Search Results

Search found 3891 results on 156 pages for 'late bound 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 2/156 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • APPLY LATE BINDING IN .NET 4.0 AND DIFFERENTIATE IT WITH VAR KEYWORD

    Latebinding is a common term among VB6.0 programmers. C# was always strongly typed. But in 3.x version they introducded var keyword which suporting dynamic binding. But not late binding. After 4.0 relese they came up with dynamic keyword. This fully supporting late binding. Below explaining the difference between var and dynamics. Also a simple example saying where we can use dynamics in C#

    Read the article

  • OpenGLES GLSL Shader attributes always bound to 0

    - by codemonkey
    So I have a very simple vertex shader as follows #version 120 attribute vec3 position; attribute vec3 inColor; uniform mat4 mvp; varying vec3 fragColor; void main(void){ fragColor = inColor; gl_Position = mvp * vec4(position, 1.0); } Which I load, as well as the fragment shader: #version 120 varying vec3 fragColor; void main(void) { gl_FragColor = vec4(fragColor,1.0); } Which I then load, compile, and link to my shader program. I check for link status using glGetProgramiv(shaderProgram, GL_LINK_STATUS, &shaderSuccess); which returns GL_TRUE so I think its ok. However, when I query the active attributes and uniforms using #ifdef DEBUG int totalAttributes = -1; glGetProgramiv(shaderProgram, GL_ACTIVE_ATTRIBUTES, &totalAttributes); for(int i=0; i<totalAttributes; ++i) { int name_len=-1, num=-1; GLenum type = GL_ZERO; char name[100]; glGetActiveAttrib(shaderProgram, GLuint(i), sizeof(name)-1, &name_len, &num, &type, name ); name[name_len] = 0; GLuint location = glGetAttribLocation(shaderProgram, name); fprintf(stderr, "Attribute %s is bound at %d\n", name, location); } int totalUniforms = -1; glGetProgramiv(shaderProgram, GL_ACTIVE_UNIFORMS, &totalUniforms); for(int i=0; i<totalUniforms; ++i) { int name_len=-1, num=-1; GLenum type = GL_ZERO; char name[100]; glGetActiveUniform(shaderProgram, GLuint(i), sizeof(name)-1, &name_len, &num, &type, name ); name[name_len] = 0; GLuint location = glGetUniformLocation(shaderProgram, name); fprintf(stderr, "Uniform %s is bound at %d\n", name, location); } #endif I get: Attribute inColor is bound at 0 Attribute position is bound at 1 Uniform mvp is bound at 0 Which leads to failure when trying to use the shader to render the objects. I have tried switching the order of declaration of position & inColor, but still, only position is bound with the other two giving 0 Can someone please explain why this is happening? Thanks

    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

  • 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

  • Handling early/late/dropped packets for interpolation in a 3D multiplayer game

    - by Ben Cracknell
    I'm working on a multiplayer game that for the purposes of this question, is most similar to Team Fortress. Each network data packet will contain the 3D position of the target moving object. (this object could be another player) The packets are sent on a fixed interval, and linear interpolation will be used to smooth the transition between packets. Under normal circumstances, interpolation will occur between the second-to-last packet, and the last packet received. The linear interpolation algorithm is the same as this post: Interpolating positions in a multiplayer game I have the same issue as in that post, but the answers don't seem like they will work in my situation. Consider the following scenario: Normal packet timing, everything is okay The next expected packet is late. That's okay, we'll just extrapolate based on previous positions The late packet eventually arrives with corrections to our extrapolation. Now what do we do with its information? The answers on the above post suggest we should just interpolate to this new packet's position, but that would not work at all. If we have already extrapolated past that point in time, moving back would cause rubber-banding. The issue is similar in the case of an early or dropped packet. So I believe what I am looking for is some way to smoothly deal with new information in an ongoing interpolation/extrapolation process. Since I might be moving on to quadratic or even cubic interpolation, it would be great if the same solutiuon could be applied to those as well.

    Read the article

  • C# - Disable Dynamic Keyword

    - by chief7
    Is there any way to disable the use of the "dynamic" keyword in .net 4? I thought the Code Analysis feature of VS2010 might have a rule to fail the build if the dynamic keyword is used but I couldn't fine one.

    Read the article

  • Lazy Evaluation &ndash; Why being lazy in F# blows my mind!

    - by MarkPearl
    First of all – shout out to Peter Adams – from the feedback I have gotten from him on the last few posts of F# that I have done – my mind has just been expanded. I did a blog post a few days ago about infinite sequences – I didn’t really understand what was going on with it, and I still don’t really get it – but I am getting closer. In Peter’s last comment he made mention of Lazy Evaluation. I am ashamed to say that up till then I had never heard about lazy evaluation – how can evaluation be lazy? I mean, I know about lazy loading and that makes sense… but surely something is either evaluated or not! Well… a bit of reading today and I have been enlightened to a point – if you do know of any good articles explaining lazy evaluation please send them to me. So what is lazy evaluation and why is it useful? Lazy evaluation is a process whereby the system only computes the values needed and “ignores” the computations not needed. I’m going out on a limb here, but with this explanation in hand, imagine the following C# code… public int CalculatedVal() { int Val1 = 0; int Val2 = 0; for (int Count = 0; Count < 1000000; Count++) { Val1++; } return Val2; }   Normally, even though Val1 is never needed, the system would loop 1000000 times and add 1 to the current value of Val1. Imagine if the system realized this and so just skipped this segment of code and instead did the following…. public int CalculatedVal() { int Val1 = 0; return Val2; }   A massive saving in computation and wasted effort. Now I am pretty sure it isn’t as simple as this but I think this is the basic idea. For a more detailed explanation of lazy evaluation in c#, Pedram Rezei has a wonderful post on lazy evaluation and makes some C# comparisons. I am not going to take any thunder from him by repeating everything he said since I think he did such a good job of explaining it himself. What I am interested in though is how in F# do you tell something to have lazy evalution, and how do you know if something will be eager or lazy by looking at it. I found this post was useful. From reading around F# by default uses eager evaluation unless explicitly told to use lazy evaluation. One exception to this is sequences, which are lazy by default. Now reading about lazy evaluation has helped me understand more about F# coding… From my understanding of F# because of its declarative nature, most of the actual code you are declaring properties and rules – very little code is actually saying do this right now - but when it comes to a “do this” code section, it then evaluates and optimizes code and applies the rules. So props to lazy evaluation and its optimizations…

    Read the article

  • Why is the order of evaluation for function parameters undefined in c++?

    - by kunj2aan
    The standard doesn't specify the order of evaluation of arguments with this line: The order of evaluation of arguments is unspecified. What does Better code can be generated in the absence of restrictions on expression evaluation order imply? What is the drawback in asking all the compilers to evaluate the function arguments Left to Right for example? What kinds of optimizations do compilers perform because of this undefined spec?

    Read the article

  • understanding evaluation function

    - by mish
    I am developing a chess program. And have made use of an alpha beta algorithm and a static evaluation function. I have successfully implemented both but I want to improve the evaluation function by automatically tuning the weights assigned to its features. At this point am totally confused about the policy suitable for updating the weights of the function. One policy I have in mind is to check whether a move is good or bad before updating weights but I really know how to implement it. Thus I need ideas and pseudo code please.

    Read the article

  • Software Architecture and Software Architecture Evaluation

    How many of us have worked at places where the concept of software architecture was ridiculed for wasting time and money? Even more ridiculous to them was the concept of evaluating software architecture. I think the next time that I am in this situation again, and I hope that I never am I will have to push for this methodology in the software development life cycle. I have spent way too many hours/days/months/years working poorly architected systems or systems that were just built ADHOC. This in software development must stop. I can understand why systems get like this due to overzealous sales staff, demanding management that wants everything yesterday, and project managers asking if things are done yet before the project has even started. But seriously, some time must be spent designing the applications that we write along with evaluating the architecture so that it will integrate will within the existing systems of an origination. If placed in this situation again, I will strive to gain buying from key players within the business, for example: Senior Software Engineers\Developers, Software Architects, Project Managers, Software Quality Assurance, Technical Services, Operations, and Finance in order for this idea to succeed with upper management. In order to convince these key players I will have to show them the benefits of architecture and even more benefits of evaluating software architecture on a system wide level. Benefits of Software Architecture Evaluation Places Stakeholders in the Same Room to Communicate Ensures Delivery of Detailed Quality Goals Prioritizes Conflicting Goals Requires Clear Explication Improves the Quality of Documentation Discovers Opportunities for Cross-Project Reuse Improves Architecture Practices Once I had key player buy in then and only then would I approach upper management about my plan regarding implementing the concept of software architecture and using evaluation to ensure that the software being designed is the proper architecture for the project. In addition to the benefits listed above I would also show upper management how much time is being wasted by not doing these evaluations. For example, if project X cost us Y amount, then why do we have several implementations in various forms of X and how much money and time could we have saved if we just reused the existing code base to give each system the same functionality that was already created? After this, I would mention what would happen if we had 50 instances of this situation? Then I would show them how the software architecture evaluation process would have prevented this and that the optimization could have leveraged its existing code base to increase the speed and quality of its development. References:Carnegie Mellon Software Engineering Institute (2011). Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method from http://www.sei.cmu.edu/architecture/tools/evaluate/atam.cfm

    Read the article

  • Introduction to Lean Software Development and Kanban Systems – Defer Commitment and Decide As Late A

    - by Ben Griswold
    In this post, we’ll continue the series by concentrating on Principle #4: Defer Commitment and Decide As Late As Possible.   In the next part of the series, we’ll dive into Principle #5: Deliver As Fast As Possible. And I am going to be a little obnoxious about listing my Lean and Kanban references with every series post.  The references are great and they deserve this sort of attention.  

    Read the article

  • How to write an R function that evaluates an expression within a data-frame

    - by Prasad Chalasani
    Puzzle for the R cognoscenti: Say we have a data-frame: df <- data.frame( a = 1:5, b = 1:5 ) I know we can do things like with(df, a) to get a vector of results. But how do I write a function that takes an expression (such as a or a > 3) and does the same thing inside. I.e. I want to write a function fn that takes a data-frame and an expression as arguments and returns the result of evaluating the expression "within" the data-frame as an environment. Never mind that this sounds contrived (I could just use with as above), but this is just a simplified version of a more complex function I am writing. I tried several variants ( using eval, with, envir, substitute, local, etc) but none of them work. For example if I define fn like so: fn <- function(dat, expr) { eval(expr, envir = dat) } I get this error: > fn( df, a ) Error in eval(expr, envir = dat) : object 'a' not found Clearly I am missing something subtle about environments and evaluation. Is there a way to define such 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 >