Search Results

Search found 130 results on 6 pages for 'idiom'.

Page 2/6 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6  | Next Page >

  • Any problems with this C++ const reference accessor interface idiom?

    - by mskfisher
    I was converting a struct to a class so I could enforce a setter interface for my variables. I did not want to change all of the instances where the variable was read, though. So I converted this: struct foo_t { int x; float y; }; to this: class foo_t { int _x; float _y; public: foot_t() : x(_x), y(_y) { set(0, 0.0); } const int &x; const float &y; set(int x, float y) { _x = x; _y = y; } }; I'm interested in this because it seems to model C#'s idea of public read-only properties. Compiles fine, and I haven't seen any problems yet. Besides the boilerplate of associating the const references in the constructor, what are the downsides to this method? Any strange aliasing issues? Why haven't I seen this idiom before?

    Read the article

  • What is the correct Qt idiom for exposing signals/slots of contained widgets?

    - by Tyler McHenry
    Suppose I have a MyWidget which contains a MySubWidget, e.g. a custom widget that contains a text field or something. I want other classes to be able to connect to signals and slots exposed by the contained MySubWidget instance. Is the conventional way to do this: Expose a pointer to the MySubWidget instance through a subWidget() method in MyWidget Duplicate the signals and slots of MySubWidget in the MyWidget class and write "forwarding" code Something else? Choice 1 seems like the least code, but it also sort of breaks encapsulation, since now other classes know what the contained widgets of MyWidget are and might become dependent on their functionality. Choice 2 seems like it keeps encapsulation, but it's a lot of seemingly redundant and potentially convoluted code that kind of messes up the elegance of the whole signals and slots system. What is normally done in this situation?

    Read the article

  • Is there a perl idiom which is the functional equivalent of calling a subroutine from within the sub

    - by Thomas L Holaday
    Perl allows ... $a = "fee"; $result = 1 + f($a) ; # invokes f with the arugment $a but disallows, or rather doesn't do what I want ... s/((fee)|(fie)|(foe)|(foo))/f($1)/ ; # does not invoke f with the argument $1 The desired-end-result is a way to effect a substitution geared off what the regex matched. Do I have to write ... sub lala { my $haha = shift; return $haha . $haha; } my $a = "the giant says foe" ; $a =~ m/((fee)|(fie)|(foe)|(foo))/; my $result = lala($1); $a =~ s/$1/$result/; print "$a\n"; ... ?

    Read the article

  • Removing Item From List - during iteration - what's wrong with this idiom ?

    - by monojohnny
    As an experiment, I did this: letters=['a','b','c','d','e','f','g','h','i','j','k','l'] for i in letters: letters.remove(i) print letters The last print shows that not all items were removed ? (every other was). IDLE 2.6.2 >>> ================================ RESTART ================================ >>> ['b', 'd', 'f', 'h', 'j', 'l'] >>> What's the explanation for this ? How it could this be re-written to remove every item ?

    Read the article

  • String assembly by StringBuilder vs StringWriter and PrintWriter

    - by CPerkins
    I recently encountered an idiom I haven't seen before: string assembly by StringWriter and PrintWriter. I mean, I know how to use them, but I've always used StringBuilder. Is there a concrete reason for preferring one over the other? The StringBuilder method seems much more natural to me, but is it just style? I've looked at several questions here (including this one which comes closest: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/602279/stringwriter-or-stringbuilder ), but none in which the answers actually address the question of whether there's a reason to prefer one over the other for simple string assembly. This is the idiom I've seen and used many many times: string assembly by StringBuilder: public static String newline = System.getProperty("line.separator"); public String viaStringBuilder () { StringBuilder builder = new StringBuilder(); builder.append("first thing" + newline); builder.append("second thing" + newline); // ... several things builder.append("last thing" + newline); return builder.toString(); } And this is the new idiom: string assembly by StringWriter and PrintWriter: public String viaWriters() { StringWriter stringWriter = new StringWriter(); PrintWriter printWriter = new PrintWriter(stringWriter); printWriter.println("first thing"); printWriter.println("second thing"); // ... several things printWriter.println("last thing"); printWriter.flush(); printWriter.close(); return stringWriter.toString(); }

    Read the article

  • What's is the point of PImpl pattern while we can use interface for same purpose in C++?

    - by ZijingWu
    I see a lot of source code which using PIMPL idiom in C++. I assume Its purposes are hidden the private data/type/implementation, so it can resolve dependence, and then reduce compile time and header include issue. But interface class in C++ also have this capability, it can also used to hidden data/type and implementation. And to hidden let the caller just see the interface when create object, we can add an factory method in it declaration in interface header. The comparison is: Cost: The interface way cost is lower, because you doesn't even need to repeat the public wrapper function implementation void Bar::doWork() { return m_impl->doWork(); }, you just need to define the signature in the interface. Well understand: The interface technology is more well understand by every C++ developer. Performance: Interface way performance not worse than PIMPL idiom, both an extra memory access. I assume the performance is same. Following is the pseudocode code to illustrate my question: // Forward declaration can help you avoid include BarImpl header, and those included in BarImpl header. class BarImpl; class Bar { public: // public functions void doWork(); private: // You doesn't need to compile Bar.cpp after change the implementation in BarImpl.cpp BarImpl* m_impl; }; The same purpose can be implement using interface: // Bar.h class IBar { public: virtual ~IBar(){} // public functions virtual void doWork() = 0; }; // to only expose the interface instead of class name to caller IBar* createObject(); So what's the point of PIMPL?

    Read the article

  • JasperReports: is it possible to use multiple data sources, or if not, to use collections in paramet

    - by Knut Arne Vedaa
    It seems that the reporting idiom is that a report consist of a single list of items, with some additional data (parameters). Are there ways to include several unrelated lists in a report, or would this go against the idiom to such an extent that a different tool should rather be used to generate the output? Suppose, for instance, you have a list of Persons that lives in a Building, with names, phone numbers and so on. This list would be the main datasource. Additionally, on the same report you want to show various other information about that Building, such as address, number of floors and so on. The number of items in this information might vary between Buildings, so that you cannot simply put it into static parameters, but would need a map or a list. This is of course a contrieved example, but should serve to illustrate the problem. In short: can you use several unrelated lists in a report?

    Read the article

  • Singleton pattern and broken double checked locking in real world java application

    - by saugata
    I was reading the article Double-checked locking and the Singleton pattern, on how double checked locking is broken, and some related questions here on stackoverflow. I have used this pattern/idiom several times without any issues. Since I have been using Java 5, my first thought was that this has been rectified in Java 5 memory model. However the article says This article refers to the Java Memory Model before it was revised for Java 5.0; statements about memory ordering may no longer be correct. However, the double-checked locking idiom is still broken under the new memory model. I'm wondering if anyone has actually run into this problem in any application and under what conditions.

    Read the article

  • logging in scala

    - by IttayD
    In Java, the standard idiom for logging is to create a static variable for a logger object and use that in the various methods. In Scala, it looks like the idiom is to create a Logging trait with a logger member and mixin the trait in concrete classes. This means that each time an object is created it calls the logging framework to get a logger and also the object is bigger due to the additional reference. Is there an alternative that allows the ease of use of "with Logging" while still using a per-class logger instance? EDIT: My question is not about how one can write a logging framework in Scala, but rather how to use an existing one (log4j) without incurring an overhead of performance (getting a reference for each instance) or code complexity. Also, yes, I want to use log4j, simply because I'll use 3rd party libraries written in Java that are likely to use log4j.

    Read the article

  • Heavy use of templates for mobile platforms

    - by Chris P. Bacon
    I've been flicking through the book Modern C++ Design by Andrei Alexandrescu and it seems interesting stuff. However it makes very extensive use of templates and I would like to find out if this should be avoided if using C++ for mobile platform development (Brew MP, WebOS, iOS etc.) due to size considerations. In Symbian OS C++ the standard use of templates is discouraged, the Symbian OS itself uses them but using an idiom known as thin templates where the underlying implementation is done in a C style using void* pointers with a thin template layered on top of this to achieve type safety. The reason they use this idiom as opposed to regular use of templates is specifically to avoid code bloating. So what are opinions (or facts) on the use of templates when developing applications for mobile platforms.

    Read the article

  • Binning into timeslots - Is there a better way than using list comp?

    - by flyingcrab
    I have a dataset of events (tweets to be specific) that I am trying to bin / discretize. The following code seems to work fine so far (assuming 100 bins): HOUR = timedelta(hours=1) start = datetime.datetime(2009,01,01) z = [dt + x*HOUR for x in xrange(1, 100)] But then, I came across this fateful line at python docs 'This makes possible an idiom for clustering a data series into n-length groups using zip(*[iter(s)]*n)'. The zip idiom does indeed work - but I can't understand how (what is the * operator for instance?). How could I use to make my code prettier? I'm guessing this means I should make a generator / iterable for time that yields the time in graduations of an HOUR?

    Read the article

  • What's the best way to handle modules that use each other?

    - by Axeman
    What's the best way to handle modules that use each other? Let's say I have a module which has functions for hashes: # Really::Useful::Functions::On::Hash.pm use base qw<Exporter>; use strict; use warnings; use Really::Useful::Functions::On::List qw<transform_list>; our @EXPORT_OK = qw<transform_hash transform_hash_as_list ...>; #... sub transform_hash { ... } #... sub transform_hash_as_list { return transform_list( %{ shift() } ); } #... 1 And another module has been segmented out for lists: # Really::Useful::Functions::On::List.pm use base qw<Exporter>; use strict; use warnings; use Really::Useful::Functions::On::Hash qw<transform_hash>; our @EXPORT_OK = qw<transform_list some_func ...>; #... sub transform_list { ... } #... sub some_func { my %params = transform_hash @_; #... } #... 1 Suppose that enough of these utility functions are handy enough that I'll want to use them in BEGIN statements and import functions to process parameter lists or configuration data. I have been putting sub definitions into BEGIN blocks to make sure they are ready to use whenever somebody includes the module. But I have gotten into hairy race conditions where a definition is not completed in a BEGIN block. I put evolving code idioms into modules so that I can reuse any idiom I find myself coding over and over again. For instance: sub list_if { my $condition = shift; return unless $condition; my $more_args = scalar @_; my $arg_list = @_ > 1 ? \@_ : @_ ? shift : $condition; if (( reftype( $arg_list ) || '' ) eq 'ARRAY' ) { return wantarray ? @$arg_list : $arg_list; } elsif ( $more_args ) { return $arg_list; } return; } captures two idioms that I'm kind of tired of typing: @{ func_I_hope_returns_a_listref() || [] } and ( $condition ? LIST : ()) The more I define functions in BEGIN blocks, the more likely I'll use these idiom bricks to express the logic the more likely that bricks are needed in BEGIN blocks. Do people have standard ways of dealing with this sort of language-idiom-brick model? I've been doing mostly Pure-Perl; will XS alleviate some of this?

    Read the article

  • Does programming knowledge have a half-life?

    - by Gary Rowe
    In answering this question, I asserted that programming knowledge has a half-life of about 18 months. In physics, we have radioactive decay which is the process by which a radioactive element transforms into something less energetic. The half-life is the measure of how long it takes for this process to result in only half of the material to remain. A parallel concept might be that over time our programming knowledge ceases to be the current idiom and eventually becomes irrelevant. Noting that a half-life is asymptotic (so some knowledge will always be relevant), what are your thoughts on this? Is 18 months a good estimate? Is it even the case? Does it apply to design patterns, but over a longer period? What are the inherent advantages/disadvantages of this half-life? Update Just found this question which covers the material fairly well: "Half of everything you know will be obsolete in 18-24 months" = ( True, or False? )

    Read the article

  • QCon SF 2011

    - by user12607987
    To San Francisco for QCon SF 2011, where I spoke on Java SE: Where We've Been, Where We're Going. QCon is much further "up the stack" than JavaOne, so has far fewer talks about the "foundation", Java SE. I thought it was important to review the features delivered in Java SE 7 before discussing what's planned for Java SE 8. This worked out well, as most of the audience were using Java SE 6. The language changes in SE 7 look small, but examining merely two of them - precise rethrow and suppressed exceptions - reveals a new exception handling idiom applicable to many thousands of Java classes. And thumbs up to the QCon organizers for the instant feedback mechanism!

    Read the article

  • C#/.NET Little Wonders: Static Char Methods

    - by James Michael Hare
    Once again, in this series of posts I look at the parts of the .NET Framework that may seem trivial, but can help improve your code by making it easier to write and maintain. The index of all my past little wonders posts can be found here. Often times in our code we deal with the bigger classes and types in the BCL, and occasionally forgot that there are some nice methods on the primitive types as well.  Today we will discuss some of the handy static methods that exist on the char (the C# alias of System.Char) type. The Background I was examining a piece of code this week where I saw the following: 1: // need to get the 5th (offset 4) character in upper case 2: var type = symbol.Substring(4, 1).ToUpper(); 3:  4: // test to see if the type is P 5: if (type == "P") 6: { 7: // ... do something with P type... 8: } Is there really any error in this code?  No, but it still struck me wrong because it is allocating two very short-lived throw-away strings, just to store and manipulate a single char: The call to Substring() generates a new string of length 1 The call to ToUpper() generates a new upper-case version of the string from Step 1. In my mind this is similar to using ToUpper() to do a case-insensitive compare: it isn’t wrong, it’s just much heavier than it needs to be (for more info on case-insensitive compares, see #2 in 5 More Little Wonders). One of my favorite books is the C++ Coding Standards: 101 Rules, Guidelines, and Best Practices by Sutter and Alexandrescu.  True, it’s about C++ standards, but there’s also some great general programming advice in there, including two rules I love:         8. Don’t Optimize Prematurely         9. Don’t Pessimize Prematurely We all know what #8 means: don’t optimize when there is no immediate need, especially at the expense of readability and maintainability.  I firmly believe this and in the axiom: it’s easier to make correct code fast than to make fast code correct.  Optimizing code to the point that it becomes difficult to maintain often gains little and often gives you little bang for the buck. But what about #9?  Well, for that they state: “All other things being equal, notably code complexity and readability, certain efficient design patterns and coding idioms should just flow naturally from your fingertips and are no harder to write then the pessimized alternatives. This is not premature optimization; it is avoiding gratuitous pessimization.” Or, if I may paraphrase: “where it doesn’t increase the code complexity and readability, prefer the more efficient option”. The example code above was one of those times I feel where we are violating a tacit C# coding idiom: avoid creating unnecessary temporary strings.  The code creates temporary strings to hold one char, which is just unnecessary.  I think the original coder thought he had to do this because ToUpper() is an instance method on string but not on char.  What he didn’t know, however, is that ToUpper() does exist on char, it’s just a static method instead (though you could write an extension method to make it look instance-ish). This leads me (in a long-winded way) to my Little Wonders for the day… Static Methods of System.Char So let’s look at some of these handy, and often overlooked, static methods on the char type: IsDigit(), IsLetter(), IsLetterOrDigit(), IsPunctuation(), IsWhiteSpace() Methods to tell you whether a char (or position in a string) belongs to a category of characters. IsLower(), IsUpper() Methods that check if a char (or position in a string) is lower or upper case ToLower(), ToUpper() Methods that convert a single char to the lower or upper equivalent. For example, if you wanted to see if a string contained any lower case characters, you could do the following: 1: if (symbol.Any(c => char.IsLower(c))) 2: { 3: // ... 4: } Which, incidentally, we could use a method group to shorten the expression to: 1: if (symbol.Any(char.IsLower)) 2: { 3: // ... 4: } Or, if you wanted to verify that all of the characters in a string are digits: 1: if (symbol.All(char.IsDigit)) 2: { 3: // ... 4: } Also, for the IsXxx() methods, there are overloads that take either a char, or a string and an index, this means that these two calls are logically identical: 1: // check given a character 2: if (char.IsUpper(symbol[0])) { ... } 3:  4: // check given a string and index 5: if (char.IsUpper(symbol, 0)) { ... } Obviously, if you just have a char, then you’d just use the first form.  But if you have a string you can use either form equally well. As a side note, care should be taken when examining all the available static methods on the System.Char type, as some seem to be redundant but actually have very different purposes.  For example, there are IsDigit() and IsNumeric() methods, which sound the same on the surface, but give you different results. IsDigit() returns true if it is a base-10 digit character (‘0’, ‘1’, … ‘9’) where IsNumeric() returns true if it’s any numeric character including the characters for ½, ¼, etc. Summary To come full circle back to our opening example, I would have preferred the code be written like this: 1: // grab 5th char and take upper case version of it 2: var type = char.ToUpper(symbol[4]); 3:  4: if (type == 'P') 5: { 6: // ... do something with P type... 7: } Not only is it just as readable (if not more so), but it performs over 3x faster on my machine:    1,000,000 iterations of char method took: 30 ms, 0.000050 ms/item.    1,000,000 iterations of string method took: 101 ms, 0.000101 ms/item. It’s not only immediately faster because we don’t allocate temporary strings, but as an added bonus there less garbage to collect later as well.  To me this qualifies as a case where we are using a common C# performance idiom (don’t create unnecessary temporary strings) to make our code better. Technorati Tags: C#,CSharp,.NET,Little Wonders,char,string

    Read the article

  • Which is more maintainable -- boolean assignment via if/else or boolean expression?

    - by Bret Walker
    Which would be considered more maintainable? if (a == b) c = true; else c = false; or c = (a == b); I've tried looking in Code Complete, but can't find an answer. I think the first is more readable (you can literally read it out loud), which I also think makes it more maintainable. The second one certainly makes more sense and reduces code, but I'm not sure it's as maintainable for C# developers (I'd expect to see this idiom more in, for example, Python).

    Read the article

  • Programming languages with extensible syntax

    - by Giorgio
    I have only a limited knowledge of Lisp (trying to learn a bit in my free time) but as far as I understand Lisp macros allow to introduce new language constructs and syntax by describing them in Lisp itself. This means that a new construct can be added as a library, without changing the Lisp compiler / interpreter. This approach is very different from that of other programming languages. E.g., if I wanted to extend Pascal with a new kind of loop or some particular idiom I would have to extend the syntax and semantics of the language and then implement that new feature in the compiler. Are there other programming languages outside the Lisp family (i.e. apart from Common Lisp, Scheme, Clojure (?), Racket (?), etc) that offer a similar possibility to extend the language within the language itself?

    Read the article

  • iOS static Framework crash when animating view

    - by user1439216
    I'm encountering a difficult to debug issue with a static library project when attempting to animate a view. It works fine when debugging (and even when debugging in the release configuration), but throws an error archived as a release: Exception Type: EXC_CRASH (SIGSYS) Exception Codes: 0x00000000, 0x00000000 Crashed Thread: 0 Thread 0 name: Dispatch queue: com.apple.main-thread Thread 0 Crashed: 0 TestApp 0x000d04fc 0x91000 + 259324 1 UIKit 0x336d777e +[UIView(UIViewAnimationWithBlocks) animateWithDuration:animations:] + 42 2 TestApp 0x000d04de 0x91000 + 259294 3 TestApp 0x000d0678 0x91000 + 259704 4 Foundation 0x355f04f8 __57-[NSNotificationCenter addObserver:selector:name:object:]_block_invoke_0 + 12 5 CoreFoundation 0x35aae540 ___CFXNotificationPost_block_invoke_0 + 64 6 CoreFoundation 0x35a3a090 _CFXNotificationPost + 1400 7 Foundation 0x355643e4 -[NSNotificationCenter postNotificationName:object:userInfo:] + 60 8 UIKit 0x33599112 -[UIInputViewTransition postNotificationsForTransitionStart] + 846 9 UIKit 0x335988cc -[UIPeripheralHost(UIKitInternal) executeTransition:] + 880 10 UIKit 0x3351bb8c -[UIPeripheralHost(UIKitInternal) setInputViews:animationStyle:] + 304 11 UIKit 0x3351b260 -[UIPeripheralHost(UIKitInternal) _reloadInputViewsForResponder:] + 952 12 UIKit 0x3351ae54 -[UIResponder(UIResponderInputViewAdditions) reloadInputViews] + 160 13 UIKit 0x3351a990 -[UIResponder becomeFirstResponder] + 452 14 UIKit 0x336194a0 -[UITextInteractionAssistant setFirstResponderIfNecessary] + 168 15 UIKit 0x33618d6a -[UITextInteractionAssistant oneFingerTap:] + 1602 16 UIKit 0x33618630 _UIGestureRecognizerSendActions + 100 17 UIKit 0x335a8d5e -[UIGestureRecognizer _updateGestureWithEvent:] + 298 18 UIKit 0x337d9472 ___UIGestureRecognizerUpdate_block_invoke_0541 + 42 19 UIKit 0x33524f4e _UIGestureRecognizerApplyBlocksToArray + 170 20 UIKit 0x33523a9c _UIGestureRecognizerUpdate + 892 21 UIKit 0x335307e2 _UIGestureRecognizerUpdateGesturesFromSendEvent + 22 22 UIKit 0x33530620 -[UIWindow _sendGesturesForEvent:] + 768 23 UIKit 0x335301ee -[UIWindow sendEvent:] + 82 24 UIKit 0x3351668e -[UIApplication sendEvent:] + 350 25 UIKit 0x33515f34 _UIApplicationHandleEvent + 5820 26 GraphicsServices 0x376d5224 PurpleEventCallback + 876 27 CoreFoundation 0x35ab651c __CFRUNLOOP_IS_CALLING_OUT_TO_A_SOURCE1_PERFORM_FUNCTION__ + 32 28 CoreFoundation 0x35ab64be __CFRunLoopDoSource1 + 134 29 CoreFoundation 0x35ab530c __CFRunLoopRun + 1364 30 CoreFoundation 0x35a3849e CFRunLoopRunSpecific + 294 31 CoreFoundation 0x35a38366 CFRunLoopRunInMode + 98 32 GraphicsServices 0x376d4432 GSEventRunModal + 130 33 UIKit 0x33544cce UIApplicationMain + 1074 Thread 0 crashed with ARM Thread State: r0: 0x0000004e r1: 0x000d04f8 r2: 0x338fed47 r3: 0x3f523340 r4: 0x00000000 r5: 0x2fe8da00 r6: 0x00000001 r7: 0x2fe8d9d0 r8: 0x3f54cad0 r9: 0x00000000 r10: 0x3fd00000 r11: 0x3f523310 ip: 0x3f497048 sp: 0x2fe8d988 lr: 0x33539a41 pc: 0x000d04fc cpsr: 0x60000010 To give some background info: The static library is part of an 'iOS fake-framework', built using the templates from here: https://github.com/kstenerud/iOS-Universal-Framework The framework presents a registration UI as a modal view on top of whatever the client application is doing at the time. It pushes these views using a handle to a UIViewController provided by the client application. It doesn't do anything special, but here's the animation code: -(void)keyboardWillShowNotification:(NSNotification *)notification { double animationDuration = [[[notification userInfo] objectForKey:UIKeyboardAnimationDurationUserInfoKey] doubleValue]; dispatch_async(dispatch_get_main_queue(), ^(void) { [self animateViewsToState:kUMAnimationStateKeyboardVisible forIdiom:[UIDevice currentDevice].userInterfaceIdiom forDuration:animationDuration]; }); } -(void)animateViewsToState:(kUMAnimationState)state forIdiom:(UIUserInterfaceIdiom)idiom forDuration:(double)duration { float fieldOffset; if (idiom == UIUserInterfaceIdiomPhone) { if (state == kUMAnimationStateKeyboardVisible) { fieldOffset = -KEYBOARD_HEIGHT_IPHONE_PORTRAIT; } else { fieldOffset = KEYBOARD_HEIGHT_IPHONE_PORTRAIT; } } else { if (state == kUMAnimationStateKeyboardVisible) { fieldOffset = -IPAD_FIELD_OFFSET; } else { fieldOffset = IPAD_FIELD_OFFSET; } } [UIView animateWithDuration:duration animations:^(void) { mUserNameField.frame = CGRectOffset(mUserNameField.frame, 0, fieldOffset); mUserPasswordField.frame = CGRectOffset(mUserPasswordField.frame, 0, fieldOffset); }]; } Further printf-style debugging shows that it crashes whenever I do anything much with UIKit - specifically, it crashes when I replace -animateViewsToState with: if (0 == UIUserInterfaceIdiomPhone) { NSLog(@""); } and [[[[UIAlertView alloc] initWithTitle:@"test" message:@"123" delegate:nil cancelButtonTitle:@"OK" otherButtonTitles:nil] autorelease] show]; To me, this sounds like a linker problem, but I don't understand how such problems would only manifest here, and not beforehand. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Java ReentrantReadWriteLocks - how to safely acquire write lock?

    - by Andrzej Doyle
    I am using in my code at the moment a ReentrantReadWriteLock to synchronize access over a tree-like structure. This structure is large, and read by many threads at once with occasional modifications to small parts of it - so it seems to fit the read-write idiom well. I understand that with this particular class, one cannot elevate a read lock to a write lock, so as per the Javadocs one must release the read lock before obtaining the write lock. I've used this pattern successfully in non-reentrant contexts before. What I'm finding however is that I cannot reliably acquire the write lock without blocking forever. Since the read lock is reentrant and I am actually using it as such, the simple code lock.getReadLock().unlock(); lock.getWriteLock().lock() can block if I have acquired the readlock reentrantly. Each call to unlock just reduces the hold count, and the lock is only actually released when the hold count hits zero. EDIT to clarify this, as I don't think I explained it too well initially - I am aware that there is no built-in lock escalation in this class, and that I have to simply release the read lock and obtain the write lock. My problem is/was that regardless of what other threads are doing, calling getReadLock().unlock() may not actually release this thread's hold on the lock if it acquired it reentrantly, in which case the call to getWriteLock().lock() will block forever as this thread still has a hold on the read lock and thus blocks itself. For example, this code snippet will never reach the println statement, even when run singlethreaded with no other threads accessing the lock: final ReadWriteLock lock = new ReentrantReadWriteLock(); lock.getReadLock().lock(); // In real code we would go call other methods that end up calling back and // thus locking again lock.getReadLock().lock(); // Now we do some stuff and realise we need to write so try to escalate the // lock as per the Javadocs and the above description lock.getReadLock().unlock(); // Does not actually release the lock lock.getWriteLock().lock(); // Blocks as some thread (this one!) holds read lock System.out.println("Will never get here"); So I ask, is there a nice idiom to handle this situation? Specifically, when a thread that holds a read lock (possibly reentrantly) discovers that it needs to do some writing, and thus wants to "suspend" its own read lock in order to pick up the write lock (blocking as required on other threads to release their holds on the read lock), and then "pick up" its hold on the read lock in the same state afterwards? Since this ReadWriteLock implementation was specifically designed to be reentrant, surely there is some sensible way to elevate a read lock to a write lock when the locks may be acquired reentrantly? This is the critical part that means the naive approach does not work.

    Read the article

  • Explanation of the disassembly of the simplest program (x86)

    - by noname
    The following code int _main() {return 0;} Compiled using the command: gcc -s -nostdlib -nostartfiles 01-simple.c -o01-simple.exe gcc version 4.4.1 (TDM-1 mingw32) OllyDbg produced this output: http://imgur.com/g81vK.png Can you explain what happens here? Analysis so far: // these two seems to be an idiom: PUSH EBP // places EBP on stack MOV EBP, ESP // overwrites EBP with ESP MOV EAX, 0 // EAX = 0 LEAVE // == mov esp, ebp // pop ebp // according to // http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X86_instruction_listings What is the meaning of all this?

    Read the article

  • Efficiency of Java "Double Brace Initialization"?

    - by Jim Ferrans
    In Hidden Features of Java the top answer mentions Double Brace Initialization, with a very enticing syntax: Set<String> flavors = new HashSet<String>() {{ add("vanilla"); add("strawberry"); add("chocolate"); add("butter pecan"); }}; This idiom creates an anonymous inner class with just an instance initializer in it, which "can use any [...] methods in the containing scope". Main question: Is this as inefficient as it sounds? Should its use be limited to one-off initializations? (And of course showing off!) Second question: The new HashSet must be the "this" used in the instance initializer ... can anyone shed light on the mechanism? Third question: Is this idiom too obscure to use in production code? Summary: Very, very nice answers, thanks everyone. On question (3), people felt the syntax should be clear (though I'd recommend an occasional comment, especially if your code will pass on to developers who may not be familiar with it). On question (1), The generated code should run quickly. The extra .class files do cause jar file clutter, and slow program startup slightly (thanks to coobird for measuring that). Thilo pointed out that garbage collection can be affected, and the memory cost for the extra loaded classes may be a factor in some cases. Question (2) turned out to be most interesting to me. If I understand the answers, what's happening in DBI is that the anonymous inner class extends the class of the object being constructed by the new operator, and hence has a "this" value referencing the instance being constructed. Very neat. Overall, DBI strikes me as something of an intellectual curiousity. Coobird and others point out you can achieve the same effect with Arrays.asList, varargs methods, Google Collections, and the proposed Java 7 Collection literals. Newer JVM languages like Scala, JRuby, and Groovy also offer concise notations for list construction, and interoperate well with Java. Given that DBI clutters up the classpath, slows down class loading a bit, and makes the code a tad more obscure, I'd probably shy away from it. However, I plan to spring this on a friend who's just gotten his SCJP and loves good natured jousts about Java semantics! ;-) Thanks everyone!

    Read the article

  • pointer as second argument instead of returning pointer?

    - by Tyler
    I noticed that it is a common idiom in C to accept an un-malloced pointer as a second argument instead of returning a pointer. Example: /*function prototype*/ void create_node(node_t* new_node, void* _val, int _type); /* implementation */ node_t* n; create_node(n, &someint, INT) Instead of /* function prototype */ node_t* create_node(void* _val, int _type) /* implementation */ node_t* n = create_node(&someint, INT) What are the advantages and/or disadvantages of both approaches? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Specify connection timeout in java.nio

    - by miorel
    Using non-blocking I/O, the code for connecting to a remote address looks something like: SocketChannel channel = SelectorProvider.provider().openSocketChannel(); channel.configureBlocking(false); channel.connect(address); The connection process will then have to be finished by invoking finishConnect() on the channel when some selector says the corresponding key isConnectable(). Is there a way to specify the connection timeout when using this idiom?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6  | Next Page >