Search Results

Search found 1103 results on 45 pages for 'eager evaluation'.

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 2/45 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Where are the clever uses of strict evaluation?

    - by devonrt
    It seems like there are plenty of examples of clever things being done in a lazily-evaluated language that can't be done in an environment with strict evaluation. For example infinite lists in Haskell or replacing every element in a tree with the tree's minimum value in one pass. Are there any examples of clever things being done in a strictly-evaluated language that can't easily be done in a lazily-evaluated language?

    Read the article

  • Minimax algorithm: Cost/evaluation function?

    - by Dave
    Hi guys, A school project has me writing a Date game in C++ (example at http://www.cut-the-knot.org/Curriculum/Games/Date.shtml) where the computer player must implement a Minimax algorithm with alpha-beta pruning. Thus far, I understand what the goal is behind the algorithm in terms of maximizing potential gains while assuming the opponent will minify them. However, none of the resources I read helped me understand how to design the evaluation function the minimax bases all it's decisions on. All the examples have had arbitrary numbers assigned to the leaf nodes, however, I need to actually assign meaningful values to those nodes. Intuition tells me it'd be something like +1 for a win leaf node, and -1 for a loss, but how do intermediate nodes evaluate? Any help would be most appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Oracle SQL clause evaluation order

    - by jon.johnson
    In Oracle, which clause types get evaluated first? If I had the following ( pretend .... represent valid expressions and relation names ), what would the order of evaluation be? SELECT ... FROM ..... WHERE ........ GROUP BY ........... HAVING ............. ORDER BY ................ I am under the impression that the SELECT clause is evaluated last, but other than that I'm clueless.

    Read the article

  • Sudoku solver evaluation function

    - by Rich
    Hi, So I'm trying to write a simple genetic algorithm for solving a sudoku (not the most efficient way, I know, but it's just to practice evolutionary algorithms). I'm having some problems coming up with an efficient evaluation function to test if the puzzle is solved or not and how many errors there are. My first instinct would be to check if each row and column of the matrix (doing it in octave, which is similar to matlab) have unique elements by ordering them, checking for duplicates and then putting them back the way they were, which seems long winded. Any thoughts? Sorry if this has been asked before...

    Read the article

  • Lazy evaluation with ostream C++ operators

    - by SavinG
    I am looking for a portable way to implement lazy evaluation in C++ for logging class. Let's say that I have a simple logging function like void syslog(int priority, const char *format, ...); then in syslog() function we can do: if (priority < current_priority) return; so we never actually call the formatting function (sprintf). On the other hand, if we use logging stream like log << LOG_NOTICE << "test " << 123; all the formating is always executed, which may take a lot of time. Is there any possibility to actually use all the goodies of ostream (like custom << operator for classes, type safety, elegant syntax...) in a way that the formating is executed AFTER the logging level is checked ?

    Read the article

  • Oracle Sun Solaris 11.1 Completes EAL4+ Common Criteria Evaluation

    - by Joshua Brickman-Oracle
    Oracle is pleased to announce that the Oracle Solaris 11.1 operating system has achieved a Common Criteria certification at Evaluation Assurance Level (EAL) 4 augmented by Flaw Remediation under the Canadian Communications Security Establishment’s (CSEC) Canadian Common Criteria  Scheme (CCCS).  EAL4 is the highest level achievable for commercial software, and is the highest level mutually recognized by 26 countries under the current Common Criteria Recognition Arrangement (CCRA).  Oracle Solaris 11.1 is conformant to the BSI Operating System Protection Profile v2.0 with the following four extended packages. (1) Advanced Management, (2) Extended Identification and Authentication, (3) Labeled Security, and (4) Virtualization. Common Criteria is an international framework (ISO/IEC 15408) which defines a common approach for evaluating security features and capabilities of Information Technology security products. A certified product is one that a recognized Certification Body asserts as having been evaluated by a qualified, accredited, and independent evaluation laboratory competent in the field of IT security evaluation to the requirements of the Common Criteria and Common Methodology for Information Technology Security Evaluation. Oracle Solaris is the industry’s most widely deployed UNIXtm operating system, delivers mission critical cloud infrastructure with built-in virtualization, simplified software lifecycle management, cloud scale data management, and advanced protection for public, private, and hybrid cloud environments. It provides a suite of technologies and applications that create an operating system with optimal performance. Oracle Solaris 11.1 includes key technologies such as Trusted Extensions, the Oracle Solaris Cryptographic Framework, Zones, the ZFS File System, Image Packaging System (IPS), and multiple boot environments. The Oracle Solaris 11.1 Certification Report and Security Target can be viewed on the Communications Security Establishment Canada (CSEC) site and on the Common Criteria Portal. For more information on Oracle’s participation in the Common Criteria program, please visit the main Common Criteria information page here: (http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/topics/security/oracle-common-criteria-095703.html) For a complete list of Oracle products with Common Criteria certifications and FIPS 140-2 validations, please see the Security Evaluations website here: (http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/topics/security/security-evaluations-099357.html).

    Read the article

  • Operator of the Week - Spools, Eager Spool

    For the fifth part of Fabiano's mission to describe the major Showplan Operators used by SQL Server's Query Optimiser, he introduces the spool operators and particularly the Eager Spool, explains blocking and non-blocking and then describes how the Halloween Problem is avoided.

    Read the article

  • Eager to Learn More About Oracle Solaris 11?

    - by tfryer
    Are you a Solaris 11 System Administrator eager to know more? Oracle University is pleased to announce the release of two new courses: Solaris 11 ZFS Administration Oracle Solaris 11 Zones Administration Remember: your OPN discount is added to the standard prices shown on the website. Also check out the updated Oracle Solaris 11 Learning Path. For more information, assistance and bookings, contact your local Oracle University Service Desk.

    Read the article

  • Eager to Learn more about MySQL?(Week 40)

    - by rituchhibber
    Are you a SQL programmer eager to know more?Oracle University is pleased to announce the availability of a new course in Training on Demand format : MySQL Performance Tuning.Why wait to get the training you need? Learn Oracle from Oracle today. Check out the demo to see how it works.Take a look at the new Training on Demand  MySQL Certification Packages.Please note: your OPN discount is applied to the standard price shown on the website.For more information, assistance and bookings contact your local Oracle University Service Desk.

    Read the article

  • Reversi/Othello early-game evaluation function

    - by Vladislav Il'ushin
    I've written my own Reversi player, based on the MiniMax algorithm, with Alpha-Beta pruning, but in the first 10 moves my evaluation function is too slow. I need a good early-game evaluation function. I'm trying to do it with this matrix (corresponding to the board) which determines how favourable that square is to have: { 30, -25, 10, 5, 5, 10, -25, 30,}, {-25, -25, 1, 1, 1, 1, -25, -25,}, { 10, 1, 5, 2, 2, 5, 1, 10,}, { 5, 1, 2, 1, 1, 2, 1, 5,}, { 5, 1, 2, 1, 1, 2, 1, 5,}, { 10, 1, 5, 2, 2, 5, 1, 10,}, {-25, -25, 1, 1, 1, 1, -25, -25,}, { 30, -25, 10, 5, 5, 10, -25, 30,},}; But it doesn't work well. Have you even written an early-game evaluation function for Reversi?

    Read the article

  • Deferred execution and eager evaluation

    - by babu M
    Hi Could you please give me an example for Deferred execution with eager evaluation in C#? I read from MSDN that deferred execution in LINQ can be implemented either with lazy or eager evaluation...i could find examples in the internet for Deferred execution with lazy evaluation ,however i could not find any example for Deferred execution with eager evaluation....please help me....its urgent... Moreover,how deferred execution differs from lazy evaluation?In my point of view,both are looking same.Could you please provide any example for this too?

    Read the article

  • Is it possible to upgrade using the Windows Server 2012 evaluation?

    - by Cerebrate
    I've got a Windows Server 2008 Standard installation here that I'm trying to upgrade to Windows Server 2012 Server, using the evaluation version. (The scenario is essentially that I need to test the upgrade, and specifically the upgrade process, before we spend the money on going ahead with the actual upgrade.) When I try to upgrade, it fails with the message: "Windows Server 2008 Standard cannot be upgraded to Windows Server 2012 Standard Evaluation (Server with a GUI). You can choose to install a new... (etc., etc.)" Is this (non-upgradability) a known limitation of the evaluation version? (Unfortunately, I haven't found a clear answer on this point.) And if not, any thoughts on where else I might look for the problem and solutions to it?

    Read the article

  • Evaluation of Haskell Statements/Expressions using GHC API

    - by Cetin Sert
    For a tool I'm writing ( http://hackage.haskell.org/package/explore ) I need a way to read haskell function definitions at run-time, apply them to values from my tool and retrieve the results of their application. Can anyone give me a very basic example using GHC (6.10.4 or 6.12.1) API? example function definition to be read from a file at run-time: f x = 10**(((4/1102)*x)-1) expected program output --mapM_ print $ map f [428, 410, 389] 3.577165388142748 3.077536885227335 2.5821307011665815

    Read the article

  • Can someone please explain this lazy evaluation code?

    - by Tejs
    So, this question was just asked on SO: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2740001/how-to-handle-an-infinite-ienumerable My sample code: public static void Main(string[] args) { foreach (var item in Numbers().Take(10)) Console.WriteLine(item); Console.ReadKey(); } public static IEnumerable<int> Numbers() { int x = 0; while (true) yield return x++; } Can someone please explain why this is lazy evaluated? I've looked up this code in Reflector, and I'm more confused than when I began. Reflector outputs: public static IEnumerable<int> Numbers() { return new <Numbers>d__0(-2); } For the numbers method, and looks to have generated a new type for that expression: [DebuggerHidden] public <Numbers>d__0(int <>1__state) { this.<>1__state = <>1__state; this.<>l__initialThreadId = Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId; } This makes no sense to me. I would have assumed it was an infinite loop until I put that code together and executed it myself.

    Read the article

  • Haskell Lazy Evaluation and Reuse

    - by Jonathan Sternberg
    I know that if I were to compute a list of squares in Haskell, I could do this: squares = [ x ** 2 | x <- [1 ..] ] Then when I call squares like this: print $ take 4 squares And it would print out [1.0, 4.0, 9.0, 16.0]. This gets evaluated as [ 1 ** 2, 2 ** 2, 3 ** 2, 4 ** 2 ]. Now since Haskell is functional and the result would be the same each time, if I were to call squares again somewhere else, would it re-evaluate the answers it's already computed? If I were to re-use squares after I had already called the previous line, would it re-calculate the first 4 values? print $ take 5 squares Would it evaluate [1.0, 4.0, 9.0, 16.0, 5 ** 2]?

    Read the article

  • Understanding evaluation of expressions containing '++' and '->' operators in C.

    - by Leif Ericson
    Consider this example: struct { int num; } s, *ps; s.num = 0; ps = &s; ++ps->num; printf("%d", s.num); /* Prints 1 */ It prints 1. So I understand that it is because according to operators precedence, -> is higher than ++, so the value ps->num (which is 0) is firstly fetched and then the ++ operator operates on it, so it increments it to 1. struct { int num; } s, *ps; s.num = 0; ps = &s; ps++->num; printf("%d", s.num); /* Prints 0 */ In this example I get 0 and I don't understand why; the explanation of the first example should be the same for this example. But it seems that this expression is evaluated as follows: At first, the operator ++ operates, and it operates on ps, so it increments it to the next struct. Only then -> operates and it does nothing because it just fetches the num field of the next struct and does nothing with it. But it contradicts the precedence of operators, which says that -> have higher precedence than ++. Can someone explain this behavior? Edit: After reading two answers which refer to a C++ precedence tables which indicate that a prefix ++/-- operators have lower precedence than ->, I did some googling and came up with this link that states that this rule applies also to C itself. It fits exactly and fully explains this behavior, but I must add that the table in this link contradicts a table in my own copy of K&R ANSI C. So if you have suggestions as to which source is correct I would like to know. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Unsure of how to get the right evaluation order

    - by Matt Fenwick
    I'm not sure what the difference between these two pieces of code is (with respect to x), but the first one completes: $ foldr (\x y -> if x == 4 then x else x + y) 0 [1,2 .. ] 10 and the second one doesn't (at least in GHCi): $ foldr (\x (y, n) -> if x == 4 then (x, n) else (x + y, n + 1)) (0, 0) [1,2 .. ] ....... What am I doing wrong that prevents the second example from completing when it hits x == 4, as in the first one? I've tried adding bang-patterns to both the x and to the x == 4 (inside a let) but neither seems to make a difference.

    Read the article

  • Sharepoint 2010 web application development suitability evaluation/assessment

    - by Robert Koritnik
    I would like to know what kind of applications are suitable to be developed on top of Sharepoint 2010 and which should not be built on to of it. So when to embrace/avoid Sharepoint 2010 as a development platform for new web applications. Addendum Would you as a sharepoint development specialist choose it as a platform for your next enterprise application with these characteristics: processor intensive lots of various screens for entering and managing data many complex business processes no need to change the UI (ie. reposition parts) ERP integration etc. I'm an Asp.net MVC (former web forms) developer and would like to know if usual multi-page semi complex web applications (intra/extra-net) should be built on top of Sharepoint 2010 and why (if yes or if no).

    Read the article

  • Evaluation of (de)reference operators

    - by Micha
    I have an (uncommented...) source file which I'm trying to understand. static const Map *gCurMap; static std::vector<Map> mapVec; then auto e = mapVec.end(); auto i = mapVec.begin(); while(i!=e) { // ... const Map *map = gCurMap = &(*(i++)); // ... } I don't understand what &(*(i++)) does. It does not compile when just using i++, but to me it looks the same, because I'm "incrementing" i, then I'm requesting the value at the given address and then I'm requesting the address of this value?!

    Read the article

  • NDepend Evaluation: Part 3

    - by Anthony Trudeau
    NDepend is a Visual Studio add-in designed for intense code analysis with the goal of high code quality. NDepend uses a number of metrics and aggregates the data in pleasing static and active visual reports. My evaluation of NDepend will be broken up into several different parts. In the first part of the evaluation I looked at installing the add-in.  And in the last part I went over my first impressions including an overview of the features.  In this installment I provide a little more detail on a few of the features that I really like. Dependency Matrix The dependency matrix is one of the rich visual components provided with NDepend.  At a glance it lets you know where you have coupling problems including cycles.  It does this with number indicating the weight of the dependency and a color-coding that indicates the nature of the dependency. Green and blue cells are direct dependencies (with the difference being whether the relationship is from row-to-column or column-to-row).  Black cells are the ones that you really want to know about.  These indicate that you have a cycle.  That is, type A refers to type B and type B also refers to Type A. But, that’s not the end of the story.  A handy pop-up appears when you hover over the cell in question.  It explains the color, the dependency, and provides several interesting links that will teach you more than you want to know about the dependency. You can double-click the problem cells to explode the dependency.  That will show the dependencies on a method-by-method basis allowing you to more easily target and fix the problem.  When you’re done you can click the back button on the toolbar. Dependency Graph The dependency graph is another component provided.  It’s complementary to the dependency matrix, but it isn’t as easy to identify dependency issues using the window. On a positive note, it does provide more information than the matrix. My biggest issue with the dependency graph is determining what is shown.  This was not readily obvious.  I ended up using the navigation buttons to get an acceptable view.  I would have liked to choose what I see. Once you see the types you want you can get a decent idea of coupling strength based on the width of the dependency lines.  Double-arrowed lines are problematic and are shown in red.  The size of the boxes will be related to the metric being displayed.  This is controlled using the Box Size drop-down in the toolbar.  Personally, I don’t find the size of the box to be helpful, so I change it to Constant Font. One nice thing about the display is that you can see the entire path of dependencies when you hover over a type.  This is done by color-coding the dependencies and dependants.  It would be nice if selecting the box for the type would lock the highlighting in place. I did find a perhaps unintended work-around to the color-coding.  You can lock the color-coding in by hovering over the type, right-clicking, and then clicking on the canvas area to clear the pop-up menu.  You can then do whatever with it including saving it to an image file with the color-coding. CQL NDepend uses a code query language (CQL) to work with your code just like it was a database.  CQL cannot be confused with the robustness of T-SQL or even LINQ, but it represents an impressive attempt at providing an expressive way to enumerate and interrogate your code. There are two main windows you’ll use when working with CQL.  The CQL Query Explorer allows you to define what queries (rules) are run as part of a report – I immediately unselected rules that I don’t want in my results.  The CQL Query Edit window is where you can view or author your own rules.  The explorer window is pretty self-explanatory, so I won’t mention it further other than to say that any queries you author will appear in the custom group. Authoring your own queries is really hard to screw-up.  The Intellisense-like pop-ups tell you what you can do while making composition easy.  I was able to create a query within two minutes of playing with the editor.  My query warns if any types that are interfaces don’t start with an “I”. WARN IF Count > 0 IN SELECT TYPES WHERE IsInterface AND !NameLike “I” The results from the CQL Query Edit window are immediate. That fact makes it useful for ad hoc querying.  It’s worth mentioning two things that could make the experience smoother.  First, out of habit from using Visual Studio I expect to be able to scroll and press Tab to select an item in the list (like Intellisense).  You have to press Enter when you scroll to the item you want.  Second, the commands are case-sensitive.  I don’t see a really good reason to enforce that. CQL has a lot of potential not just in enforcing code quality, but also enforcing architectural constraints that your enterprise has defined. Up Next My next update will be the final part of the evaluation.  I will summarize my experience and provide my conclusions on the NDepend add-in. ** View Part 1 of the Evaluation ** ** View Part 2 of the Evaluation ** Disclaimer: Patrick Smacchia contacted me about reviewing NDepend. I received a free license in return for sharing my experiences and talking about the capabilities of the add-in on this site. There is no expectation of a positive review elicited from the author of NDepend.

    Read the article

  • Expected time for lazy evaluation with nested functions?

    - by Matt_JD
    A colleague and I are doing a free R course, although I believe this is a more general lazy evaluation issue, and have found a scenario that we have discussed briefly and I'd like to find out the answer from a wider community. The scenario is as follows (pseudo code): wrapper => function(thing) { print => function() { write(thing) } } v = createThing(1, 2, 3) w = wrapper(v) v = createThing(4, 5, 6) w.print() // Will print 4, 5, 6 thing. v = create(7, 8, 9) w.print() // Will print 4, 5, 6 because "thing" has now been evaluated. Another similar situation is as follows: // Using the same function as above v = createThing(1, 2, 3) v = wrapper(v) w.print() // The wrapper function incestuously includes itself. Now I understand why this happens but where my colleague and I differ is on what should happen. My colleague's view is that this is a bug and the evaluation of the passed in argument should be forced at the point it is passed in so that the returned "w" function is fixed. My view is that I would prefer his option myself, but that I realise that the situation we are encountering is down to lazy evaluation and this is just how it works and is more a quirk than a bug. I am not actually sure of what would be expected, hence the reason I am asking this question. I think that function comments could express what will happen, or leave it to be very lazy, and if the coder using the function wants the argument evaluated then they can force it before passing it in. So, when working with lazy evaulation, what is the practice for the time to evaluate an argument passed, and stored, inside a function?

    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

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