Search Results

Search found 12953 results on 519 pages for 'abstract methods'.

Page 24/519 | < Previous Page | 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31  | Next Page >

• Feature Selection methods in MATLAB?

  - by Hossein

  Hi, I am trying to do some text classification with SVMs in MATLAB and really would to know if MATLAB has any methods for feature selection(Chi Sq.,MI,....), For the reason that I wan to try various methods and keeping the best method, I don't have time to implement all of them. That's why I am looking for such methods in MATLAB.Does any one know?

  Read the article

• Compare text of two methods

  - by The Talking Walnut

  Is there a tool that can do a diff of two methods? I'm working on some legacy code that has several 100-200 line methods that contain a lot of duplication and I would like to abstract the duplication out. Being able to diff the two methods would be a huge help. In case it matters, I'm working with .NET and Visual Studio 2008.

  Read the article

• Open Source projects that use agile methods or have tried them

  - by Patrick Cornelissen

  I'm preparing a short talk for a conference in august and I'm looking for open source projects that are using agile methods internally or have tried them in the past. My goal is to talk about the things that work well and what won't work and promote the agile methods a little bit, because I think certain agile techniques are a good fit, but don't seem to be that common in real development. So does anyone know projects that have tried agile methods and techniques before? I'd like to contact them for a few questions.

  Read the article

• Where is documentation about the "parser" methods ?

  - by xRobot

  I want to know what this ( and other ) methods does: parser.compile_filter()

  Read the article

• Difference between + and - methods in Objective-c

  - by Alex

  What is the difference between methods that are declared with - and methods that are declared with + e.g - (void)methodname + (void)methodname

  Read the article

• Call subclass constructor from abstract class in Java

  - by Joel

  public abstract class Parent { private Parent peer; public Parent() { peer = new ??????("to call overloaded constructor"); } public Parent(String someString) { } } public class Child1 extends parent { } public class Child2 extends parent { } When I construct an instance of Child1, I want a "peer" to automatically be constructed which is also of type Child1, and be stored in the peer property. Likewise for Child2, with a peer of type Child2. The problem is, on the assignment of the peer property in the parent class. I can't construct a new Child class by calling new Child1() because then it wouldn't work for Child2. How can I do this? Is there a keyword that I can use that would refer to the child class? Something like new self()?

  Read the article

• I need help on methodologies for information system project [closed]

  - by Neenee Kale

  Basically I will be developing a student information system for parents and I am confused on what type of methodology I can use. Please recommend me a methodology which involves use cases the system development life cycle. I'm confused on what a methodology is as I've read loads of books and researched but I still don't seem to understand. I was going to use system development life cycle but I found out that this is not a methodology.

  Read the article

• RemoveAll Dictionary Extension Method

  - by João Angelo

  Removing from a dictionary all the elements where the keys satisfy a set of conditions is something I needed to do more than once so I implemented it as an extension method to the IDictionary<TKey, TValue> interface. Here’s the code: public static class DictionaryExtensions { /// <summary> /// Removes all the elements where the key match the conditions defined by the specified predicate. /// </summary> /// <typeparam name="TKey"> /// The type of the dictionary key. /// </typeparam> /// <typeparam name="TValue"> /// The type of the dictionary value. /// </typeparam> /// <param name="dictionary"> /// A dictionary from which to remove the matched keys. /// </param> /// <param name="match"> /// The <see cref="Predicate{T}"/> delegate that defines the conditions of the keys to remove. /// </param> /// <exception cref="ArgumentNullException"> /// dictionary is null /// <br />-or-<br /> /// match is null. /// </exception> /// <returns> /// The number of elements removed from the <see cref="IDictionary{TKey, TValue}"/>. /// </returns> public static int RemoveAll<TKey, TValue>( this IDictionary<TKey, TValue> dictionary, Predicate<TKey> match) { if (dictionary == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("dictionary"); if (match == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("match"); var keysToRemove = dictionary.Keys.Where(k => match(k)).ToList(); if (keysToRemove.Count == 0) return 0; foreach (var key in keysToRemove) { dictionary.Remove(key); } return keysToRemove.Count; } }

  Read the article

• Typical Applications of Linear System Solver in Game Developemnt

  - by craftsman.don

  I am going to write a custom solver for linear system. I would like to survey the typical problems involved the linear system solving in games. So that I can custom optimization on these problems based on the shape of the matrix. currently I am focus on these problems: B-Spline editing (I use a linear solve to resolve the C0, C1, C2 continuity) Constraint in Simulation (especially Position-Constraint, cloth) Both of them are Banded Matrix. I want to hear about some other applications of a linear system in games. Thank you.

  Read the article

• Are there any formalized/mathematical theories of software testing?

  - by Erik Allik

  Googling "software testing theory" only seems to give theories in the soft sense of the word; I have not been able to find anything that would classify as a theory in the mathematical, information theoretical or some other scientific field's sense. What I'm looking for is something that formalizes what testing is, the notions used, what a test case is, the feasibility of testing something, the practicality of testing something, the extent to which something should be tested, formal definition/explanation of code coverage, etc. UPDATE: Also, I'm not sure, intuitively, about the connection between formal verification and what I asked, but there's clearly some sort of connection.

  Read the article

• Integration error in high velocity

  - by Elektito

  I've implemented a simple simulation of two planets (simple 2D disks really) in which the only force is gravity and there is also collision detection/response (collisions are completely elastic). I can launch one planet into orbit of the other just fine. The collision detection code though does not work so well. I noticed that when one planet hits the other in a free fall it speeds backward and goes much higher than its original position. Some poking around convinced me that the simplistic Euler integration is causing the error. Consider this case. One object has a mass of 1kg and the other has a mass equal to earth. Say the object is 10 meters above ground. Assume that our dt (delta t) is 1 second. The object goes to the height of 9 meters at the end of the first iteration, 7 at the end of the second, 4 at the end of the third and 0 at the end of the fourth iteration. At this points it hits the ground and bounces back with the speed of 10 meters per second. The problem is with dt=1, on the first iteration it bounces back to a height of 10. It takes several more steps to make the object change its course. So my question is, what integration method can I use which fixes this problem. Should I split dt to smaller pieces when velocity is high? Or should I use another method altogether? What method do you suggest? EDIT: You can see the source code here at github:https://github.com/elektito/diskworld/

  Read the article

• Method flags as arguments or as member variables?

  - by Martin

  I think the title "Method flags as arguments or as member variables?" may be suboptimal, but as I'm missing any better terminology atm., here goes: I'm currently trying to get my head around the problem of whether flags for a given class (private) method should be passed as function arguments or via member variable and/or whether there is some pattern or name that covers this aspect and/or whether this hints at some other design problems. By example (language could be C++, Java, C#, doesn't really matter IMHO): class Thingamajig { private ResultType DoInternalStuff(FlagType calcSelect) { ResultType res; for (... some loop condition ...) { ... if (calcSelect == typeA) { ... } else if (calcSelect == typeX) { ... } else if ... } ... return res; } private void InteralStuffInvoker(FlagType calcSelect) { ... DoInternalStuff(calcSelect); ... } public void DoThisStuff() { ... some code ... InternalStuffInvoker(typeA); ... some more code ... } public ResultType DoThatStuff() { ... some code ... ResultType x = DoInternalStuff(typeX); ... some more code ... further process x ... return x; } } What we see above is that the method InternalStuffInvoker takes an argument that is not used inside this function at all but is only forwarded to the other private method DoInternalStuff. (Where DoInternalStuffwill be used privately at other places in this class, e.g. in the DoThatStuff (public) method.) An alternative solution would be to add a member variable that carries this information: class Thingamajig { private ResultType DoInternalStuff() { ResultType res; for (... some loop condition ...) { ... if (m_calcSelect == typeA) { ... } ... } ... return res; } private void InteralStuffInvoker() { ... DoInternalStuff(); ... } public void DoThisStuff() { ... some code ... m_calcSelect = typeA; InternalStuffInvoker(); ... some more code ... } public ResultType DoThatStuff() { ... some code ... m_calcSelect = typeX; ResultType x = DoInternalStuff(); ... some more code ... further process x ... return x; } } Especially for deep call chains where the selector-flag for the inner method is selected outside, using a member variable can make the intermediate functions cleaner, as they don't need to carry a pass-through parameter. On the other hand, this member variable isn't really representing any object state (as it's neither set nor available outside), but is really a hidden additional argument for the "inner" private method. What are the pros and cons of each approach?

  Read the article

• Better use on the name of variables

  - by Cuartico

  I have a method that looks like this: Public Function NormalizeStreetAddress(country As Namespace.Country, streetAddress As Namespace.StreetAddress) _ As Namespace.StreetAddress Dim _streetAddress As New Namespace.StreetAddress = streetAddress If My.Settings.Streeteable = True Then Dim _AddressCustom As New Namespace.AddressCustom _streetAddress = _AddressCustom.NormalizeStreetAddress(country, streetAddress) End If Return _streetAddress End Function I receive a streetAddress object, but inside the method I need to use another streetAddress object which I called _streetAddress — is that following the standard? A friend of mine told me that object names such as _yourNameObject are for global variables, but I can't find info about this and I want to make this method more readable.

  Read the article

• Collection RemoveAll Extension Method

  - by João Angelo

  I had previously posted a RemoveAll extension method for the Dictionary<K,V> class, now it’s time to have one for the Collection<T> class. The signature is the same as in the corresponding method already available in List<T> and the implementation relies on the RemoveAt method to perform the actual removal of each element. Finally, here’s the code: public static class CollectionExtensions { /// <summary> /// Removes from the target collection all elements that match the specified predicate. /// </summary> /// <typeparam name="T">The type of elements in the target collection.</typeparam> /// <param name="collection">The target collection.</param> /// <param name="match">The predicate used to match elements.</param> /// <exception cref="ArgumentNullException"> /// The target collection is a null reference. /// <br />-or-<br /> /// The match predicate is a null reference. /// </exception> /// <returns>Returns the number of elements removed.</returns> public static int RemoveAll<T>(this Collection<T> collection, Predicate<T> match) { if (collection == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("collection"); if (match == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("match"); int count = 0; for (int i = collection.Count - 1; i >= 0; i--) { if (match(collection[i])) { collection.RemoveAt(i); count++; } } return count; } }

  Read the article

• Simple question about what methodology to pick for my information system [closed]

  - by Neenee Kale

  Possible Duplicate: I need help on methodologies for information system project I will be implementing a student information system for parents for my final year project. I have to choose the best suitable methodology which i could use through out my project. could you please recommend me any methodologies i could use please. Also i would like to ask is Agile system development a methodology?

  Read the article

• Null Or Empty Coalescing

  - by Latest Microsoft Blogs

  In my last blog post, I wrote about the proper way to check for empty enumerations and proposed an IsNullOrEmpty method for collections which sparked a lot of discussion. This post covers a similar issue, but from a different angle. A very long time ago Read More......(read more)

  Read the article

• Group method parameter or individual parameter?

  - by Nassign

  I would like to ask on method parameters design consideration. I am usually deciding between using individual variables as parameters versus grouping them to a class or dictionary as one parameter. Is there such a rule when you should use individual parameter against using a class or a dictionary to group the parameter? Individual parameter - Straight forward, strongly typed Dictionary parameter - Very extensible, like HTTP request but cannot be strongly typed. Class parameter - Extensible by adding member to the class parameter, strongly typed. I am looking for a design reference on when to use which? Note: I am not sure if this question is valid in programmers but I definitely think it would be closed in stackoverflow, If it is still not valid, please point me to the proper page.

  Read the article

• Requriing static class setter to be called before Constructor, bad design?

  - by roverred

  I have a class, say Foo, and every instance of Foo will need and contain the same List object, myList. Since every class instance will share the same List Object, I thought it would be good to make myList static and use a static function to set myList before the constructor is called. I was wondering if this was bad, because this requires the setter to be called before the constructor. If the person doesn't, the program will crash. Alternative way would be passing myList every time. Thanks.

  Read the article

• Should all, none, or some overriden methods call Super?

  - by JoJo

  When designing a class, how do you decide when all overridden methods should call super or when none of the overridden methods should call super? Also, is it considered bad practice if your code logic requires a mixture of supered and non-supered methods like the Javascript example below? ChildClass = new Class.create(ParentClass, { /** * @Override */ initialize: function($super) { $super(); this.foo = 99; }, /** * @Override */ methodOne: function($super) { $super(); this.foo++; }, /** * @Override */ methodTwo: function($super) { this.foo--; } }); After delving into the iPhone and Android SDKs, I noticed that super must be called on every overridden method, or else the program will crash because something wouldn't get initialized. When deriving from a template/delegate, none of the methods are supered (obviously). So what exactly are these "je ne sais quoi" qualities that determine whether a all, none, or some overriden methods should call super?

  Read the article

• Should all, none, or some overridden methods call Super?

  - by JoJo

  When designing a class, how do you decide when all overridden methods should call super or when none of the overridden methods should call super? Also, is it considered bad practice if your code logic requires a mixture of supered and non-supered methods like the Javascript example below? ChildClass = new Class.create(ParentClass, { /** * @Override */ initialize: function($super) { $super(); this.foo = 99; }, /** * @Override */ methodOne: function($super) { $super(); this.foo++; }, /** * @Override */ methodTwo: function($super) { this.foo--; } }); After delving into the iPhone and Android SDKs, I noticed that super must be called on every overridden method, or else the program will crash because something wouldn't get initialized. When deriving from a template/delegate, none of the methods are supered (obviously). So what exactly are these "je ne sais quoi" qualities that determine whether a all, none, or some overriden methods should call super?

  Read the article

• "static" as a semantic clue about statelessness?

  - by leoger

  this might be a little philosophical but I hope someone can help me find a good way to think about this. I've recently undertaken a refactoring of a medium sized project in Java to go back and add unit tests. When I realized what a pain it was to mock singletons and statics, I finally "got" what I've been reading about them all this time. (I'm one of those people that needs to learn from experience. Oh well.) So, now that I'm using Spring to create the objects and wire them around, I'm getting rid of static keywords left and right. (If I could potentially want to mock it, it's not really static in the same sense that Math.abs() is, right?) The thing is, I had gotten into the habit of using static to denote that a method didn't rely on any object state. For example: //Before import com.thirdparty.ThirdPartyLibrary.Thingy; public class ThirdPartyLibraryWrapper { public static Thingy newThingy(InputType input) { new Thingy.Builder().withInput(input).alwaysFrobnicate().build(); } } //called as... ThirdPartyLibraryWrapper.newThingy(input); //After public class ThirdPartyFactory { public Thingy newThingy(InputType input) { new Thingy.Builder().withInput(input).alwaysFrobnicate().build(); } } //called as... thirdPartyFactoryInstance.newThingy(input); So, here's where it gets touchy-feely. I liked the old way because the capital letter told me that, just like Math.sin(x), ThirdPartyLibraryWrapper.newThingy(x) did the same thing the same way every time. There's no object state to change how the object does what I'm asking it to do. Here are some possible answers I'm considering. Nobody else feels this way so there's something wrong with me. Maybe I just haven't really internalized the OO way of doing things! Maybe I'm writing in Java but thinking in FORTRAN or somesuch. (Which would be impressive since I've never written FORTRAN.) Maybe I'm using staticness as a sort of proxy for immutability for the purposes of reasoning about code. That being said, what clues should I have in my code for someone coming along to maintain it to know what's stateful and what's not? Perhaps this should just come for free if I choose good object metaphors? e.g. thingyWrapper doesn't sound like it has state indepdent of the wrapped Thingy which may itself be mutable. Similarly, a thingyFactory sounds like it should be immutable but could have different strategies that are chosen among at creation. I hope I've been clear and thanks in advance for your advice!

  Read the article

• How to sell logistical procedures that require less time to perform but more finesse?

  - by foampile

  I am working with a group where part of the responsibilities is managing a certain set of configuration files which, of course, have the same skeleton/structure across different environments but different values (like server, user, this setting, that setting etc.). Pretty classic scenario... The problem is that everyone just goes and modifies final, environment-specific files and basically repeats the work for every environment. Personally, I am offended to have to peform repeatable, mundane tasks in this day and age when we have technologies to automate it all. So I devised a very simple procedure of abstracting the files into templates, stubbing env-specific values with parameters and then wrote a simple Perl script that, given a template and an environment matrix with env-specific values for each param, produces the final file. So this is nothing special, cutting-edge or revolutionary -- I am pretty sure that 20 years ago efficient places did their CM like that. However, that requires that changes are made at the template level and then distributed across different environments using the script and not making changes in the final environment-specific files. This is where I am encountering resentment as they feel "comfortable" doing it their old, manual, repeated labor way. Personally, I don't have a problem with them working hard rather than smart but the problem is when I have to build on top of someone else's changes, I have to merge their changes into my template from a specific file, which takes time and is grueling. So my question is how to go about selling my method, which makes it so much faster in an environment that is resentful to change and where most things have to be done at the level of the least competent team member?

  Read the article

• Best Method of function parameter validation

  - by Aglystas

  I've been dabbling with the idea of creating my own CMS for the experience and because it would be fun to run my website off my own code base. One of the decisions I keep coming back to is how best to validate incoming parameters for functions. This is mostly in reference to simple data types since object validation would be quite a bit more complex. At first I debated creating a naming convention that would contain information about what the parameters should be, (int, string, bool, etc) then I also figured I could create options to validate against. But then in every function I still need to run some sort of parameter validation that parses the parameter name to determine what the value can be then validate against it, granted this would be handled by passing the list of parameters to function but that still needs to happen and one of my goals is to remove the parameter validation from the function itself so that you can only have the actual function code that accomplishes the intended task without the additional code for validation. Is there any good way of handling this, or is it so low level that typically parameter validation is just done at the start of the function call anyway, so I should stick with doing that.

  Read the article

• Ruby - when to use instance variables vs parameters between methods?

  - by Michael Durrant

  I'm writing several methods that call other methods. To pass the information I have a couple of choices: Pass the information as parameters Set instance variables so that other methods can access them When should I choose one option over the other? It seems that the first option is good as it is very specific about what is being passed. the downside seems to be that a lot of values are being passed around. The second method doesn't require passing all the values around but seems to lead to a lot of magic where methods set instance variables 'somewhere' Should I always be very explicit about gets passed to other methods in the class? Are there exceptions so this?

  Read the article

• How to name a method that both performs a task and returns a boolean as a status?

  - by Limbo Exile

  If there is a method bool DoStuff() { try { // doing stuff... return true; } catch (Exception ex) { return false; } } should it rather be called IsStuffDone()? Both names could be misinterpreted by the user: If the name is DoStuff() why does it return a boolean? If the name is IsStuffDone() it is not clear whether the method performs a task or only checks its result. Is there a convention for this case? Or an alternative approach, as this one is considered flawed? For example in languages that have output parameters, like C#, a boolean status variable could be passed to the method as one and the method's return type would be void.

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31  | Next Page >