Search Results

Search found 5279 results on 212 pages for 'optional arguments'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 1/212 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Overload Resolution and Optional Arguments in C# 4

    - by Dale McCoy
    I am working with some code that has seven overloads of a function TraceWrite: void TraceWrite(string Application, LogLevelENUM LogLevel, string Message, string Data = ""); void TraceWrite(string Application, LogLevelENUM LogLevel, string Message, bool LogToFileOnly, string Data = ""); void TraceWrite(string Application, LogLevelENUM LogLevel, string Message, string PieceID, string Data = ""); void TraceWrite(string Application, LogLevelENUM LogLevel, string Message, LogWindowCommandENUM LogWindowCommand, string Data = ""); void TraceWrite(string Application, LogLevelENUM LogLevel, string Message, bool UserMessage, int UserMessagePercent, string Data = ""); void TraceWrite(string Application, LogLevelENUM LogLevel, string Message, string PieceID, LogWindowCommandENUM LogWindowCommand, string Data = ""); void TraceWrite(string Application, LogLevelENUM LogLevel, string Message, LogWindowCommandENUM LogWindowCommand, bool UserMessage, int UserMessagePercent, string Data = ""); (All public static, namespacing noise elided above and throughout.) So, with that background: 1) Elsewhere, I call TraceWrite with four arguments: string, LogLevelENUM, string, bool, and I get the following errors: error CS1502: The best overloaded method match for 'TraceWrite(string, LogLevelENUM, string, string)' has some invalid arguments error CS1503: Argument '4': cannot convert from 'bool' to 'string' Why doesn't this call resolve to the second overload? (TraceWrite(string, LogLevelENUM, string, bool, string = "")) 2) If I were to call TraceWrite with string, LogLevelENUM, string, string, which overload would be called? The first or the third? And why?

    Read the article

  • Ruby on Rails: What are partial hash arguments and full set arguments?

    - by williamjones
    I'm using asserts_redirected_to in my unit tests, and I'm receiving this warning: DEPRECATION WARNING: Using assert_redirected_to with partial hash arguments is deprecated. Specify the full set arguments instead. What is a partial hash argument, and what is a full set argument? These aren't terms that I've seen used in the Rails community before, and the only relevant results I can find on Google for these are in reference to this deprecation warning. Here is my code: assert_redirected_to :controller => :user, :action => :search also tried: assert_redirected_to({:controller => :user, :action => :search}) I might have guessed that it feels I'm missing some parameters or something like that, but the API documentation explicitly says that not all parameters need to be included: http://rails.rubyonrails.org/classes/ActionController/Assertions/ResponseAssertions.html

    Read the article

  • "TypeError: CreateText() takes exactly 8 arguments (5 given)" with default arguments

    - by Eli Nahon
    def CreateText(win, text, x, y, size, font, color, style): txtObject = Text(Point(x,y), text) if size==None: txtObject.setSize(12) else: txtObject.setSize(size) if font==None: txtObject.setFace("courier") else: txtObject.setFace(font) if color==None: txtObject.setTextColor("black") else: txtObject.setTextColor(color) if style==None: txtObject.setStyle("normal") else: txtObject.setStyle(style) return txtObject def FlashingIntro(win, numTimes): txtIntro = CreateText(win, "CELSIUS CONVERTER!", 5,5,28) for i in range(numTimes): txtIntro.draw(win) sleep(.5) txtIntro.undraw() sleep(.5) I'm trying to get the CreateText function to create a text object with my "default" values if the parameters are not used. (I've tried it with blank strings "" instead of None and no luck) I'm fairly new to Python and have little programming knowledge.

    Read the article

  • C# 4.0: Named And Optional Arguments

    - by Paulo Morgado
    As part of the co-evolution effort of C# and Visual Basic, C# 4.0 introduces Named and Optional Arguments. First of all, let’s clarify what are arguments and parameters: Method definition parameters are the input variables of the method. Method call arguments are the values provided to the method parameters. In fact, the C# Language Specification states the following on §7.5: The argument list (§7.5.1) of a function member invocation provides actual values or variable references for the parameters of the function member. Given the above definitions, we can state that: Parameters have always been named and still are. Parameters have never been optional and still aren’t. Named Arguments Until now, the way the C# compiler matched method call definition arguments with method parameters was by position. The first argument provides the value for the first parameter, the second argument provides the value for the second parameter, and so on and so on, regardless of the name of the parameters. If a parameter was missing a corresponding argument to provide its value, the compiler would emit a compilation error. For this call: Greeting("Mr.", "Morgado", 42); this method: public void Greeting(string title, string name, int age) will receive as parameters: title: “Mr.” name: “Morgado” age: 42 What this new feature allows is to use the names of the parameters to identify the corresponding arguments in the form: name:value Not all arguments in the argument list must be named. However, all named arguments must be at the end of the argument list. The matching between arguments (and the evaluation of its value) and parameters will be done first by name for the named arguments and than by position for the unnamed arguments. This means that, for this method definition: public static void Method(int first, int second, int third) this call declaration: int i = 0; Method(i, third: i++, second: ++i); will have this code generated by the compiler: int i = 0; int CS$0$0000 = i++; int CS$0$0001 = ++i; Method(i, CS$0$0001, CS$0$0000); which will give the method the following parameter values: first: 2 second: 2 third: 0 Notice the variable names. Although invalid being invalid C# identifiers, they are valid .NET identifiers and thus avoiding collision between user written and compiler generated code. Besides allowing to re-order of the argument list, this feature is very useful for auto-documenting the code, for example, when the argument list is very long or not clear, from the call site, what the arguments are. Optional Arguments Parameters can now have default values: public static void Method(int first, int second = 2, int third = 3) Parameters with default values must be the last in the parameter list and its value is used as the value of the parameter if the corresponding argument is missing from the method call declaration. For this call declaration: int i = 0; Method(i, third: ++i); will have this code generated by the compiler: int i = 0; int CS$0$0000 = ++i; Method(i, 2, CS$0$0000); which will give the method the following parameter values: first: 1 second: 2 third: 1 Because, when method parameters have default values, arguments can be omitted from the call declaration, this might seem like method overloading or a good replacement for it, but it isn’t. Although methods like this: public static StreamReader OpenTextFile( string path, Encoding encoding = null, bool detectEncoding = true, int bufferSize = 1024) allow to have its calls written like this: OpenTextFile("foo.txt", Encoding.UTF8); OpenTextFile("foo.txt", Encoding.UTF8, bufferSize: 4096); OpenTextFile( bufferSize: 4096, path: "foo.txt", detectEncoding: false); The complier handles default values like constant fields taking the value and useing it instead of a reference to the value. So, like with constant fields, methods with parameters with default values are exposed publicly (and remember that internal members might be publicly accessible – InternalsVisibleToAttribute). If such methods are publicly accessible and used by another assembly, those values will be hard coded in the calling code and, if the called assembly has its default values changed, they won’t be assumed by already compiled code. At the first glance, I though that using optional arguments for “bad” written code was great, but the ability to write code like that was just pure evil. But than I realized that, since I use private constant fields, it’s OK to use default parameter values on privately accessed methods.

    Read the article

  • Overwriting arguments object for a Javascript function

    - by Ian Storm Taylor
    If I have the following: // Clean input. $.each(arguments, function(index, value) { arguments[index] = value.replace(/[\W\s]+/g, '').toLowerCase(); }); Would that be a bad thing to do? I have no further use for the uncleaned arguments in the function, and it would be nice not to create a useless copy of arguments just to use them, but are there any negative effects to doing this? Ideally I would have done this, but I'm guessing this runs into problems since arguments isn't really an Array: arguments = $.map(arguments, function(value) { return value.replace(/[\W\s]+/g, '').toLowerCase(); }); Thanks for any input. EDIT: I've just realized that both of these are now inside their own functions, so the arguments object has changed. Any way to do this without creating an unnecessary variable?

    Read the article

  • C# Adds Optional and Named Arguments

    Earlier this month Microsoft released Visual Studio 2010, the .NET Framework 4.0 (which includes ASP.NET 4.0), and new versions of their core programming languages: C# 4.0 and Visual Basic 10. In designing the latest versions of C# and VB, Microsoft has worked to bring the two languages into closer parity. Certain features available in C# were missing in VB, and vice-a-versa. Last week I wrote about Visual Basic 2010's language enhancements, which include implicit line continuation, auto-implemented properties, and collection initializers - three useful features that were available in previous versions of C#. Similarly, C# 4.0 introduces new features to the C# programming language that were available in earlier versions of Visual Basic, namely optional arguments and named arguments. Optional arguments allow developers to specify default values for one or more arguments to a method. When calling such a method, these optional arguments may be omitted, in which case their default value is used. In a nutshell, optional arguments allow for a more terse syntax for method overloading. Named arguments, on the other hand, improve readability by allowing developers to indicate the name of an argument (along with its value) when calling a method. This article examines how to use optional arguments and named arguments in C# 4.0. Read on to learn more! Read More >

    Read the article

  • C# Adds Optional and Named Arguments

    Earlier this month Microsoft released Visual Studio 2010, the .NET Framework 4.0 (which includes ASP.NET 4.0), and new versions of their core programming languages: C# 4.0 and Visual Basic 10. In designing the latest versions of C# and VB, Microsoft has worked to bring the two languages into closer parity. Certain features available in C# were missing in VB, and vice-a-versa. Last week I wrote about Visual Basic 2010's language enhancements, which include implicit line continuation, auto-implemented properties, and collection initializers - three useful features that were available in previous versions of C#. Similarly, C# 4.0 introduces new features to the C# programming language that were available in earlier versions of Visual Basic, namely optional arguments and named arguments. Optional arguments allow developers to specify default values for one or more arguments to a method. When calling such a method, these optional arguments may be omitted, in which case their default value is used. In a nutshell, optional arguments allow for a more terse syntax for method overloading. Named arguments, on the other hand, improve readability by allowing developers to indicate the name of an argument (along with its value) when calling a method. This article examines how to use optional arguments and named arguments in C# 4.0. Read on to learn more! Read More >Did you know that DotNetSlackers also publishes .net articles written by top known .net Authors? We already have over 80 articles in several categories including Silverlight. Take a look: here.

    Read the article

  • How to linebreak long string constructs ?

    - by iFloh
    I am editing SQLite SQL statements of substantial length. How can I break these into several lines to allow comfortablt editing? const char *sql = "SELECT arguments arguments arguments arguments arguments arguments arguments arguments arguments arguments FROM a, b, WHERE condition condition condition condition condition condition condition" into const char *sql = "SELECT arguments arguments arguments arguments arguments arguments arguments arguments arguments arguments FROM a, b WHERE condition condition condition" cheers

    Read the article

  • Optional non-system type parameters

    - by Courtney de Lautour
    C#4.0 obviously brings optional parameters (which I've been waiting for, for quite some time). However it seems that because only system types can be const that I cannot use any class/struct which I have created, as an optional param. Is there a some way which allows me to use a more complex type as an optional parameter. Or is this one of the realities that one must just live with?

    Read the article

  • How to make a parameter optional in WSDL?

    - by user305069
    I have a WebService API which needs 2 of its parameters to be optional in the WSDL public wsProxy[] Insert(wsProxy[] proxies, string loginname, string password, bool returnNewData) { //code here } I need to a way to show loginname and password as optional in the WSDL. Is there any way to do this in C#. Can I maybe add an tag in front of the parameters like this [optional]loginname? I have been looking around but haven't been able to find anything so far.

    Read the article

  • HTML: Include, or exclude, optional closing tags?

    - by Ian Boyd
    Some HTML1 closing tags are optional, i.e.: </HTML> </HEAD> </BODY> </P> </DT> </DD> </LI> </OPTION> </THEAD> </TH> </TBODY> </TR> </TD> </TFOOT> </COLGROUP> Note: Not to be confused with closing tags that are forbidden to be included, i.e.: </IMG> </INPUT> </BR> </HR> </FRAME> </AREA> </BASE> </BASEFONT> </COL> </ISINDEX> </LINK> </META> </PARAM> Note: xhtml is different from HTML. xhtml is a form of xml, which requires every element have a closing tag. A closing tag can be forbidden in html, yet mandatory in xhtml. Are the optional closing tags ideally included, but we'll accept them if you forgot them, or ideally not included, but we'll accept them if you put them in In other words, should i include them, or should i not include them? The HTML 4.01 spec talks about closing element tags being optional, but doesn't say if it's preferable to include them, or preferable to not include them. On the other hand, a random article on DevGuru says: The ending tag is optional. However, it is recommended that it be included. The reason i ask is because you just know it's optional for compatibility reasons; and they would have made them (mandatory | forbidden) if they could have. Put it another way: What did HTML 1, 2, 3 do with regards to these, now optional, closing tags. What does HTML 5 do? And what should i do? Footnotes 1HTML 4.01

    Read the article

  • Arguments passed on by shell to command in Unix

    - by Ryan Brown
    I've been going over this question and I can't for the life of me figure out why the answer is what it is. How many arguments are passed to the command by the shell on this command line:<pig pig -x " " -z -r" " >pig pig pig a. 8 b. 6 c. 5 d. 7 e. 9 The first symbol is supposed to be the symbol for redirected input but the site isn't letting me use it. [Fixed.] I looked at this question and said ok...arguments...not options so 2nd pig, then " ", then -r" ", 4th pig and 5th pig...-z and -x are options, so I count 5. The answer is b. 6. Where is the 6th argument that's being passed on?

    Read the article

  • Execute local script requiring arguments on Linux via plink

    - by c_maker
    Is it possible to execute (from windows) a local script with arguments on a remote linux system? Here's what I got: plink 1.2.3.4 -l root -pw mypassword -m hello.sh Is there a way to do this same thing, but able to give input parameters to hello.sh? I've tried many things, including: plink 1.2.3.4 -l root -pw mypassword -m hello.sh input1 input2 In this case it seems that plink thinks that input1 and input2 are its arguments.. which makes sense. What are my options?

    Read the article

  • Function arguments VBA

    - by user1068249
    I have these three functions: When I run the first 2 functions, There's no problem, but when I run the last function (LMTD), It says 'Division by zero' yet when I debug some of the arguments have values, some don't. I know what I have to do, but I want to know why I have to do it, because it makes no sense to me. Tinn-function doesn't have Tut's arguments, so I have to add them to Tinn-function's arguments. Same goes for Tut, that doesn't know all of Tinn's arguments, and LMTD has to have both of Tinn and Tut's arguments. If I do that, it all runs smoothly. Why do I have to do this? Public Function Tinn(Tw, Qw, Qp, Q, deltaT) Tinn = (((Tw * Qw) + (Tut(Q, fd, mix) * Q)) / Qp) + deltaT End Function Public Function Tut(Q, fd, mix) Tut = Tinn(Tw, Qw, Qp, Q, deltaT) - (avgittEffektAiUiLMTD() / ((Q * fd * mix) / 3600)) End Function Public Function LMTD(Tsjo) LMTD = ((Tinn(Tw, Qw, Qp, Q, deltaT) - Tsjo) - (Tut(Q, fd, mix) - Tsjo)) / (WorksheetFunction.Ln ((Tinn(Tw, Qw, Qp, Q, deltaT) - Tsjo) / (Tut(Q, fd, mix) - Tsjo))) End Function

    Read the article

  • F# Optional Record Field

    - by akaphenom
    I have a F# record type and want one of the fields to be optional: type legComponents = { shares : int<share> ; price : float<dollar / share> ; totalInvestment : float<dollar> ; } type tradeLeg = { id : int ; tradeId : int ; legActivity : LegActivityType ; actedOn : DateTime ; estimates : legComponents ; ?actuals : legComponents ; } in the tradeLeg type I owuld like the the actuals field to be optional. I cant seem to figure it out nor can I seem to find a reliable example on the web. It seem like this sohuld be easy like let ?t : int = None but i realy can't seem to get this to work. Ugh - thank you T

    Read the article

  • C# 4: conflicting overloaded methods with optional parameters

    - by Thomas
    I have two overloaded methods, one with an optional parameter. void foo(string a) { } void foo(string a, int b = 0) { } now I call: foo("abc"); interestingly the first overload is called. why not the second overload with optional value set to zero? To be honest, I would have expect the compiler to bring an error, at least a warning to avoid unintentional execution of the wrong method. What's the reason for this behaviour? Why did the C# team define it that way? Thanks for your opinions!

    Read the article

  • Naming Optional Parameters in VSB

    - by SteveNeedsSheetNames
    In Visual Basic, I have Functions with a lot of Optional arguments. I would like to be able to pass just a few of these Optional arguments to a Function without having to use numerous commas and spaces to get to the ones I want. Somewhere I saw a way to name params such as OptVar:=val, but that does not seem to work. Just wondering if there is a way to do this. This would help readability. Thanks in advance for the replies.

    Read the article

  • Passing optional parameter by reference in c++

    - by Moomin
    I'm having a problem with optional function parameter in C++ What I'm trying to do is to write function with optional parameter which is passed by reference, so that I can use it in two ways (1) and (2), but on (2) I don't really care what is the value of mFoobar. I've tried such a code: void foo(double &bar, double &foobar = NULL) { bar = 100; foobar = 150; } int main() { double mBar(0),mFoobar(0); foo(mBar,mFoobar); // (1) cout << mBar << mFoobar; mBar = 0; mFoobar = 0; foo(mBar); // (2) cout << mBar << mFoobar; return 0; } but it crashes at void foo(double &bar, double &foobar = NULL) with message : error: default argument for 'double& foobar' has type 'int' Is it possible to solve it without function overloading? Thanks in advance for any suggestions. Pawel

    Read the article

  • C# 4.0 Optional/Named Parameters Beginner&rsquo;s Tutorial

    - by mbcrump
    One of the interesting features of C# 4.0 is for both named and optional arguments.  They are often very useful together, but are quite actually two different things.  Optional arguments gives us the ability to omit arguments to method invocations. Named arguments allows us to specify the arguments by name instead of by position.  Code using the named parameters are often more readable than code relying on argument position.  These features were long overdue, especially in regards to COM interop. Below, I have included some examples to help you understand them more in depth. Please remember to target the .NET 4 Framework when trying these samples. Code Snippet using System;   namespace ConsoleApplication3 {     class Program     {         static void Main(string[] args)         {               //C# 4.0 Optional/Named Parameters Tutorial               Foo();                              //Prints to the console | Return Nothing 0             Foo("Print Something");             //Prints to the console | Print Something 0             Foo("Print Something", 1);          //Prints to the console | Print Something 1             Foo(x: "Print Something", i: 5);    //Prints to the console | Print Something 5             Foo(i: 5, x: "Print Something");    //Prints to the console | Print Something 5             Foo("Print Something", i: 5);       //Prints to the console | Print Something 5             Foo2(i3: 77);                       //Prints to the console | 77         //  Foo(x:"Print Something", 5);        //Positional parameters must come before named arguments. This will error out.             Console.Read();         }           static void Foo(string x = "Return Nothing", int i = 0)         {             Console.WriteLine(x + " " + i + Environment.NewLine);         }           static void Foo2(int i = 1, int i2 = 2, int i3 = 3, int i4 = 4)         {             Console.WriteLine(i3);         }     } }

    Read the article

  • Design for object with optional and modifiable attributtes?

    - by Ikuzen
    I've been using the Builder pattern to create objects with a large number of attributes, where most of them are optional. But up until now, I've defined them as final, as recommended by Joshua Block and other authors, and haven't needed to change their values. I am wondering what should I do though if I need a class with a substantial number of optional but non-final (mutable) attributes? My Builder pattern code looks like this: public class Example { //All possible parameters (optional or not) private final int param1; private final int param2; //Builder class public static class Builder { private final int param1; //Required parameters private int param2 = 0; //Optional parameters - initialized to default //Builder constructor public Builder (int param1) { this.param1 = param1; } //Setter-like methods for optional parameters public Builder param2(int value) { param2 = value; return this; } //build() method public Example build() { return new Example(this); } } //Private constructor private Example(Builder builder) { param1 = builder.param1; param2 = builder.param2; } } Can I just remove the final keyword from the declaration to be able to access the attributes externally (through normal setters, for example)? Or is there a creational pattern that allows optional but non-final attributes that would be better suited in this case?

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >