In MovieShowings.DefaultIfEmpty _ Where ms.ShowingTime is Nothing _ Select ms However I am getting an error saying 'Is' operator does not accept operands of type 'Date'. Operands must be reference or nullable types. Is there any way around this? The model is correct, there should never be a null in the Showings:ShowTime table. But if you do a left join, and there are no show times for a particular movie, then ShowTime SHOULD be Nothing for that movie... Thanks everyone for your help.

    Read the article

  • Lua Operator Overloading

    - by Pessimist
    I've found some places on the web saying that operators in Lua are overloadable but I can't seem to find any example. Can someone provide an example of, say, overloading the + operator to work like the .. operator works for string concatenation? EDIT 1: to Alexander Gladysh and RBerteig: If operator overloading only works when both operands are the same type and changing this behavior wouldn't be easy, then how come the following code works? (I don't mean any offense, I just started learning this language): printf = function(fmt, ...) io.write(string.format(fmt, ...)) end Set = {} Set.mt = {} -- metatable for sets function Set.new (t) local set = {} setmetatable(set, Set.mt) for _, l in ipairs(t) do set[l] = true end return set end function Set.union (a,b) -- THIS IS THE PART THAT MANAGES OPERATOR OVERLOADING WITH OPERANDS OF DIFFERENT TYPES -- if user built new set using: new_set = some_set + some_number if type(a) == "table" and type(b) == "number" then print("building set...") local mixedset = Set.new{} for k in pairs(a) do mixedset[k] = true end mixedset[b] = true return mixedset -- elseif user built new set using: new_set = some_number + some_set elseif type(b) == "table" and type(a) == "number" then print("building set...") local mixedset = Set.new{} for k in pairs(b) do mixedset[k] = true end mixedset[a] = true return mixedset end if getmetatable(a) ~= Set.mt or getmetatable(b) ~= Set.mt then error("attempt to 'add' a set with a non-set value that is also not a number", 2) end local res = Set.new{} for k in pairs(a) do res[k] = true end for k in pairs(b) do res[k] = true end return res end function Set.tostring (set) local s = "{" local sep = "" for e in pairs(set) do s = s .. sep .. e sep = ", " end return s .. "}" end function Set.print (s) print(Set.tostring(s)) end s1 = Set.new{10, 20, 30, 50} s2 = Set.new{30, 1} Set.mt.__add = Set.union -- now try to make a new set by unioning a set plus a number: s3 = s1 + 8 Set.print(s3) --> {1, 10, 20, 30, 50}

    Read the article

  • Regex problem in Java in code sample

    - by JaneNY
    I have job with regex in my expressions: example !(FA1_A.i & FA1_M.i) I have operators ! ( ) & | operands have names [a-zA-Z_]*.[a-zA-Z_] I wrote in Java to split on tokens, but it doesn't split on operators and operands If should be !, (, FA1_A.i, &, FA1_m.i, ) . Can anybody tell me what is wrong ? String stringOpеrator = "([!|&()])"; String stringOperand = "(([a-zA-Z_]*)\\.([a-zA-Z_]*))"; String reg=stringOpеrator+"|"+stringOperand; Pattern pattern = Pattern.compile(reg); Matcher m = pattern.matcher(expression); // System.out.println("func: " + function + " item: " + item); while (m.find()) { int a=m.start(); int b=m.end(); String test=expression.substring(m.start(), m.end()); String g=test; tokens.add(new Token(expression.substring(m.start() , m.end()))); //m = pattern.matcher(expression); }

    Read the article

  • I'm about to learn x86 assembly on os x 10.6 let me know how compile..plz

    - by kevin choung
    hello~ I'm about to learn x86 assembly language on mac os x... I'm using as instruction to compile assembly file in commend window. but I have several errors.. and I don't know how I can get through.. here is the errors and my assembly code.. which is quite simple. **ung-mi-lims-macbook-pro:pa2 ungmi$ as swap.s swap.s:16:Unknown pseudo-op: .type swap.s:16:Rest of line ignored. 1st junk character valued 115 (s). swap.s:19:suffix or operands invalid for `push' swap.s:46:suffix or operands invalid for `pop' ung-mi-lims-macbook-pro:pa2 ungmi$** and the source is .text .align 4 .globl swap .type swap,@function swap: pushl %ebp movl %esp, %ebp movl %ebp, %esp popl %ebp ret and I searched some solution which is I have to put -arch i386 than **ung-mi-lims-macbook-pro:pa2 ungmi$ as -arch i386 swap.s swap.s:16:Unknown pseudo-op: .type swap.s:16:Rest of line ignored. 1st junk character valued 115 (s). ung-mi-lims-macbook-pro:pa2 ungmi$** could you help me out.. just let me know what I need to compile assembly file.. I have xcode already.. and I'd rather to do this with commend window..and vi editor.. I will be waiting for your answer... plz help me.

    Read the article

  • Generic InBetween Function.

    - by Luiscencio
    I am tired of writing x > min && x < max so i wawnt to write a simple function but I am not sure if I am doing it right... actually I am not cuz I get an error: bool inBetween<T>(T x, T min, T max) where T:IComparable { return (x > min && x < max); } errors: Operator '>' cannot be applied to operands of type 'T' and 'T' Operator '<' cannot be applied to operands of type 'T' and 'T' may I have a bad understanding of the where part in the function declaring note: for those who are going to tell me that I will be writing more code than before... think on readability =) any help will be appreciated EDIT deleted cuz it was resolved =) ANOTHER EDIT so after some headache I came out with this (ummm) thing following @Jay Idea of extreme readability: public static class test { public static comparision Between<T>(this T a,T b) where T : IComparable { var ttt = new comparision(); ttt.init(a); ttt.result = a.CompareTo(b) > 0; return ttt; } public static bool And<T>(this comparision state, T c) where T : IComparable { return state.a.CompareTo(c) < 0 && state.result; } public class comparision { public IComparable a; public bool result; public void init<T>(T ia) where T : IComparable { a = ia; } } } now you can compare anything with extreme readability =) what do you think.. I am no performance guru so any tweaks are welcome

    Read the article

  • Complexity of a web application

    - by Dominik G
    I am currently writing my Master's Thesis on maintainability of a web application. I found some methods like the "Maintainability Index" by Coleman et.al. or the "Software Maintainability Index" by Muthanna et.al. For both of them one needs to calculate the cyclomatic complexity. So my question is: Is it possible to measure the cyclomatic complexity of a web application? In my opinion there are three parts to a web application: Server code (PHP, C#, Python, Perl, etc.) Client code (JavaScript) HTML (links and forms as operators, GET-parameters and form fields as operands!?) What do you think? Is there another point of view on the complexity of web application? Did I miss something?

    Read the article

  • What is the justification for Python's power operator associating to the right?

    - by Pieter Müller
    I am writing code to parse mathematical expression strings, and noticed that the order in which chained power operators are evaluated in Python differs from the order in Excel. From http://docs.python.org/reference/expressions.html: "Thus, in an unparenthesized sequence of power and unary operators, the operators are evaluated from right to left (this does not constrain the evaluation order for the operands): -1*2 results in -1."* This means that, in Python: 2**2**3 is evaluated as 2**(2**3) = 2**8 = 256 In Excel, it works the other way around: 2^2^3 is evaluated as (2^2)^3 = 4^3 = 64 I now have to choose an implementation for my own parser. The Excel order is easier to implement, as it mirrors the evaluation order of multiplication. I asked some people around the office what their gut feel was for the evaluation of 2^2^3 and got mixed responses. Does anybody know of any good reasons or conciderations in favour of the Python implementation? And if you don't have an answer, please comment with the result you get from gut feel - 64 or 256?

    Read the article

1 2 3 4  | Next Page >