Search Results

Search found 2681 results on 108 pages for 'equality operator'.

Page 15/108 | < Previous Page | 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22  | Next Page >

• Guru of the Week 2 no match for the operator==

  - by Adam

  From Guru of the Week 2. We have the function: string FindAddr(const list<Employee> l, string name) { for( list<Employee>::const_iterator i = l.begin(); i != l.end(); i++) { if( *i == name ) // here will be compilation error { return (*i).addr; } } return ""; } I added dummy Employee class to that: class Employee { string n; public: string addr; Employee(string name) : n(name) {} Employee() {} string name() const { return n; } operator string() { return n; } }; And got compilation error: error: no match for ‘operator==’ in ‘i.std::_List_iterator<_Tp>::operator* [with _Tp = Employee]() == name’ It works only if add operator== to Employee. But, Herb Sutter wrote that: The Employee class isn't shown, but for this to work it must either have a conversion to string or a conversion ctor taking a string. But Employee has a conversion function and conversion constructor as well. GCC version 4.4.3. Compiled normally, g++ file.cpp without any flags. There should be implicit conversion and it should work, why it doesn't?

  Read the article

• operator << : std::cout << i << (i << 1);

  - by Oops

  Hi, I use the stream operator << and the bit shifting operator << in one line. I am a bit confused, why does code A) not produce the same output than code B)? A) int i = 4; std::cout << i << " " << (i << 1) << std::endl; //4 8 B) myint m = 4; std::cout << m << " " << (m << 1) << std::endl; //8 8 class myint: class myint { int i; public: myint(int ii) { i = ii; } inline myint operator <<(int n){ i = i << n; return *this; } inline operator int(){ return i; } }; thanks in advance Oops

  Read the article

• Is this possible somehow in C# : if (a==b==c==d) {...}

  - by burak ozdogan

  Hi, Is there a quick way to compare equality of more than one values in C#? something like: if (5==6==2==2){ //do something } Thanks

  Read the article

• Entities equals(), hashCode() and toString(). How to correctly implement them?

  - by spike07

  I'm implementing equals(), hashCode() and toString() of my entities using all the available fields in the bean. I'm getting some Lazy init Exception on the frontend when I try to compare the equality or when I print the obj state. That's because some list in the entity can be lazy initialized. I'm wondering what's the correct way to for implementing equals() and toString() on an entity object.

  Read the article

• Entities equals() - hashcode() - toString(). How to correctly implement them?

  - by spike07

  I'm implementing equals() - hashcode() - toString() of my Entities using all the available fields in the bean. I'm getting some Lazy init Exception on the frontend when I try to compare the equality or when I print the obj state. That's because some list in the entity can be lazy initialized. I'm wondering what's the correct way to for implementing equals() and toString() on an Entity Obj

  Read the article

• When is it necessary to override Equals() in a .NET class?

  - by Alex Angas

  .NET contains its own equality comparison functionality, however I don't really understand how it works. If the desired Equals() and == behaviour is to verify that every field of an object is equal to every field of another object, is it necessary to override Equals() with a method that does this explicitly?

  Read the article

• Custom types as key for a map - C++

  - by Appu

  I am trying to assign a custom type as a key for std::map. Here is the type which I am using as key. struct Foo { Foo(std::string s) : foo_value(s){} bool operator<(const Foo& foo1) { return foo_value < foo1.foo_value; } bool operator>(const Foo& foo1) { return foo_value > foo1.foo_value; } std::string foo_value; }; When used with std::map, I am getting the following error. error C2678: binary '<' : no operator found which takes a left-hand operand of type 'const Foo' (or there is no acceptable conversion) c:\program files\microsoft visual studio 8\vc\include\functional 143 If I change the struct like the below, everything worked. struct Foo { Foo(std::string s) : foo_value(s) {} friend bool operator<(const Foo& foo,const Foo& foo1) { return foo.foo_value < foo1.foo_value; } friend bool operator>(const Foo& foo,const Foo& foo1) { return foo.foo_value > foo1.foo_value; } std::string foo_value; }; Nothing changed except making the operator overloads as friend. I am wondering why my first code is not working? Any thoughts?

  Read the article

• Problem with custom Equality in Entity Framework

  - by Shimmy

  Hello! I am using Entity Framework in my application. I implemented with the partial class of an entity the IEquatable<T> interface: Partial Class Address : Implements IEquatable(Of Address) 'Other part generated Public Overloads Function Equals(ByVal other As Address) As Boolean _ Implements System.IEquatable(Of Address).Equals If ReferenceEquals(Me, other) Then Return True Return AddressId = other.AddressId End Function Public Overrides Function Equals(ByVal obj As Object) As Boolean If obj Is Nothing Then Return MyBase.Equals(obj) If TypeOf obj Is Address Then Return Equals(DirectCast(obj, Address)) Else Return False End Function Public Overrides Function GetHashCode() As Integer Return AddressId.GetHashCode End Function End Class Now in my code I use it this way: Sub Main() Using e As New CompleteKitchenEntities Dim job = e.Job.FirstOrDefault Dim address As New Address() job.Addresses.Add(address) Dim contains1 = job.Addresses.Contains(address) 'True e.SaveChanges() Dim contains2 = job.Addresses.Contains(address) 'False 'The problem is that I can't remove it: Dim removed = job.Addresses.Remoeve(address) 'False End Using End Sub Note (I checked in the debugger visualizer) that the EntityCollection class stores its entities in HashSet so it has to do with the GetHashCode function, I want it to depend on the ID so entities are compared by their IDs. Please help me find what's wrong in the GetHashCode function (by ID) and what can I change to make it work. Thanks a lot.

  Read the article

• creating Object equality "HashMap" in ActionScript3 as java HashMap

  - by jason

  const jonny1 : Person = new Person("jonny", 26); const jonny2 : Person = new Person("jonny", 26); const table : Dictionary = new Dictionary(); table[jonny1] = "That's me"; trace(table[jonny1]) // traces: "That's me" trace(table[jonny2]) // traces: undefined. But I want use Dictionary like this way: trace(table[jonny2]) // traces: "That's me". in a word, I want implements a data-structure works like HashMap in java

  Read the article

• Problem with custom Equality and GetHashCode in a mutable object

  - by Shimmy

  Hello! I am using Entity Framework in my application. I implemented with the partial class of an entity the IEquatable<T> interface: Partial Class Address : Implements IEquatable(Of Address) 'Other part generated Public Overloads Function Equals(ByVal other As Address) As Boolean _ Implements System.IEquatable(Of Address).Equals If ReferenceEquals(Me, other) Then Return True Return AddressId = other.AddressId End Function Public Overrides Function Equals(ByVal obj As Object) As Boolean If obj Is Nothing Then Return MyBase.Equals(obj) If TypeOf obj Is Address Then Return Equals(DirectCast(obj, Address)) Else Return False End Function Public Overrides Function GetHashCode() As Integer Return AddressId.GetHashCode End Function End Class Now in my code I use it this way: Sub Main() Using e As New CompleteKitchenEntities Dim job = e.Job.FirstOrDefault Dim address As New Address() job.Addresses.Add(address) Dim contains1 = job.Addresses.Contains(address) 'True e.SaveChanges() Dim contains2 = job.Addresses.Contains(address) 'False 'The problem is that I can't remove it: Dim removed = job.Addresses.Remoeve(address) 'False End Using End Sub Note (I checked in the debugger visualizer) that the EntityCollection class stores its entities in HashSet so it has to do with the GetHashCode function, I want it to depend on the ID so entities are compared by their IDs. The problem is that when I hit save, the ID changes from 0 to its db value. So the question is how can I have an equatable object, being properly hashed. Please help me find what's wrong in the GetHashCode function (by ID) and what can I change to make it work. Thanks a lot.

  Read the article

• defining < operator for map of list iterators

  - by Adrian

  I'd like to use iterators from an STL list as keys in a map. For example: using namespace std; list<int> l; map<list<int>::const_iterator, int> t; int main(int argv, char * argc) { l.push_back(1); t[l.begin()] = 5; } However, list iterators do not have a comparison operator defined (in contrast to random access iterators), so compiling the above code results in an error: /usr/include/c++/4.2.1/bits/stl_function.h:227: error: no match for ‘operator<’ in ‘__x < __y’ If the list is changed to a vector, a map of vector const_iterators compiles fine. What is the appropriate way to define the operator < for list::const_iterator?

  Read the article

• Django comparing model instances for equality

  - by orokusaki

  I understand that, with a singleton situation, you can perform such an operation as: spam == eggs and if spam and eggs are instances of the same class with all the same attribute values, it will return True. In a Django model, this is natural because two separate instances of a model won't ever be the same unless they have the same .pk value. The problem with this is that if a reference to an instance has attributes that have been updated by middleware somewhere along the way and it hasn't been saved, and you're trying to it to another variable holding a reference to an instance of the same model, it will return False of course because they have different values for some of the attributes. Obviously I don't need something like a singleton , but I'm wondering if there some official Djangonic (ha, a new word) method for checking this, or if I should simply check that the .pk value is the same with: spam.pk == eggs.pk I'm sorry if this was a huge waste of time, but it just seems like there might be a method for doing this, and something I'm missing that I'll regret down the road if I don't find it.

  Read the article

• Allow member to be const while still supporting operator= on the class

  - by LeopardSkinPillBoxHat

  I have several members in my class which are const and can therefore only be initialised via the initialiser list like so: class MyItemT { public: MyItemT(const MyPacketT& aMyPacket, const MyInfoT& aMyInfo) : mMyPacket(aMyPacket), mMyInfo(aMyInfo) { } private: const MyPacketT mMyPacket; const MyInfoT mMyInfo; }; My class can be used in some of our internally defined container classes (e.g. vectors), and these containers require that operator= is defined in the class. Of course, my operator= needs to do something like this: MyItemT& MyItemT::operator=(const MyItemT& other) { mMyPacket = other.mPacket; mMyInfo = other.mMyInfo; return *this; } which of course doesn't work because mMyPacket and mMyInfo are const members. Other than making these members non-const (which I don't want to do), any ideas about how I could fix this?

  Read the article

• How to compare 2 objects for equality in Objective-C

  - by shakeelw

  In Java you can write an if statement like this: if(object1.equals(object2)){ // Do something.... } How can I code the same logic in Objective-C? I basically want to compare 2 of any one type of objects, such as 'Text Fields', 'Text Views', etc. Thank you. Shakeel

  Read the article

• How to implement IEquatable<T> when mutable fields are part of the equality - Problem with GetHashCo

  - by Shimmy

  Hello! I am using Entity Framework in my application. I implemented with the partial class of an entity the IEquatable<T> interface: Partial Class Address : Implements IEquatable(Of Address) 'Other part generated Public Overloads Function Equals(ByVal other As Address) As Boolean _ Implements System.IEquatable(Of Address).Equals If ReferenceEquals(Me, other) Then Return True Return AddressId = other.AddressId End Function Public Overrides Function Equals(ByVal obj As Object) As Boolean If obj Is Nothing Then Return MyBase.Equals(obj) If TypeOf obj Is Address Then Return Equals(DirectCast(obj, Address)) Else Return False End Function Public Overrides Function GetHashCode() As Integer Return AddressId.GetHashCode End Function End Class Now in my code I use it this way: Sub Main() Using e As New CompleteKitchenEntities Dim job = e.Job.FirstOrDefault Dim address As New Address() job.Addresses.Add(address) Dim contains1 = job.Addresses.Contains(address) 'True e.SaveChanges() Dim contains2 = job.Addresses.Contains(address) 'False 'The problem is that I can't remove it: Dim removed = job.Addresses.Remoeve(address) 'False End Using End Sub Note (I checked in the debugger visualizer) that the EntityCollection class stores its entities in HashSet so it has to do with the GetHashCode function, I want it to depend on the ID so entities are compared by their IDs. The problem is that when I hit save, the ID changes from 0 to its db value. So the question is how can I have an equatable object, being properly hashed. Please help me find what's wrong in the GetHashCode function (by ID) and what can I change to make it work. Thanks a lot.

  Read the article

• Concatenation Operator

  - by Chaitanya

  This might be a silly question but it struck me, and here i ask. <?php $x="Hi"; $y=" There"; $z = $x.$y; $a = "$x$y"; echo "$z"."<br />"."$a"; ?> $z uses the traditional concatenation operator provided by php and concatenates, conversely $a doesn't, My questions: by not using the concatenation operator, does it effect the performance? If it doesn't why at all have the concatenation operator. Why have 2 modes of implementation when one does the work?

  Read the article

• Equality Comparison with Multiple Instances/IEqualityComparer problems in LINQ

  - by Stacey

  This is similar to my last question; but from a different angle. http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2792393/see-if-item-exists-once-in-enumerable-linq Given the following set of items, and lists containing them... Item 1 Item 2 Item 3 Item 4 Item 5 class Item { string Name { get; set; } } List<Item> available = new List<Item>() { Item 1 Item 1 Item 2 Item 3 Item 5 } List<Item> selected = new List<Item>() { Item 1 Item 2 Item 3 } I need to make a third List that has everything from "available", except what is in "selected". However 'Item 1' is in 'available' twice, but only in 'selected' once. Since they are instances of the same item, I am having trouble figuring out the appropriate logic to accomodate this. The final array should look like... List<Item> selectable = new List<Item>() { Item 1 Item5 }

  Read the article

• Concatenation Operator - PHP

  - by Chaitanya

  This might be a silly question but it struck me, and here i ask. <?php $x="Hi"; $y=" There"; $z = $x.$y; $a = "$x$y"; echo "$z"."<br />"."$a"; ?> $z uses the traditional concatenation operator provided by php and concatenates, conversely $a doesn't, My questions: a. by not using the concatenation operator, does it effect the performance? b. If it doesn't why at all have the concatenation operator. c. Why have 2 modes of implementation when one does the work?

  Read the article

• How to check for DOM equality with jQuery?

  - by Joseph

  I'm basically building a simple list, and one of the items in the list is selected. I'm accomplishing this by having a "selected" class applied to whichever item I want to have selected. I have two buttons that go forward and backward which traverse this list. However, when the user gets to the first or the last element in the list, I want to do a post back. This is where I'm stuck, because I'm having trouble identifying that the currently selected item is not the first or the last. Simple Example: <div id="list"> <p>item 1</p> <p>item 2</p> <p class="selected">item 3</p> </div> Let's say the user presses the next button, at this point I'm checking for something similar to this: if (jQuery('#list p.selected') == jQuery('#list p:last-child')) //do post back However, this logic is returning false, which leads me to believe I'm approaching this the wrong way. What is the best way for me to check for this kind of logic using jQuery?

  Read the article

• Understanding pattern matching with cons operator

  - by Mathias

  In "Programming F#" I came across a pattern-matching like this one (I simplified a bit): let rec len list = match list with | [] -> 0 | [_] -> 1 | head :: tail -> 1 + len tail;; Practically, I understand that the last match recognizes the head and tail of the list. Conceptually, I don't get why it works. As far as I understand, :: is the cons operator, which appends a value in head position of a list, but it doesn't look to me like it is being used as an operator here. Should I understand this as a "special syntax" for lists, where :: is interpreted as an operator or a "match pattern" depending on context? Or can the same idea be extended for types other than lists, with other operators?

  Read the article

• equality on the sender of an event

  - by Berryl

  I have an interface for a UI widget, two of which are attributes of a presenter. public IMatrixWidget NonProjectActivityMatrix { set { // validate the incoming value and set the field _nonProjectActivityMatrix = value; .... // configure & load non-project activities } public IMatrixWidget ProjectActivityMatrix { set { // validate the incoming value and set the field _projectActivityMatrix = value; .... // configure & load project activities } The widget has an event that both presenter objects subscribe to, and so there is an event handler in the presenter like so: public void OnActivityEntry(object sender, EntryChangedEventArgs e) { // calculate newTotal here .... if (ReferenceEquals(sender, _nonProjectActivityMatrix)) { _nonProjectActivityMatrix.UpdateTotalHours(feedback.ActivityTotal); } else if (ReferenceEquals(sender, _projectActivityMatrix)) { _projectActivityMatrix.UpdateTotalHours(feedback.ActivityTotal); } else { // ERROR - we should never be here } } The problem is that the ReferenceEquals on the sender fails, even though it is the implemented widget that is the sender - the same implemented widget that was set to the presenter attribute! Can anyone spot what the problem / fix is? Cheers, Berryl I didn't know you could edit nicely. Cool. Here is the event raising code: void OnGridViewNumericUpDownEditingControl_ValueChanged(object sender, EventArgs e) { // omitted to save sapce if (EntryChanged == null) return; var args = new EntryChangedEventArgs(activityID, dayID, Convert.ToDouble(amount)); EntryChanged(this, args); } Here is the debugger dump of the presenter attribute, sans namespace info: ?_nonProjectActivityMatrix {WinPresentation.Widgets.MatrixWidgetDgv} [WinPresentation.Widgets.MatrixWidgetDgv]: {WinPresentation.Widgets.MatrixWidgetDgv} Here is the debugger dump of the sender: ?sender {WinPresentation.Widgets.MatrixWidgetDgv} base {Core.GUI.Widgets.Lookup.MatrixWidgetBase<Core.GUI.Widgets.Lookup.DynamicDisplayDto>}: {WinPresentation.Widgets.MatrixWidgetDgv} _configuration: {Domain.Presentation.Timesheet.Matrix.WeeklyMatrixConfiguration} _wrappedWidget: {Win.Widgets.DataGridViewDynamicLookupWidget} AllowUserToAddRows: true ColumnCount: 11 Count: 4 EntryChanged: {Method = {Void OnActivityEntry(System.Object, Smack.ConstructionAdmin.Domain.Presentation.Timesheet.Matrix.EntryChangedEventArgs)}} SelectedCell: {DataGridViewNumericUpDownCell { ColumnIndex=3, RowIndex=3 }} SelectedCellValue: "0.00" SelectedColumn: {DataGridViewNumericUpDownColumn { Name=MONDAY, Index=3 }} SelectedItem: {'AdministrativeActivity: 130-04', , AdministrativeTime, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00, 0.00} Berryl

  Read the article

• Should I make OR operator to return const reference or just reference

  - by Yan Cheng CHEOK

  class error_code { public: error_code() : hi(0), lo(0) {} error_code(__int64 lo) : hi(0), lo(lo) {} error_code(__int64 hi, __int64 lo) : hi(hi), lo(lo) {} error_code& operator|=(const error_code &e) { this->hi |= e.hi; this->lo |= e.lo; return *this; } __int64 hi; __int64 lo; }; error_code operator|(const error_code& e0, const error_code& e1) { return error_code(e0.hi | e1.hi, e0.lo | e1.lo); } int main() { error_code e0(1); error_code e1(2); e0 |= e1; } I was wondering, whether I should make operator|= to return a const error_code& or error_code& ?

  Read the article

• Why is this basic equality test failing?

  - by Goose Bumper

  I have a pointer m to an object, and calling m->det() returns 14 (the return type is a double). Why would the following statement evaluate to false? cout << (m->det()==14) << endl; I just don't understand how this could be failing. Using cout << m->det() << endl; cout << (m->det()==14) << endl; gives me: 14 0

  Read the article

• Floating point equality and tolerances

  - by doron

  Comparing two floating point number by something like a_float == b_float is looking for trouble since a_float / 3.0 * 3.0 might not be equal to a_float due to round off error. What one normally does is something like fabs(a_float - b_float) < tol. How does one calculate tol? Ideally tolerance should be just larger than the value of one or two of the least significant figures. So if the single precision floating point number is use tol = 10E-6 should be about right. However this does not work well for the general case where a_float might be very small or might be very large. How does one calculate tol correctly for all general cases? I am interested in C or C++ cases specifically.

  Read the article

• bool as object vs string as object testing equality

  - by Ray Pendergraph

  I am relatively new to C# and I noticed something interesting today that I guess I have never noticed or perhaps I am missing something. Here is an NUnit test to give an example: object boolean1 = false; object booloan2 = false; Assert.That(boolean1 == booloan2); This unit test fails, but this one passes: object string1 = "string"; object string2 = "string"; Assert.That(string1 == string2); I'm not that surprised in and of itself that the first one fails seeing as boolean1 and boolean2 are different references. But it is troubling to me that the first one fails and the second one passes. I read (on MSDN somewhere) that some magic was done to the String class to facilitate this. I think my question really is why wasn't this behavior replicated in bool? As a note... if the boolean1 and 2 are declared as "bool" then there is no problem. Does anyone know the reason for these differences or why it was implemented that way? Can anyone think of a situation where you would want to reference a bool object for anything except its value?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22  | Next Page >