Search Results

Search found 11782 results on 472 pages for 'bool dev'.

Page 102/472 | < Previous Page | 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109  | Next Page >

• CodeContracts: ccrewrite fails with Object reference not set to an instance of an object

  - by Vyas Bharghava

  The below code makes ccrewrite blow up! Ideas? BTW, If you comment out the ActualClass, ccrewrite succeeds... [ContractClass(typeof(TestContracts))] interface ITestInterface { bool IsStarted { get; set; } void Begin(); } class ActualClass : ITestInterface { public bool IsStarted { get; set; } public void Begin() { this.IsStarted = true; } } [ContractClassFor(typeof(ITestInterface))] class TestContracts : ITestInterface { ITestInterface Current { get; set; } private TestContracts() { Current = this; } #region ITestInterface Members bool ITestInterface.IsStarted { get; set; } void ITestInterface.Begin() { Contract.Requires(!Current.IsStarted); Contract.Ensures(Current.IsStarted); } Thanks in advance!

  Read the article

• identifying the type

  - by Gokul

  Hi, In my application, there is a inheritance hierarchy in which only the classes that are at the end of the inheritance chain are non-abstract classes. Also there is some usage of boost::variant. I want to write a function which takes a pointer and a Type and says whether the object belongs to that type. For example template< typename Type, bool TypeisAbstract, typename ptrType > bool checkType( ptrType* t) { return ( typeid(*t) == typeid(Type) ); } template< typename Type, typename ptrType > bool checkType<Type, true, ptrType>( ptrType* t) { return ( dynamic_cast<Type*>(t) != NULL ); } Now if there is a boost variant, i want to find out whether the boost variant stores that particular type. Can someone help me with that? Thanks, Gokul.

  Read the article

• changing text color in custom UITableViewCell iphone

  - by Brodie4598

  Hello. I have a custom cell and when the user selects that cell, I would like the text in the two UILabels to change to light gray. ChecklistCell.h: #import <UIKit/UIKit.h> @interface ChecklistCell : UITableViewCell { UILabel *nameLabel; UILabel *colorLabel; BOOL selected; } @property (nonatomic, retain) IBOutlet UILabel *nameLabel; @property (nonatomic, retain) IBOutlet UILabel *colorLabel; @end ChecklistCell.m: #import "ChecklistCell.h" @implementation ChecklistCell @synthesize colorLabel,nameLabel; - (id)initWithStyle:(UITableViewCellStyle)style reuseIdentifier:(NSString *)reuseIdentifier { if ((self = [super initWithStyle:style reuseIdentifier:reuseIdentifier])) { // Initialization code } return self; } - (void)setSelected:(BOOL)selected animated:(BOOL)animated { [super setSelected:selected animated:animated]; // Configure the view for the selected state } - (void)dealloc { [nameLabel release]; [colorLabel release]; [super dealloc]; } @end

  Read the article

• Types in Python - Google Appengine

  - by Chris M

  Getting a bit peeved now; I have a model and a class thats just storing a get request in the database; basic tracking. class SearchRec(db.Model): WebSite = db.StringProperty()#required=True WebPage = db.StringProperty() CountryNM = db.StringProperty() PrefMailing = db.BooleanProperty() DateStamp = db.DateTimeProperty(auto_now_add=True) IP = db.StringProperty() class AddSearch(webapp.RequestHandler): def get(self): searchRec = SearchRec() searchRec.WebSite = self.request.get('WEBSITE') searchRec.WebPage = self.request.get('WEBPAGE') searchRec.CountryNM = self.request.get('COUNTRY') searchRec.PrefMailing = bool(self.request.get('MAIL')) searchRec.IP = self.request.get('IP') Bool has my biscuit; I thought that setting bool(self.reque....) would set the type of the string but no matter what I pass it it still stores it as TRUE in the database. I had the same issue with using required=True on strings for the model; the damn thing kept saying that nothing was being passed... but it had. Ta

  Read the article

• Why is my Extension Method not showing up in my test class?

  - by Robert Harvey

  I created an extension method called HasContentPermission on the System.Security.Principal.IIdentity interface: namespace System.Security.Principal { public static bool HasContentPermission (this IIdentity itentity, int contentID) { // I do stuff here return result; } } And I call it like this: bool hasPermission = User.Identity.HasPermission(contentID); Works like a charm. Now I want to unit test it. To do that, all I really need to do is call the extension method directly, so: using System.Security.Principal; namespace MyUnitTests { [TestMethod] public void HasContentPermission_PermissionRecordExists_ReturnsTrue() { IIdentity identity; bool result = identity.HasContentPermission(... But HasContentPermission won't intellisense. I tried creating a stub class that inherits from IIdentity, but that didn't work either. Why? Or am I going about this the wrong way?

  Read the article

• Why the property is not called on Binding in WPF?

  - by azamsharp

  I am not sure why the property is not being called on Binding. Here is the code: <myusercontrol Text ="{Binding Description, UpdateSourceTrigger=LostFocus,Mode=TwoWay, ValidatesOnDataErrors=True}" IsReadOnly ="{Binding AllowEditing}" /> And here is the myusercontrol IsReadOnly property: public static DependencyProperty IsReadOnlyProperty = DependencyProperty.Register("IsReadOnly", typeof (bool), typeof ( myusercontrol)); public bool IsReadOnly { get { return ((bool) GetValue(IsReadOnlyProperty)); } set { MessageBox.Show(value.ToString()); SetValue(IsReadOnlyProperty, !value); OnPropertyChanged("IsReadOnly"); } } The message box is never displayed! Any ideas!

  Read the article

• empty() behavior

  - by lightalloy

  Maybe I'm asking a stupid question, but I can't understand this behavior: <?php $this->meeting->google_id = 'test'; $test = $this->meeting->google_id; var_dump(empty($test)); var_dump(empty($this->meeting)); var_dump(empty($this->meeting->google_id)); ?> gives output: bool(false) bool(false) bool(true) Why the result of empty($this->meeting->google_id); is true? And how should I check this property then?

  Read the article

• Check if checkbox is checked or not (ASPX)

  - by cthulhu

  I have the following code: (some.aspx.cs) if(Page.IsPostBack) { bool apple2 = false; bool pizza2 = false; bool orange2 = false; if (apple.Checked) apple2 = true; if (pizza.Checked) pizza2 = true; if (orange.Checked) orange2 = true; } (some.aspx) <tr> <td>Food:</td> <td>Apple <input type="checkbox" name="food" id="apple" value="apple" runat="server" />Pizza <input type="checkbox" name="food" id="pizza" value="pizza" runat="server" />Orange <input type="checkbox" name="food" id="orange" value="orange" runat="server" /></td> Now, i send the Boolean variables to SQL database. The problem is only with unchecked boxes. I mean, when you check some checkboxes it sends it as true (and that's right) but when i uncheck them it remains the same (true).

  Read the article

• MS Detours Library, detouring non win api function

  - by flavour404

  Hi, I want to use the windows detours library to detour a non win api function. The function is part of the Qt library (QtGui4.dll). I am wondering how I would set up the function signature for : void QPainter::drawText ( const QPointF & position, const QString & text ) I had a go with this and it received my usual share of errors, a little explanation of requirements would be interesting as well: void (QPainter * real_drawText)(const QPointF & position, const QString & text) = drawText This is what they look like for TextOut, under the windows API: BOOL (WINAPI * Real_TextOut)(HDC a0, int a1, int a2, LPCWSTR a3, int a4) = TextOutW; BOOL WINAPI Mine_TextOut(HDC hdc,int X,int Y,LPCWSTR text,int textLen) { BOOL rv = Real_TextOut(hdc, X, Y, text, textLen); HWND hWindow = WindowFromDC(hdc); SendTextMessage(hWindow, text); return rv; } Thanks.

  Read the article

• C# SortedList, getting value by key

  - by user1004039

  I have SortedList in descending order. public class MyComparer : IComparer<int> { public int Compare(int x, int y) { if (x.CompareTo(y) > 0) return -1; return 1; } } class Program { static void Main(string[] args) { SortedList<int, bool> myList = new SortedList<int, bool>(new MyComparer()); myList.Add(10, true); bool check = myList[10];//In this place an exception "Can't find key" occurs } } When SortedList created without my own IComparer the code works fine and no exception occurs.

  Read the article

• How to binding to bit datatype in SQL to Booleans/CheckBoxes in ASP.NET MVC 2 with DataAnnotations

  - by nvtthang

  I've got problem with binding data type boolean to checkbox in MVC 2 data annotations Here's my code sample: label> Is Hot </label> <%=Html.CheckBoxFor(model => model.isHot, new {@class="input" })%> It always raise this error message below at (model=model.isHot). Cannot convert lambda expression to delegate type 'System.Func<Framework.Models.customer,bool>' because some of the return types in the block are not implicitly convertible to the delegate return type Cannot implicitly convert type 'bool?' to 'bool'. An explicit conversion exists (are you missing a cast?) Please suggest me how can I solve this problem? Thanks in advance.

  Read the article

• AutoMapper and Linq expression.

  - by Raffaeu

  I am exposing the Dto generated from AutoMapper to my WCF services. I would like to offer something like that from WCF: IList GetPersonByQuery(Expression predicate); Unfortunately I need back an expression tree of Person as my DAL doesn't know the DTO. I am trying this wihtout success: var func = new Func<Person, bool>(x => x.FirstName.Contains("John")); var funcDto = Mapper.Map<Func<Person, bool>, Func<PersonDto, bool>>(func); Console.WriteLine(func.ToString()); Console.WriteLine(funcDto.ToString()); THe error that I get is: ----> System.ArgumentException : Type 'System.Func`2[TestAutoMapper.PersonDto,System.Boolean]' does not have a default constructor Do you have any suggestions?

  Read the article

• Limit scope of #define

  - by Ujjwal Singh

  What is the correct strategy to limit the scope of #define and avoid unwarrented token collisions. In the following configuration: Main.c # include "Utility_1.h" # include "Utility_2.h" VOID Utility() // Was written without knowing of: Utility_1 & Utility_2 { const UINT ZERO = 0; } VOID Main() { ... } // Collision; for Line:5 Compiler does not indicate what replaced Utility_1.h # define ZERO "Zero" # define ONE "One" BOOL Utility_1(); Utility_2.h # define ZERO '0' # define ONE '1' BOOL Utility_2(); Utility_2.c # include "Utility_2.h" BOOL Utility_2() { // Using: ZERO & ONE } //Collision: Character Literal replaced with String {Edit} Note: This is supposed to be a generic quesition so do not limit yourself to enum or other defined types. i.e. What to do when: I MUST USE #define Please comment on my proposed solution below.. _

  Read the article

• How to extend abstract Entity class in RIA Services

  - by Calanus

  I want to add a bool variable and property to the base Entity class in my RIA services project so that it is available throughout all the entity objects but seem unable to work out how to do this. I know that adding properties to actual entities themselves is easy using .shared.cs and partial classes but adding such properties to the Entity class using similar methods doesn't work. For example, the following code doesn't work namespace System.ServiceModel.DomainServices.Client { public abstract partial class Entity { private bool auditRequired; public bool AuditRequired { get { return auditRequired; } set { auditRequired = value; } } } } All that happens is that the existing Entity class gets totally overriden rather than extending the Entity class. How do I extend the base Entity class so that functionality is available thoughout all derived entity classes?

  Read the article

• C++ Static Initializer - Is it thread safe

  - by Yan Cheng CHEOK

  Usually, when I try to initialize a static variable class Test2 { public: static vector<string> stringList; private: static bool __init; static bool init() { stringList.push_back("string1"); stringList.push_back("string2"); stringList.push_back("string3"); return true; } }; // Implement vector<string> Test2::stringList; bool Test2::__init = Test2::init(); Is the following code thread safe, during static variable initialization? Is there any better way to static initialize stringlist, instead of using a seperate static function (init)?

  Read the article

• Exporting to CSV with dynamic field type handling

  - by serhio

  I have to do an export from DB to CSV. field; fileld; field... etc Have 3 types of fields: Alpha, Numeric and Bool respresented as "alphaValue",intValue and True/False. I try to encapsulate this in a fields collection, in order to export if alpha then set "", if Bool=True/False if numeric let as is. and try to build a CsvField class: Public Structure?Class CsvField(Of T As ???) End Structure Enum FieldType Alpha Bool Numeric End Enum any suggestions welcomed.

  Read the article

• Logical xor operator in c++?

  - by RAC

  Is there such a thing? First time I encountered a practical need for it, but I don't see one listed in stroustrup. I intend to write: // Detect when exactly one of A,B is equal to five. return (A==5) ^^ (B==5); But there is no ^^ operator. Can I use bitwise ^ here and get the right answer (regardless of machine representation of true and false)? I never mix & and &&, or | and ||, so I hesitate to do that with ^ and ^^. I'd be more comfortable writing my own "bool XOR(bool,bool)" function instead.

  Read the article

• C++: Overload != When == Overloaded

  - by Mark W

  Say I have a class where I overloaded the operator == as such: Class A { ... public: bool operator== (const A &rhs) const; ... }; ... bool A::operator== (const A &rhs) const { .. return isEqual; } I already have the operator == return the proper Boolean value. Now I want to extend this to the simple opposite (!=). I would like to call the overloaded == operator and return the opposite, i.e. something of the nature bool A::operator!= (const A &rhs) const { return !( this == A ); } Is this possible? I know this will not work, but it exemplifies what I would like to have. I would like to keep only one parameter for the call: rhs. Any help would be appreciated, because I could not come up with an answer after several search attempts.

  Read the article

• Exception throws There is no row at position 0

  - by Nimantha Prasad

  I wanted to check user is valid or not.it gives me the exception,When user valid it's working without issue,But if user invalid there's some issue. Exception is : There is no row at position 0 Here is the part of the code, public bool CheckUserExistAndReporter(string user) { int reporterDnnId = -1; SMSFunctionController mysms = new SMSFunctionController(); DataSet uds = mysms.GetUsersUnitByUserName(user); reporterDnnId = Convert.ToInt32(uds.Tables[0].Rows[0]["DnnUserID"]); if (reporterDnnId > 0) { bool isValidUser = true; return isValidUser; } //else //{ //bool isValidUser =false; //return isValidUser; // } return false; } Then i call thatone here. if (!CheckUserExistAndReporter(user)) { ErrorLog(messageIn); msgOut = "ugyldig Bruker";//Invalid User. } what is the error ?

  Read the article

• Another thread safe queue implementation

  - by jensph

  I have a class, Queue, that I tried to make thread safe. It has these three member variables: std::queue<T> m_queue; pthread_mutex_t m_mutex; pthread_cond_t m_condition; and a push and pop implemented as: template<class T> void Queue<T>::push(T value) { pthread_mutex_lock( &m_mutex ); m_queue.push(value); if( !m_queue.empty() ) { pthread_cond_signal( &m_condition ); } pthread_mutex_unlock( &m_mutex ); } template<class T> bool Queue<T>::pop(T& value, bool block) { bool rtn = false; pthread_mutex_lock( &m_mutex ); if( block ) { while( m_queue.empty() ) { pthread_cond_wait( &m_condition, &m_mutex ); } } if( !m_queue.empty() ) { value = m_queue.front(); m_queue.pop(); rtn = true; } pthread_mutex_unlock( &m_mutex ); return rtn; } Unfortunately there are occasional issues that may be the fault of this code. That is, there are two threads and sometimes thread 1 never comes out of push() and at other times thread 2 never comes out of pop() (the block parameter is true) though the queue isn't empty. I understand there are other implementations available, but I'd like to try to fix this code, if needed. Anyone see any issues? The constructor has the appropriate initializations: Queue() { pthread_mutex_init( &mMutex, NULL ); pthread_cond_init( &mCondition, NULL ); } and the destructor, the corresponding 'destroy' calls.

  Read the article

• How to decide between a method or event?

  - by Wil

  I read something ages ago I think by Jon Skeet (which I can't find now) saying that in IL, all events get converted to methods... it was before I understood C# and did not understand it all, but if that is (or even if it isn't) the gist of it.... In a purely hypothetical situation, I was wondering if someone could explain or point me to a resource that says when to use an event over a method? Basically, If I want to have a big red/green status picture which is linked to a Bool field, and I wanted to change it based on the value of the bool, should I: a) Have a method called Changepicture which is linked to the field and changes the state of the bool and the picture. b) Have a get/set part to the field and stick an event in the set part. c) Have a get/set part to the field and stick a method in the set part. d) Other?

  Read the article

• Two phase Construction in C++

  - by tommieb75

  I have as part of assignment to look into a development kit that uses the "two-phase" construction for C++ classes: // Include Header class someFubar{ public: someFubar(); bool Construction(void); ~someFubar(); private: fooObject _fooObj; } In the source // someFubar.cpp someFubar::someFubar : _fooObj(null){ } bool someFubar::Construction(void){ bool rv = false; this->_fooObj = new fooObject(); if (this->_fooObj != null) rv = true; return rv; } someFubar::~someFubar(){ if (this->_fooObj != null) delete this->_fooObj; } Why would this "two-phase" be used and what benefits are there? Why not just instantiate the object initialization within the actual constructor?

  Read the article

• Is there any difference in the implementation of these three validation methods?

  - by dontWatchMyProfile

  Core Data is calling these methods in certain situations: - (BOOL)validateForInsert:(NSError **)outError; - (BOOL)validateForUpdate:(NSError **)outError; - (BOOL)validateForDelete:(NSError **)outError; I wonder if they're doing anything different, or if they're essentially doing the exact same things. As far as I know, these methods call the -validateValue:forKey:error: method once for every property. The only difference I can imagine is in the .validateForDelete: method. I see no reason why to validate an object when it shall be deleted, except for applying delete rules, probably only in the case of the DENY rule.

  Read the article

• Converting a macro to an inline function

  - by Rob

  I am using some Qt code that adds a VERIFY macro that looks something like this: #define VERIFY(cond) \ { \ bool ok = cond; \ Q_ASSERT(ok); \ } The code can then use it whilst being certain the condition is actually evaluated, e.g.: Q_ASSERT(callSomeFunction()); // callSomeFunction not evaluated in release builds! VERIFY(callSomeFunction()); // callSomeFunction is always evaluated Disliking macros, I would instead like to turn this into an inline function: inline VERIFY(bool condition) { Q_ASSERT(condition); } However, in release builds I am worried that the compiler would optimise out all calls to this function (as Q_ASSERT wouldn't actually do anything.) I am I worrying unnecessarily or is this likely depending on the optimisation flags/compiler/etc.? I guess I could change it to: inline VERIFY(bool condition) { condition; Q_ASSERT(condition); } But, again, the compiler may be clever enough to ignore the call. Is this inline alternative safe for both debug and release builds?

  Read the article

• XAML Binding to property

  - by imslavko

  I have check box in my XAML+C# Windows Store application. Also I have bool property: WindowsStoreTestApp.SessionData.RememberUser which is public and static. I want check box's property IsChecked to be consistent (or binded, or mapped) to this bool property. I tried this: XAML <CheckBox x:Name="chbRemember1" IsChecked="{Binding Mode=TwoWay}"/> C# chbRemember1.DataContext = SessionData.RememberUser; Code for property: namespace WindowsStoreTestApp { public class SessionData { public static bool RememberUser { get; set; } } } But it doesn't seem to work. Can you help me?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109  | Next Page >