Search Results

Search found 3563 results on 143 pages for 'templates'.

Page 37/143 | < Previous Page | 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44  | Next Page >

  • Overlapping template partial specialization when wanting an "override" case: how to avoid the error?

    - by user173342
    I'm dealing with a pretty simple template struct that has an enum value set by whether its 2 template parameters are the same type or not. template<typename T, typename U> struct is_same { enum { value = 0 }; }; template<typename T> struct is_same<T, T> { enum { value = 1 }; }; This is part of a library (Eigen), so I can't alter this design without breaking it. When value == 0, a static assert aborts compilation. So I have a special numerical templated class SpecialCase that can do ops with different specializations of itself. So I set up an override like this: template<typename T> struct SpecialCase { ... }; template<typename LT, typename RT> struct is_same<SpecialCase<LT>, SpecialCase<RT>> { enum { value = 1 }; }; However, this throws the error: more than one partial specialization matches the template argument list Now, I understand why. It's the case where LT == RT, which steps on the toes of is_same<T, T>. What I don't know is how to keep my SpecialCase override and get rid of the error. Is there a trick to get around this? edit: To clarify, I need all cases where LT != RT to also be considered the same (have value 1). Not just LT == RT.

    Read the article

  • Is it ok to dynamic cast "this" as a return value?

    - by Panayiotis Karabassis
    This is more of a design question. I have a template class, and I want to add extra methods to it depending on the template type. To practice the DRY principle, I have come up with this pattern (definitions intentionally omitted): template <class T> class BaseVector: public boost::array<T, 3> { protected: BaseVector<T>(const T x, const T y, const T z); public: bool operator == (const Vector<T> &other) const; Vector<T> operator + (const Vector<T> &other) const; Vector<T> operator - (const Vector<T> &other) const; Vector<T> &operator += (const Vector<T> &other) { (*this)[0] += other[0]; (*this)[1] += other[1]; (*this)[2] += other[2]; return *dynamic_cast<Vector<T> * const>(this); } } template <class T> class Vector : public BaseVector<T> { public: Vector<T>(const T x, const T y, const T z) : BaseVector<T>(x, y, z) { } }; template <> class Vector<double> : public BaseVector<double> { public: Vector<double>(const double x, const double y, const double z); Vector<double>(const Vector<int> &other); double norm() const; }; I intend BaseVector to be nothing more than an implementation detail. This works, but I am concerned about operator+=. My question is: is the dynamic cast of the this pointer a code smell? Is there a better way to achieve what I am trying to do (avoid code duplication, and unnecessary casts in the user code)? Or am I safe since, the BaseVector constructor is private?

    Read the article

  • How to specialize template for type derived from particular type

    - by relaxxx
    I have class World which manages creation of object... After creation it calls afterCreation method and I the created object is user-defined type derived from Entity (eg. MyEntity), I want to call addEntity. I the object was something else, I want to do nothing. addEntity must be called with appropriate T, because it generates unique IDs for every derived class etc. Here is my solution: template <int v> struct ToType { enum { value = v }; }; template <typename T> void World::afterCreation(T * t) { afterCreation(t, ToType<std::is_base_of<Entity, T>::value>()); } template <typename T> void World::afterCreation(T * t, ToType<true>) { addEntity(t); //here I cant pass Entity *, I need the real type, eg. MyEntity } template <typename T> void World::afterCreation(T * t, ToType<false>) { } My question is - Can in be done better way? How can I simulate following code without ToType or similar? template <typename T> void afterCreation(){/*generic impl*/} template <typename T where T is derived from Entity> void afterCreation(){/*some specific stuff*/} "specialize" in the title is only to describe my intention, no need to solve problem with template specialization

    Read the article

  • Wordpress Shortcode in Theme, Trying to use Gallery

    - by Akash Kava
    We are using SuperSlidShow Plugin to display gallery of images in our post. However when I write shortcode [gallery] in my post/page images appear correctly, but can anyone guide me if I want to fix this [gallery] shortcode in the theme itself like page.php/post.php so that images will appear on all pages. We have images for every page/post.

    Read the article

  • How to generate lots of redundant ajax elements like checkboxes and pulldowns in Django?

    - by iJames
    Hello folks. I've been getting lots of answers from stackoverflow now that I'm in Django just be searching. Now I hope my question will also create some value for everybody. In choosing Django, I was hoping there was some similar mechanism to the way you can do partials in ROR. This was going to help me in two ways. One was in generating repeating indexed forms or form elements, and also in rendering only a piece of the page on the round trip. I've done a little bit of that by using taconite with a simple URL click but now I'm trying to get more advanced. This will focus on the form issue which boils down to how to iterate over a secondary object. If I have a list of photo instances, each of which has a couple of parameters, let's say a size and a quantity. I want to generate form elements for each photo instance separately. But then I have two lists I want to iterate on at the same time. Context: photos : Photo.objects.all() and forms = {} for photo in photos: forms[photo.id] = PhotoForm() In other words we've got a list of photo objects and a dict of forms based on the photo.id. Here's an abstraction of the template: {% for photo in photos %} {% include "photoview.html" %} {% comment %} So here I want to use the photo.id as an index to get the correct form. So that each photo has its own form. I would want to have a different action and each form field would be unique. Is that possible? How can I iterate on that? Thanks! {% endcomment %} Quantity: {{ oi.quantity }} {{ form.quantity }} Dimensions: {{ oi.size }} {{ form.size }} {% endfor %} What can I do about this simple case. And how can I make it where every control is automatically updating the server instead of using a form at all? Thanks! James

    Read the article

  • Vector of vectors of T in template<T> class

    - by topright
    Why this code does not compile (Cygwin)? #include <vector> template <class Ttile> class Tilemap { typedef std::vector< Ttile > TtileRow; typedef std::vector< TtileRow > TtileMap; typedef TtileMap::iterator TtileMapIterator; // error here }; error: type std::vector<std::vector<Ttile, std::allocator<_CharT> >, std::allocator<std::vector<Ttile, std::allocator<_CharT> > > >' is not derived from typeTilemap'

    Read the article

  • Why is a Silverlight application created from an exported template show a blank screen in the browse

    - by Edward Tanguay
    I created a silverlight app (without website) named TestApp, with one TextBox: <UserControl x:Class="TestApp.MainPage" xmlns="http://schemas.microsoft.com/winfx/2006/xaml/presentation" xmlns:x="http://schemas.microsoft.com/winfx/2006/xaml" xmlns:d="http://schemas.microsoft.com/expression/blend/2008" xmlns:mc="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/markup-compatibility/2006" mc:Ignorable="d" d:DesignWidth="640" d:DesignHeight="480"> <Grid x:Name="LayoutRoot"> <TextBlock Text="this is a test"/> </Grid> </UserControl> I press F5 and see "this is a test" in my browser (firefox). I select File | Export Template | name it TestAppTemplate and save it. I create a new silverlight app based on the above template. The MainPage.xaml has the exact same XAML as above. I press F5 and see a blank screen in my browser. I look at the HTML source of both of these and they are identical. Everything I have compared in both projects is identical. What do I have to do so that a Silverlight application which is created from my exported template does not show a blank screen?

    Read the article

  • noncopyable static const member class in template class

    - by Dukales
    I have a non-copyable (inherited from boost::noncopyable) class that I use as a custom namespace. Also, I have another class, that uses previous one, as shown here: #include <boost/utility.hpp> #include <cmath> template< typename F > struct custom_namespace : boost::noncopyable { F sqrt_of_half(F const & x) const { using std::sqrt; return sqrt(x / F(2.0L)); } // ... maybe others are not so dummy const/constexpr methods }; template< typename F > class custom_namespace_user { static ::custom_namespace< F > const custom_namespace_; public : F poisson() const { return custom_namespace_.sqrt_of_half(M_PI); } static F square_diagonal(F const & a) { return a * custom_namespace_.sqrt_of_half(1.0L); } }; template< typename F > ::custom_namespace< F > const custom_namespace_user< F >::custom_namespace_(); this code leads to the next error (even without instantiation): error: no 'const custom_namespace custom_namespace_user::custom_namespace_()' member function declared in class 'custom_namespace_user' The next way is not legitimate: template< typename F ::custom_namespace< F const custom_namespace_user< F ::custom_namespace_ = ::custom_namespace< F (); What should I do to declare this two classes (first as noncopyable static const member class of second)? Is this feaseble?

    Read the article

  • How to return number of rows in the template

    - by xRobot
    In my view I return all posts of one blog: posts = Post.objects.filter(blog=blog) and pass it to context. But.. How can I get the number of posts in the template ? This is my template: <h1>Number of posts: {{ ??? }} </h1> {% for post in posts %} {{ post.title }} {{ post.body }} {% endfor %}

    Read the article

  • New to php and need to format a php page from html statement

    - by Peter D
    My problem is the page shows a vertical line of options. I want to put them into a 4 column table to display instead of just down lhs of page. The code I want to change is as follows: </tr> <tr> <td>{LOOP: JOBTYPE} IF("{JOBTYPE.parent_id}"!="0"){&nbsp; {:IF} IF("{JOBTYPE.catcount}"=="0"){<input type="checkbox" name="jobtype[{JOBTYPE.id}]" value="{JOBTYPE.id}" {JOBTYPE.selected}>{JOBTYPE.title}<br>{:IF} IF("{JOBTYPE.catcount}"!="0"){<strong>{JOBTYPE.title}</strong><br>{:IF} {/LOOP: JOBTYPE}</td> </tr> <tr> <td>&nbsp;</td> </tr> As you can see I have another column there and can split cell further but i would like the job list to be displayed accross the page not vertically. Thank you in advance, Peter

    Read the article

  • C# generics when T could be an array

    - by bufferz
    I am writing a C# wrapper for a 3rd party library that reads both single values and arrays from a hardware device, but always returns an object[] array even for one value. This requires repeated calls to object[0] when I'd like the end user to be able to use generics to receive either an array or single value. I want to use generics so the callee can use the wrapper in the following ways: MyWrapper<float> mw = new MyWrapper<float>( ... ); float value = mw.Value; //should return float; MyWrapper<float[]> mw = new MyWrapper<float[]>( ... ); float[] values = mw.Value; //should return float[]; In MyWrapper I have the Value property currently as the following: public T Value { get { if(_wrappedObject.Values.Length > 1) return (T)_wrappedObject.Value; //T could be float[]. this doesn't compile. else return (T)_wrappedObject.Values[0]; //T could be float. this compiles. } } I get a compile error in the first case: Cannot convert type 'object[]' to 'T' If I change MyWrapper.Value to T[] I receive: Cannot convert type 'object[]' to 'T[]' Any ideas of how to achieve my goal? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Partial template specialization for more than one typename

    - by Matt Joiner
    In the following code, I want to consider functions (Ops) that have void return to instead be considered to return true. The type Retval, and the return value of Op are always matching. I'm not able to discriminate using the type traits shown here, and attempts to create a partial template specialization based on Retval have failed due the presence of the other template variables, Op and Args. How do I specialize only some variables in a template specialization without getting errors? Is there any other way to alter behaviour based on the return type of Op? template <typename Retval, typename Op, typename... Args> Retval single_op_wrapper( Retval const failval, char const *const opname, Op const op, Cpfs &cpfs, Args... args) { try { CallContext callctx(cpfs, opname); Retval retval; if (std::is_same<bool, Retval>::value) { (callctx.*op)(args...); retval = true; } else { retval = (callctx.*op)(args...); } assert(retval != failval); callctx.commit(cpfs); return retval; } catch (CpfsError const &exc) { cpfs_errno_set(exc.fserrno); LOGF(Info, "Failed with %s", cpfs_errno_str(exc.fserrno)); } return failval; }

    Read the article

  • Passing a template func. as a func. ptr to an overloaded func. - is there a way to compile this code

    - by LoudNPossiblyRight
    Just a general c++ curiosity: This code below shouldn't compile because it's impossible to know which to instantiate: temp(const int&) or temp(const string&) when calling func(temp) - this part i know. What i would like to know is if there is anything i can do to the line marked PASSINGLINE to get the compiler to deduce that i want FPTR1 called and not FPTR2 ? #include<iostream> using std::cout; using std::endl; /*FPTR1*/ void func(void(*fptr)(const int&)){ fptr(1001001);} /*FPTR2*/ void func(void(*fptr)(const string&)){ fptr("1001001"); } template <typename T> void temp(const T &t){ cout << t << endl; } int main(){ /*PASSINGLINE*/ func(temp); return 0; } Thank you.

    Read the article

  • std::conditional compile-time branch evaluation

    - by cmannett85
    Compiling this: template < class T, class Y, class ...Args > struct isSame { static constexpr bool value = std::conditional< sizeof...( Args ), typename std::conditional< std::is_same< T, Y >::value, isSame< Y, Args... >, // Error! std::false_type >::type, std::is_same< T, Y > >::type::value; }; int main() { qDebug() << isSame< double, int >::value; return EXIT_SUCCESS; } Gives me this compiler error: error: wrong number of template arguments (1, should be 2 or more) The issue is that isSame< double, int > has an empty Args parameter pack, so isSame< Y, Args... > effectively becomes isSame< Y > which does not match the signature. But my question is: Why is that branch being evaluated at all? sizeof...( Args ) is false, so the inner std:conditional should not be evaluated. This isn't a runtime piece of code, the compiler knows that sizeof..( Args ) will never be true with the given template types. If you're curious, it's supposed to be a variadic version of std::is_same, not that it works...

    Read the article

  • Django: Is there any way to have "unique for date range"?

    - by tomwolber
    If my model for Items is: class Item(models.Model): name = models.CharField(max_length=500) startDate = models.DateField("Start Date", unique="true") endDate = models.DateField("End Date") Each Item needs to have a unique date range. for example, if i create an Item that has a date range of June 1st to June 8th, how can I keep and Item with a date range of June 3rd to June 5th from being created (or render an error with template logic)?

    Read the article

  • Lua template processor question

    - by PeterMmm
    I'm going to use that template engine LTP . There is not so much doc available. Now i'm stuck how to pass an environment into the render engine. I have basically this: local ltp = require("ltp.template") ltp.render(io.stdout, 1, "index.dhtm", false, {}, "<?lua", "?>", { total="2400" }) What data structure should be the last parameter (env_code), a string, a table with key=val ?

    Read the article

  • C++ STL type_traits question.

    - by Kim Sun-wu
    I was watching the latest C9 lecture and noticed something interesting.. In his introduction to type_traits, Stephan uses the following (as he says, contrived) example: template <typename T> void foo(T t, true_type) { std::cout << t << " is integral"; } template <typename T> void foo(T t, false_type) { std::cout << t << " is not integral"; } template <typename T> void bar(T t) { foo(t, typename is_integral<T>::type()); } This seems to be far more complicated than: template <typename T> void foo(T t) { if(std::is_integral<T>::value) std::cout << "integral"; else std::cout << "not integral"; } Is there something wrong with the latter way of doing it? Is his way better? Why? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • "Ambiguous template specialization" problem

    - by Setien
    I'm currently porting a heap of code that has previously only been compiled with Visual Studio 2008. In this code, there's an arrangement like this: template <typename T> T convert( const char * s ) { // slow catch-all std::istringstream is( s ); T ret; is >> ret; return ret; } template <> inline int convert<int>( const char * s ) { return (int)atoi( s ); } Generally, there are a lot of specializations of the templated function with different return types that are invoked like this: int i = convert<int>( szInt ); The problem is, that these template specializations result in "Ambiguous template specialization". If it was something besides the return type that differentiated these function specializations, I could obviously just use overloads, but that's not an option. How do I solve this without having to change all the places the convert functions are called?

    Read the article

  • Where are the function literals in c++?

    - by academicRobot
    First of all, maybe literals is not the right term for this concept, but its the closest I could think of (not literals in the sense of functions as first class citizens). The idea is that when you make a conventional function call, it compiles to something like this: callq <immediate address> But if you make a function call using a function pointer, it compiles to something like this: mov <memory location>,%rax callq *%rax Which is all well and good. However, what if I'm writing a template library that requires a callback of some sort with a specified argument list and the user of the library is expected to know what function they want to call at compile time? Then I would like to write my template to accept a function literal as a template parameter. So, similar to template <int int_literal> struct my_template {...};` I'd like to write template <func_literal_t func_literal> struct my_template {...}; and have calls to func_literal within my_template compile to callq <immediate address>. Is there a facility in C++ for this, or a work around to achieve the same effect? If not, why not (e.g. some cataclysmic side effects)? How about C++0x or another language? Solutions that are not portable are fine. Solutions that include the use of member function pointers would be ideal. I'm not particularly interested in being told "You are a <socially unacceptable term for a person of low IQ>, just use function pointers/functors." This is a curiosity based question, and it seems that it might be useful in some (albeit limited) applications. It seems like this should be possible since function names are just placeholders for a (relative) memory address, so why not allow more liberal use (e.g. aliasing) of this placeholder. p.s. I use function pointers and functions objects all the the time and they are great. But this post got me thinking about the don't pay for what you don't use principle in relation to function calls, and it seems like forcing the use of function pointers or similar facility when the function is known at compile time is a violation of this principle, though a small one.

    Read the article

  • Where are the function address literals in c++?

    - by academicRobot
    First of all, maybe literals is not the right term for this concept, but its the closest I could think of (not literals in the sense of functions as first class citizens). <UPDATE> After some reading with help from answer by Chris Dodd, what I'm looking for is literal function addresses as template parameters. Chris' answer indicates how to do this for standard functions, but how can the addresses of member functions be used as template parameters? Since the standard prohibits non-static member function addresses as template parameters (c++03 14.3.2.3), I suspect the work around is quite complicated. Any ideas for a workaround? Below the original form of the question is left as is for context. </UPDATE> The idea is that when you make a conventional function call, it compiles to something like this: callq <immediate address> But if you make a function call using a function pointer, it compiles to something like this: mov <memory location>,%rax callq *%rax Which is all well and good. However, what if I'm writing a template library that requires a callback of some sort with a specified argument list and the user of the library is expected to know what function they want to call at compile time? Then I would like to write my template to accept a function literal as a template parameter. So, similar to template <int int_literal> struct my_template {...};` I'd like to write template <func_literal_t func_literal> struct my_template {...}; and have calls to func_literal within my_template compile to callq <immediate address>. Is there a facility in C++ for this, or a work around to achieve the same effect? If not, why not (e.g. some cataclysmic side effects)? How about C++0x or another language? Solutions that are not portable are fine. Solutions that include the use of member function pointers would be ideal. I'm not particularly interested in being told "You are a <socially unacceptable term for a person of low IQ>, just use function pointers/functors." This is a curiosity based question, and it seems that it might be useful in some (albeit limited) applications. It seems like this should be possible since function names are just placeholders for a (relative) memory address, so why not allow more liberal use (e.g. aliasing) of this placeholder. p.s. I use function pointers and functions objects all the the time and they are great. But this post got me thinking about the don't pay for what you don't use principle in relation to function calls, and it seems like forcing the use of function pointers or similar facility when the function is known at compile time is a violation of this principle, though a small one. Edit The intent of this question is not to implement delegates, rather to identify a pattern that will embed a conventional function call, (in immediate mode) directly into third party code, possibly a template.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44  | Next Page >