Search Results

Search found 12672 results on 507 pages for 'anonymous methods'.

Page 2/507 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • how to use anonymous generic delegate in C# 2.0

    - by matti
    Hi. I have a class called NTree: class NTree<T> { public NTree(T data) { this.data = data; children = new List<NTree<T>>(); _stopTraverse = false; } ... public void Traverse(NTree<T> node, TreeVisitor<T> visitor) { try { _stopTraverse = false; Traverse(node, visitor); } finally { _stopTraverse = false; } } private void TraverseInternal(NTree<T> node, TreeVisitor<T> visitor) { if (_stopTraverse) return; if (!visitor(node.data)) { _stopTraverse = true; } foreach (NTree<T> kid in node.children) Traverse(kid, visitor); } When I try to use Traverse with anonymous delegate I get: Argument '2': cannot convert from 'anonymous method' to 'NisConverter.TreeVisitor' The code: tTable srcTable = new tTable(); DataRow[] rows; rootTree.Traverse(rootTree, delegate(TableRows tr) { if (tr.TableName == srcTable.mappingname) { rows = tr.Rows; return false; } }); This however produces no errors: static bool TableFinder<TableRows>(TableRows tr) { return true; } ... rootTree.Traverse(rootTree, TableFinder); I have tried to put "arrowhead-parenthisis" and everything to anonymous delegate but it just does not work. Please help me! Thanks & BR -Matti

    Read the article

  • Using Windows Integrated Auth & Anonymous during redirect on IIS7

    - by James Black
    I have an application we bought that I need to integrate, and it uses jakarta connection to get to the application from IIS. So, the basic operation is: user goes to the url Gets redirected to the application SSO is enabled, so redirected back to IIS for fetching of domain credentials Back to application If username is blank show login page, else let user in. This is a simplification of all the steps, but the basic idea is here. My difficulty is that I need both Windows Integrated Auth and anonymous on, as some users won't have credentials, and need to be prompted for a username/password. I have looked at: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2068546/iis-windows-authentication-before-anonymous already, but the user doesn't get to click on a link to decide. The application goes back to IIS looking for login.aspx and from there I want to either get their domain credentials or pass back to the application empty strings to signify that there are no credentials. It seems this isn't going to be possible though as if anonymous is on it doesn't make the 401 request so the credentials aren't passed. If I can't get this to work with just using an ASP page, could it be done using an ISAPI filter, or a module?

    Read the article

  • Create an anonymous type object from an arbitrary text file

    - by Robert Harvey
    I need a sensible way to draw arbitrary text files into a C# program, and produce an arbitrary anonymous type object, or perhaps a composite dictionary of some sort. I have a representative text file that looks like this: adapter 1: LPe11002 Factory IEEE: 10000000 C97A83FC Non-Volatile WWPN: 10000000 C93D6A8A , WWNN: 20000000 C93D6A8A adapter 2: LPe11002 Factory IEEE: 10000000 C97A83FD Non-Volatile WWPN: 10000000 C93D6A8B , WWNN: 20000000 C93D6A8B Is there a way to get this information into an anonymous type object or some similar structure? The final anonymous type might look something like this, if it were composed in C# by hand: new { adapter1 = new { FactoryIEEE = "10000000 C97A83FC", Non-VolatileWWPN = "10000000 C93D6A8A", WWNN = "20000000 C93D6A8A" } adapter2 = new { FactoryIEEE = "10000000 C97A83FD", Non-VolatileWWPN = "10000000 C93D6A8B", WWNN = "20000000 C93D6A8B" } } Note that, as the text file's content is arbitrary (i.e. the keys could be anything), a specialized solution (e.g. that looks for names like "FactoryIEEE") won't work. However, the structure of the file will always be the same (i.e. indentation for groups, colons and commas as delimiters, etc). Or maybe I'm going about this the wrong way, and you have a better idea?

    Read the article

  • Which languages support *recursive* function literals / anonymous functions?

    - by Hugh Allen
    It seems quite a few mainstream languages support function literals these days. They are also called anonymous functions, but I don't care if they have a name. The important thing is that a function literal is an expression which yields a function which hasn't already been defined elsewhere, so for example in C, &printf doesn't count. EDIT to add: if you have a genuine function literal expression <exp>, you should be able to pass it to a function f(<exp>) or immediately apply it to an argument, ie. <exp>(5). I'm curious which languages let you write function literals which are recursive. Wikipedia's "anonymous recursion" article doesn't give any programming examples. Let's use the recursive factorial function as the example. Here are the ones I know: JavaScript / ECMAScript can do it with callee: function(n){if (n<2) {return 1;} else {return n * arguments.callee(n-1);}} it's easy in languages with letrec, eg Haskell (which calls it let): let fac x = if x<2 then 1 else fac (x-1) * x in fac and there are equivalents in Lisp and Scheme. Note that the binding of fac is local to the expression, so the whole expression is in fact an anonymous function. Are there any others?

    Read the article

  • Thoughts on C# Extension Methods

    - by Damon
    I'm not a huge fan of extension methods.  When they first came out, I remember seeing a method on an object that was fairly useful, but when I went to use it another piece of code that method wasn't available.  Turns out it was an extension method and I hadn't included the appropriate assembly and imports statement in my code to use it.  I remember being a bit confused at first about how the heck that could happen (hey, extension methods were new, cut me some slack) and it took a bit of time to track down exactly what it was that I needed to include to get that method back.  I just imagined a new developer trying to figure out why a method was missing and fruitlessly searching on MSDN for a method that didn't exist and it just didn't sit well with me. I am of the opinion that if you have an object, then you shouldn't have to include additional assemblies to get additional instance level methods out of that object.  That opinion applies to namespaces as well - I do not like it when the contents of a namespace are split out into multiple assemblies.  I prefer to have static utility classes instead of extension methods to keep things nicely packaged into a cohesive unit.  It also makes it abundantly clear where utility methods are used in code.  I will concede, however, that it can make code a bit more verbose and lengthy.  There is always a trade-off. Some people harp on extension methods because it breaks the tenants of object oriented development and allows you to add methods to sealed classes.  Whatever.  Extension methods are just utility methods that you can tack onto an object after the fact.  Extension methods do not give you any more access to an object than the developer of that object allows, so I say that those who cry OO foul on extension methods really don't have much of an argument on which to stand.  In fact, I have to concede that my dislike of them is really more about style than anything of great substance. One interesting thing that I found regarding extension methods is that you can call them on null objects. Take a look at this extension method: namespace ExtensionMethods {   public static class StringUtility   {     public static int WordCount(this string str)     {       if(str == null) return 0;       return str.Split(new char[] { ' ', '.', '?' },         StringSplitOptions.RemoveEmptyEntries).Length;     }   }   } Notice that the extension method checks to see if the incoming string parameter is null.  I was worried that the runtime would perform a check on the object instance to make sure it was not null before calling an extension method, but that is apparently not the case.  So, if you call the following code it runs just fine. string s = null; int words = s.WordCount(); I am a big fan of things working, but this seems to go against everything I've come to know about instance level methods.  However, an extension method is really a static method masquerading as an instance-level method, so I suppose it would be far more frustrating if it failed since there is really no reason it shouldn't succeed. Although I'm not a fan of extension methods, I will say that if you ever find yourself at an impasse with a die-hard fan of either the utility class or extension method approach, then there is a common ground.  Extension methods are defined in static classes, and you call them from those static classes as well as directly from the objects they extend.  So if you build your utility classes using extension methods, then you can have it your way and they can have it theirs. 

    Read the article

  • Prefer class members or passing arguments between internal methods?

    - by geoffjentry
    Suppose within the private portion of a class there is a value which is utilized by multiple private methods. Do people prefer having this defined as a member variable for the class or passing it as an argument to each of the methods - and why? On one hand I could see an argument to be made that reducing state (ie member variables) in a class is generally a good thing, although if the same value is being repeatedly used throughout a class' methods it seems like that would be an ideal candidate for representation as state for the class to make the code visibly cleaner if nothing else. Edit: To clarify some of the comments/questions that were raised, I'm not talking about constants and this isn't relating to any particular case rather just a hypothetical that I was talking to some other people about. Ignoring the OOP angle for a moment, the particular use case that I had in mind was the following (assume pass by reference just to make the pseudocode cleaner) int x doSomething(x) doAnotherThing(x) doYetAnotherThing(x) doSomethingElse(x) So what I mean is that there's some variable that is common between multiple functions - in the case I had in mind it was due to chaining of smaller functions. In an OOP system, if these were all methods of a class (say due to refactoring via extracting methods from a large method), that variable could be passed around them all or it could be a class member.

    Read the article

  • Purpose of Instance Methods vs. Class Methods in Objective-C

    - by qegal
    I have checked out all these questions... Difference Class and Instance Methods Difference between class methods and instance methods? Objective-C: Class vs Instance Methods? ...and all they explain is how instance methods are used on instances of a class and class methods are used with the class name, when a message is sent to a class object. This is helpful, but I'm curious to know why one would use a class method vs. an instance method. I'm fairly new to iOS application development, and usually use class methods, and I feel like I'm doing something wrong. Thanks in advanced!

    Read the article

  • Scope of variables inside anonymous functions in C#

    - by Vinod
    I have a doubt in scope of varibles inside anonymous functions in C#. Consider the program below: delegate void OtherDel(int x); public static void Main() { OtherDel del2; { int y = 4; del2 = delegate { Console.WriteLine("{0}", y);//Is y out of scope }; } del2(); } My VS2008 IDE gives the following errors: [Practice is a class inside namespace Practice] 1.error CS1643: Not all code paths return a value in anonymous method of type 'Practice.Practice.OtherDel' 2.error CS1593: Delegate 'OtherDel' does not take '0' arguments. It is told in a book: Illustrated C# 2008(Page 373) that the int variable y is inside the scope of del2 definition. Then why these errors.

    Read the article

  • php Set a anonymous function in an instance

    - by geekay
    I am just starting out with PHP, and I am wondering if there is a way to add an anonymous function to a class instance. For instance, lets say... class A{ public B; } $c = new A(); //This is where I am getting a little confused... //The following wont work $c->B = function(){echo('HelloWorld');}; $c->B(); What I am hoping to do is reuse the same spit of code in a great number of different applications, and make it so that I can just 'swap-out' and replace functions in specific instances. I am using php5.3 (so anonymous functions should work, just not in the way that I am using them). Thanks so very much for your time!! -GK

    Read the article

  • Turn on anonymous access in SharePoint2010 Site collection

    - by ybbest
    In this post, I would like to show you how to turn on anonymous access in SharePoint2010 Site collection using SharePoint Web UI. If you would like to achieve the same thing using PowerShell you can check this blog post here. 1. You need to go to Central AdminàManage Web Applications 2. Click Authentication provider 3. Click Default and Enable anonymous access 4. Go to your site collection and click on Site actions then click Site Permissions 5. Click on Anonymous Access 6. Select the Entire Web site and click OK. 7 Navigate to your site collection and boom you are all set for the anonymous access for your SharePoint site collection.

    Read the article

  • Creating an anonymous site in SharePoint 2010

    - by shehan
    Here’s how: Open up the Central Administration site and click on “Manage Web Applications” under the “Application Management” section From the ribbon click on “New” (Note: if its an existing web app, then click on “Extend”) Fill in the fields with appropriate values. Under “Security Configurations” make sure to select “Yes” for “Allow Anonymous” Click OK Once the web application has been created, a site collection would need to be created. Navigate to “Application Management” –> “Create Site Collection” Fill in the fields with the appropriate values and create the site collection Next sign into the newly created site collection as the Site Collection Administrator. From the “Site Actions” menu, select “Site Permissions” In the permissions page that loads, click on the Anonymous Access button appearing on the ribbon. A modal dialog would popup. Select the appropriate option and click OK. If you selected “Entire Web Site” its advisable to restart the browser to test anonymous access Technorati Tags: SharePoint 2010,anonymous,site collection,web application

    Read the article

  • Anonymous Live OS, l'OS qui ne vient PAS des Anonymous : la déclinaison d'Ubuntu apparue avant-hier reste pleine de mystères

    Anonymous Live OS, l'OS qui ne vient PAS des Anonymous La déclinaison d'Ubuntu apparue hier est pleine de mystères, voire de Trojans La nouvelle a fait le tour du Web en quelques minutes. Mais elle n'avait pas été vérifiée. Et a priori, elle ne risque pas de l'être. L'histoire commence avec la découverte sur SourceForge d'une distribution baptisée Anonymous OS Live. Déclinée de Ubuntu 11.10, le système y était décrit par ses auteurs comme « pédagogique » et/ou destiné à vérifier la sécurité des sites. Des auteurs qui n'ont pas été identifiés (normal pour des membres du mouvement), mais il n'en fallait pas plus pour que l'arrivée d'un OS estampillé Anonymous se propage. Prob...

    Read the article

  • 10 steps to enable &lsquo;Anonymous Access&rsquo; for your SharePoint 2010 site

    - by KunaalKapoor
    What’s Anonymous Access? Anonymous access to your SharePoint site enables all visitors to view your SharePoint site anonymously without having to log in. With this blog I’d like to go through an easy step wise procedure to enable/set up anonymous access. Before you actually enable anonymous access on the site, you’ll have to change some settings at the web app level. So let’s start with that: Prerequisite(s): 1. A hosted SharePoint 2010 farm/server. 2. An existing SharePoint site. I just thought I’d mention the above pre-reqs, since the steps mentioned below would’nt be valid or a different type of a site. Step 1: In Central Administration, under Application Management, click on the Manage web applications. Step 2: Now select the site you want to enable anonymous access and click on the Authentication Providers icon. Step 3: On the modal window click on the Default zone. Step 4: Now under the Edit Authentication section, check Enable anonymous access and click Save. This is basically to make the Anonymous Access authentication mechanism available at the web app level @ IIS. Now, web application will allow anonymous access to be set. 5. Going back to Web Application Management click on the Anonymous Policy icon. Step 6: Also before we proceed any further, under the Anonymous Access Restrictions (@ web app mgmt.) select your Zone and set the Permissions to None – No policy and click Save. Step 7:  Now lets navigate to your top level site collection for the web application. Click the Site Actions > Site Settings. Under Users and Permissions click Site permissions. Step 8: Under Users and Permissions, click on Site Permissions. Step 9: Under the Edit tab, click on Anonymous Access. Step 10: Choose whether you want Anonymous users to have access to the entire Web site or to lists and libraries only, and then click on OK. You should now be able to see the view as below under your permissions Also keep in mind: If you are trying to access the site from a browser within the domain, then you’ll need to change some browser settings to see the after affects. Normally this is because the browsers (Internet Explorer) is set to log in automatically to intranet zone only , not sure if you have explicitly changed the zones and added it to trusted sites. If this is from a box within your domain please try to access the site by temporarily changing the Internet Explorer setting to Anonymous Logon on the zone that the site is added example "Intranet" and try . You will find the same settings by clicking on Tools > Internet Options > Security Tab.

    Read the article

  • How to break WinDbg in an anonymous method?

    - by Richard Berg
    Title kinda says it all. The usual SOS command !bpmd doesn't do a lot of good without a name. Some ideas I had: dump every method, then use !bpmd -md when you find the corresponding MethodDesc not practical in real world usage, from what I can tell. Even if I wrote a macro to limit the dump to anonymous types/methods, there's no obvious way to tell them apart. use Reflector to dump the MSIL name doesn't help when dealing with dynamic assemblies and/or Reflection.Emit. Visual Studio's inability to read local vars inside such scenarios is the whole reason I turned to Windbg in the first place... set the breakpoint in VS, wait for it to hit, then change to Windbg using the noninvasive trick attempting to detach from VS causes it to hang (along with the app). I think this is due to the fact that the managed debugger is a "soft" debugger via thread injection instead of a standard "hard" debugger. Or maybe it's just a VS bug specific to Silverlight (would hardly be the first I've encountered). set a breakpoint on some other location known to call into the anonymous method, then single-step your way in my backup plan, though I'd rather not resort to it if this Q&A reveals a better way

    Read the article

  • Anonymous union definition/declaration in a macro GNU vs VS2008

    - by Alan_m
    I am attempting to alter an IAR specific header file for a lpc2138 so it can compile with Visual Studio 2008 (to enable compatible unit testing). My problem involves converting register definitions to be hardware independent (not at a memory address) The "IAR-safe macro" is: #define __IO_REG32_BIT(NAME, ADDRESS, ATTRIBUTE, BIT_STRUCT) \ volatile __no_init ATTRIBUTE union \ { \ unsigned long NAME; \ BIT_STRUCT NAME ## _bit; \ } @ ADDRESS //declaration //(where __gpio0_bits is a structure that names //each of the 32 bits as P0_0, P0_1, etc) __IO_REG32_BIT(IO0PIN,0xE0028000,__READ_WRITE,__gpio0_bits); //usage IO0PIN = 0x0xAA55AA55; IO0PIN_bit.P0_5 = 0; This is my comparable "hardware independent" code: #define __IO_REG32_BIT(NAME, BIT_STRUCT)\ volatile union \ { \ unsigned long NAME; \ BIT_STRUCT NAME##_bit; \ } NAME; //declaration __IO_REG32_BIT(IO0PIN,__gpio0_bits); //usage IO0PIN.IO0PIN = 0xAA55AA55; IO0PIN.IO0PIN_bit.P0_5 = 1; This compiles and works but quite obviously my "hardware independent" usage does not match the "IAR-safe" usage. How do I alter my macro so I can use IO0PIN the same way I do in IAR? I feel this is a simple anonymous union matter but multiple attempts and variants have proven unsuccessful. Maybe the IAR GNU compiler supports anonymous unions and vs2008 does not. Thank you.

    Read the article

  • Linq - How to collect Anonymous Type as Result for a Function

    - by GibboK
    I use c# 4 asp.net and EF 4. I'm precompiling a query, the result should be a collection of Anonymous Type. At the moment I use this code. public static readonly Func<CmsConnectionStringEntityDataModel, string, dynamic> queryContentsList = CompiledQuery.Compile<CmsConnectionStringEntityDataModel, string, dynamic> ( (ctx, TypeContent) => ctx.CmsContents.Where(c => c.TypeContent == TypeContent & c.IsPublished == true & c.IsDeleted == false) .Select(cnt => new { cnt.Title, cnt.TitleUrl, cnt.ContentId, cnt.TypeContent, cnt.Summary } ) .OrderByDescending(c => c.ContentId)); I suspect the RETURN for the FUNCTION Dynamic does not work properly and I get this error Sequence contains more than one element enter code here. I suppose I need to return for my function a Collection of Anonymous Types... Do you have any idea how to do it? What I'm doing wrong? Please post a sample of code thanks! Update: public class ConcTypeContents { public string Title { get; set; } public string TitleUrl { get; set; } public int ContentId { get; set; } public string TypeContent { get; set; } public string Summary { get; set; } } public static readonly Func<CmsConnectionStringEntityDataModel, string, ConcTypeContents> queryContentsList = CompiledQuery.Compile<CmsConnectionStringEntityDataModel, string, ConcTypeContents>( (ctx, TypeContent) => ctx.CmsContents.Where(c => c.TypeContent == TypeContent & c.IsPublished == true & c.IsDeleted == false) .Select(cnt => new ConcTypeContents { cnt.Title, cnt.TitleUrl, cnt.ContentId, cnt.TypeContent, cnt.Summary }).OrderByDescending(c => c.ContentId));

    Read the article

  • Javascript Anonymous Functions and Global Variables

    - by Jonathan Swift
    I thought I would try and be clever and create a Wait function of my own (I realise there are other ways to do this). So I wrote: var interval_id; var countdowntimer = 0; function Wait(wait_interval) { countdowntimer = wait_interval; interval_id = setInterval(function() { --countdowntimer <=0 ? clearInterval(interval_id) : null; }, 1000); do {} while (countdowntimer >= 0); } // Wait a bit: 5 secs Wait(5); This all works, except for the infinite looping. Upon inspection, if I take the While loop out, the anonymous function is entered 5 times, as expected. So clearly the global variable countdowntimer is decremented. However, if I check the value of countdowntimer, in the While loop, it never goes down. This is despite the fact that the anonymous function is being called whilst in the While loop! Clearly, somehow, there are two values of countdowntimer floating around, but why?

    Read the article

  • Why can't c# use inline anonymous lambdas or delegates?

    - by Samuel Meacham
    I hope I worded the title of my question appropriately. In c# I can use lambdas (as delegates), or the older delegate syntax to do this: Func<string> fnHello = () => "hello"; Console.WriteLine(fnHello()); Func<string> fnHello2 = delegate() { return "hello 2"; }; Console.WriteLine(fnHello2()); So why can't I "inline" the lambda or the delegate body, and avoid capturing it in a named variable (making it anonymous)? // Inline anonymous lambda not allowed Console.WriteLine( (() => "hello inline lambda")() ); // Inline anonymous delegate not allowed Console.WriteLine( (delegate() { return "hello inline delegate"; })() ); An example that works in javascript (just for comparison) is: alert( (function(){ return "hello inline anonymous function from javascript"; })() ); Which produces the expected alert box. UPDATE: It seems you can have an inline anonymous lambda in C#, if you cast appropriately, but the amount of ()'s starts to make it unruly. // Inline anonymous lambda with appropriate cast IS allowed Console.WriteLine( ((Func<string>)(() => "hello inline anonymous lambda"))() ); Perhaps the compiler can't infer the sig of the anonymous delegate to know which Console.WriteLine() you're trying to call? Does anyone know why this specific cast is required?

    Read the article

  • evaluating cost/benefits of using extension methods in C# => 3.0

    - by BillW
    Hi, In what circumstances (usage scenarios) would you choose to write an extension rather than sub-classing an object ? < full disclosure : I am not an MS employee; I do not know Mitsu Furota personally; I do know the author of the open-source Componax library mentioned here, but I have no business dealings with him whatsoever; I am not creating, or planning to create any commercial product using extensions : in sum : this post is from pure intellectal curiousity related to my trying to (continually) become aware of "best practices" I find the idea of extension methods "cool," and obviously you can do "far-out" things with them as in the many examples you can in Mitsu Furota's (MS) blog postslink text. A personal friend wrote the open-source Componax librarylink text, and there's some remarkable facilities in there; but he is in complete command of his small company with total control over code guidelines, and every line of code "passes through his hands." While this is speculation on my part : I think/guess other issues might come into play in a medium-to-large software team situation re use of Extensions. Looking at MS's guidelines at link text, you find : In general, you will probably be calling extension methods far more often than implementing your own. ... In general, we recommend that you implement extension methods sparingly and only when you have to. Whenever possible, client code that must extend an existing type should do so by creating a new type derived from the existing type. For more information, see Inheritance (C# Programming Guide). ... When the compiler encounters a method invocation, it first looks for a match in the type's instance methods. If no match is found, it will search for any extension methods that are defined for the type, and bind to the first extension method that it finds. And at Ms's link text : Extension methods present no specific security vulnerabilities. They can never be used to impersonate existing methods on a type, because all name collisions are resolved in favor of the instance or static method defined by the type itself. Extension methods cannot access any private data in the extended class. Factors that seem obvious to me would include : I assume you would not write an extension unless you expected it be used very generally and very frequently. On the other hand : couldn't you say the same thing about sub-classing ? Knowing we can compile them into a seperate dll, and add the compiled dll, and reference it, and then use the extensions : is "cool," but does that "balance out" the cost inherent in the compiler first having to check to see if instance methods are defined as described above. Or the cost, in case of a "name clash," of using the Static invocation methods to make sure your extension is invoked rather than the instance definition ? How frequent use of Extensions would affect run-time performance or memory use : I have no idea. So, I'd appreciate your thoughts, or knowing about how/when you do, or don't do, use Extensions, compared to sub-classing. thanks, Bill

    Read the article

  • Accessing C# Anonymous Type Objects

    - by Ali Kazmi
    Hi, How do i access objects of an anonymous type outside the scope where its declared? for e.g. void FuncB() { var obj = FuncA(); Console.WriteLine(obj.Name); } ??? FuncA() { var a = (from e in DB.Entities where e.Id == 1 select new {Id = e.Id, Name = e.Name}).FirstOrDefault(); return a; }

    Read the article

  • Overload Anonymous Functions

    - by Nissan Fan
    Still wrapping my head around Delegates and I'm curious: Is it possible to overload anonymous functions? Such that: delegate void Output(string x, int y); Supports: Output show = (x, y) => Console.WriteLine("{0}: {1}", x.ToString(), y.ToString()); And: delegate void Output(string x, string y); Allowing: show( "ABC", "EFG" ); And: show( "ABC", 123 );

    Read the article

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