Search Results

Search found 8875 results on 355 pages for 'mime types'.

Page 38/355 | < Previous Page | 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45  | Next Page >

  • Make All Types Constant by Default in C++

    - by Jon Purdy
    What is the simplest and least obtrusive way to indicate to the compiler, whether by means of compiler options, #defines, typedefs, or templates, that every time I say T, I really mean T const? I would prefer not to make use of an external preprocessor. Since I don't use the mutable keyword, that would be acceptable to repurpose to indicate mutable state. Potential (suboptimal) solutions so far: // I presume redefinition of keywords is implementation-defined or illegal. #define int int const #define ptr * const int i(0); int ptr j(&i); typedef int const Int; typedef int const* const Intp; Int i(0); Intp j(&i); template<class T> struct C { typedef T const type; typedef T const* const ptr; }; C<int>::type i(0); C<int>::ptr j(&i);

    Read the article

  • Getting default value for java primitive types

    - by ripper234
    I have a java primitive type at hand: Class c = int.class; // or long.class, or boolean.class I'd like to get a 'default value' for this class - specifically the value is assigned to fields of this type if they are not initialized. E.g., '0' for a number, 'false' for a boolean. Is there a generic way to do this? I tried c.newInstance() But I'm getting an InstantiationException, and not a default instance.

    Read the article

  • Types in a struct in C

    - by drigoSkalWalker
    In this article : http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/macxhelp/v6v81/index.jsp?topic=/com.ibm.vacpp6m.doc/language/ref/clrc03defst.htm What's means the sentence "In C, a structure member may be of any type except "function returning T" (for some type T)" Thanks for all the answers!

    Read the article

  • Compiler error when using abstract types

    - by Dylan
    I'm trying to implement a "protocol helper" trait that is responsible for matching up Prompts and Responses. The eventual goal is to have an object that defines the various Prompt and Response classes as subclasses of a sealed trait, then have a class that mixes in the ProtocolSupport trait for that Protocol object. The problem is that my current approach won't compile, even though I'm fairly sure it should. Here's a distilled version of what I've got: trait Protocol { type Response type Prompt <: BasePrompt trait BasePrompt { type Data def validate(response: Response): Validated[Data] } } trait ProtocolSupport[P <: Protocol] { def foo(prompt: P#Prompt, response: P#Response) = { // compiler error prompt.validate(response) } } The compiler doesn't like the response as an argument to prompt.validate: [error] found : response.type (with underlying type P#Response) [error] required: _4.Response where val _4: P [error] prompt.validate(response) [error] ^ This isn't very helpful.. it seems to say that it wants a P.Response but that's exactly what I'm giving it, so what's the problem?

    Read the article

  • Parsing values from XML into types of Type

    - by DrLazer
    check this out Type configPropType = configurableProp.getPropertyType(); string attValue = xmlelement.GetAttribute(configurableProp.getName()); configProps[configurableProp.getName()] = attValue; At the point where I am setting the value that got read in from XML it turns out the assigning object needs to be parsed to the correct type for it to work. I need something like. configProps[configurableProp.getName()] = configPropType.ParseToThisType(attValue); Looked around on msdn but its a very confusing place.

    Read the article

  • Dilemma with two types and operator +

    - by user35443
    I have small problem with operators. I have this code: public class A { public string Name { get; set; } public A() { } public A(string Name) { this.Name = Name; } public static implicit operator B(A a) { return new B(a.Name); } public static A operator+(A a, A b) { return new A(a.Name + " " + b.Name); } } public class B { public string Name { get; set; } public B() { } public B(string Name) { this.Name = Name; } public static implicit operator A(B b) { return new A(b.Name); } public static B operator +(B b, B a) { return new B(b.Name + " " + a.Name); } } Now I want to know, which's conversion operator will be called and which's addition operator will be called in this operation: new A("a") + new B("b"); Will it be operator of A, or of B? (Or both?) Thanks....

    Read the article

  • C# 3.5 Merge 2 lists of 2 different types

    - by Ehsan
    I have 2 generic Lists List<type1> L1 , List<type2> L2 in C# 3.5 Problem: type1 has an attribute called "key1" and type2 has an attribute called "key2" How to merge L1 and L2 on key1 = key2. Both lists are unsorted but I'm welcome to any ideas on how to sort the lists based on the attribute. I'd like to be able to merge the two lists on a key. I know it's not a dictionary and it would've been nice if it was but there is a very specific reason why they are lists which I will not get in to because that is irrelevant.

    Read the article

  • Design classes/interface to support methods returning different types

    - by Nayn
    Hi, I have classes as below. public interface ITest <T> { public T MethodHere(); } public class test1 implements ITest<String> { String MethodHere(){ return "Bla"; } } public class test2 implements ITest<Integer> { Integer MethodHere(){ return Integer.valueOf(2); } } public class ITestFactory { public static ITest getInstance(int type) { if(type == 1) return new test1(); else if(type == 2) return new test2(); } } There is a warning in the factory class that ITest is used as raw type. What modification should I do to get rid of it? Thanks Nayn

    Read the article

  • Class templating std::set key types

    - by TomFLuff
    I have a class to evaluate set algebra but wish to template it. At the minute it looks a bit like this set.h: template<typename T> class SetEvaluation { public: SetEvaluation<T>(); std::set<T> evaluate(std::string in_expression); } set.cpp template<typename T> std::set<T> SetEvaluation<T>::evaluate(std::string expression) { std::set<T> result; etc etc... } But i'm getting undefined reference errors when compiling. Is it possible to declare the return type as std::set<T> and then pass std::string as the class template param. There are no errors in the class but only when I try to instantiate SetEvaluation<std::string> Can anyone shed light on this problem? thanks

    Read the article

  • Nested/Sub data types in haskell

    - by Tom Carstens
    So what would be nice is if you could do something like the following (not necessarily with this format, just the general idea): data Minor = MinorA | MinorB data Major = Minor | MajorB isMinor :: Major -> Bool isMinor Minor = True isMinor _ = False So isMinor MinorA would report True (instead of an error.) At the moment you might do something like: data Major = MinorA | MinorB | MajorB isMinor :: Major -> Bool isMinor MinorA = True isMinor MinorB = True isMinor _ = False It's not terrible or anything, but it doesn't expand nicely (as in if Minor when up to MinorZ this would be terribly clunky). To avoid that problem you can wrap Minor: data Minor = MinorA | MinorB data Major = MajorA Minor | MajorB isMinor :: Major -> Bool isMinor (MajorA _) = True isMinor _ = False But now you have to make sure to wrap your Minors to use them as a Major... again not terrible; just doesn't really express the semantics I'd like very well (i.e. Major can be any Minor or MajorB). The first (legal) example is "Major can be MinorA..." but doesn't have any knowledge of Minor and the second is "Major can be MajorA that takes a Minor..." p.s. No, this isn't really about anything concrete.

    Read the article

  • problem with Expression not equal types

    - by user428547
    class first { private int? firstID; } class second { private int secondID; private int secondField; } public override Expression<Func<first, bool>> FirstFilter() { Contex db = new Contex(); List<second> list = (from p in db.second select p).ToList(); return b => list.Select(p => p.secondID).Contains(b.firstID); } and i have error: cannot convert from 'System.Collections.Generic.IEnumerable' to 'System.Collections.Generic.IEnumerable' i have tried many diferent ways, but i just don't know how can i fix it.

    Read the article

  • Normalization two types of customers into one table

    - by JDewzy
    I am trying to model a sales situation where you can sell to a person or to a business with a contact person. I cannot figure out the proper way to do this. It seems like 2 tables would be incorrect. But how do I model a Customer table that can be a business or a person? Would I just have a boolean for "business" and an additional "business_name" field that would default to Null. But then I have to do an if/then on the columns and that seems like poor design. Any advice, direction, or links is appreciated.

    Read the article

  • What is the evidence that an API has exceeded its orthogonality in the context of types?

    - by hawkeye
    Wikipedia defines software orthogonality as: orthogonality in a programming language means that a relatively small set of primitive constructs can be combined in a relatively small number of ways to build the control and data structures of the language. The term is most-frequently used regarding assembly instruction sets, as orthogonal instruction set. Jason Coffin has defined software orthogonality as Highly cohesive components that are loosely coupled to each other produce an orthogonal system. C.Ross has defined software orthogonality as: the property that means "Changing A does not change B". An example of an orthogonal system would be a radio, where changing the station does not change the volume and vice-versa. Now there is a hypothesis published in the the ACM Queue by Tim Bray - that some have called the Bánffy Bray Type System Criteria - which he summarises as: Static typings attractiveness is a direct function (and dynamic typings an inverse function) of API surface size. Dynamic typings attractiveness is a direct function (and static typings an inverse function) of unit testing workability. Now Stuart Halloway has reformulated Banfy Bray as: the more your APIs exceed orthogonality, the better you will like static typing My question is: What is the evidence that an API has exceeded its orthogonality in the context of types? Clarification Tim Bray introduces the idea of orthogonality and APIs. Where you have one API and it is mainly dealing with Strings (ie a web server serving requests and responses), then a uni-typed language (python, ruby) is 'aligned' to that API - because the the type system of these languages isn't sophisticated, but it doesn't matter since you're dealing with Strings anyway. He then moves on to Android programming, which has a whole bunch of sensor APIs, which are all 'different' to the web server API that he was working on previously. Because you're not just dealing with Strings, but with different types, the API is non-orthogonal. Tim's point is that there is a empirical relationship between your 'liking' of types and the API you're programming against. (ie a subjective point is actually objective depending on your context).

    Read the article

  • Why is this code invalid in C#?

    - by mmattax
    The following code will not compile: string foo = "bar"; Object o = foo == null ? DBNull.Value : foo; I get: Error 1 Type of conditional expression cannot be determined because there is no implicit conversion between 'System.DBNull' and 'string' To fix this, I must do something like this: string foo = "bar"; Object o = foo == null ? DBNull.Value : (Object)foo; This cast seems pointless as this is certainly legal: string foo = "bar"; Object o = foo == null ? "gork" : foo; It seems to me that when the ternary branches are of different types, the compiler will not autobox the values to the type object...but when they are of the same type then the autoboxing is automatic. In my mind the first statement should be legal... Can anyone describe why the compiler does not allow this and why the designers of C# chose to do this? I believe this is legal in Java...Though I have not verified this. Thanks. EDIT: I am asking for an understanding of why Java and C# handle this differently, what is going on underneath the scenes in C# that make this invalid. I know how to use ternary, and am not looking for a "better way" to code the examples. I understand the rules of ternary in C#, but I want to know WHY... EDIT (Jon Skeet): Removed "autoboxing" tag as no boxing is involved in this question.

    Read the article

  • ADT-like polymorphism in Java (without altering class)

    - by ffriend
    In Haskell I can define following data type: data Tree = Empty | Leaf Int | Node Tree Tree and then write polymorphic function like this: depth :: Tree -> Int depth Empty = 0 depth (Leaf n) = 1 depth (Node l r) = 1 + max (depth l) (depth r) In Java I can emulate algebraic data types with interfaces: interface Tree {} class Empty implements Tree {} class Leaf implements Tree { int n; } class Node implements Tree { Tree l; Tree r; } But if I try to use Haskell-like polymorphism, I get an error: int depth(Empty node) { return 0; } int depth(Leaf node) { return 1; } int depth(Node node) { return 1 + Math.max(depth(node.l), depth(node.r)); // ERROR: Cannot resolve method 'depth(Tree)' } Correct way to overcome this is to put method depth() to each class. But what if I don't want to put it there? For example, method depth() may be not directly related to Tree and adding it to class would break business logic. Or, even worse, Tree may be written in 3rd party library that I don't have access to. In this case, what is the simplest way to implement ADT-like polymorpism? Just in case, for the moment I'm using following syntax, which is obviously ill-favored: int depth(Tree tree) { if (tree instanceof Empty) depth((Empty)tree) if (tree instanceof Leaf) depth((Leaf)tree); if (tree instanceof Node) depth((Node)tree); else throw new RuntimeException("Don't know how to find depth of " + tree.getClass()); }

    Read the article

  • "Pattern matching" of algebraic type data constructors

    - by jetxee
    Let's consider a data type with many constructors: data T = Alpha Int | Beta Int | Gamma Int Int | Delta Int I want to write a function to check if two values are produced with the same constructor: sameK (Alpha _) (Alpha _) = True sameK (Beta _) (Beta _) = True sameK (Gamma _ _) (Gamma _ _) = True sameK _ _ = False Maintaining sameK is not much fun, it is potentially buggy. For example, when new constructors are added to T, it's easy to forget to update sameK. I omitted one line to give an example: -- it’s easy to forget: -- sameK (Delta _) (Delta _) = True The question is how to avoid boilerplate in sameK? Or how to make sure it checks for all T constructors? The workaround I found is to use separate data types for each of the constructors, deriving Data.Typeable, and declaring a common type class, but I don't like this solution, because it is much less readable and otherwise just a simple algebraic type works for me: {-# LANGUAGE DeriveDataTypeable #-} import Data.Typeable class Tlike t where value :: t -> t value = id data Alpha = Alpha Int deriving Typeable data Beta = Beta Int deriving Typeable data Gamma = Gamma Int Int deriving Typeable data Delta = Delta Int deriving Typeable instance Tlike Alpha instance Tlike Beta instance Tlike Gamma instance Tlike Delta sameK :: (Tlike t, Typeable t, Tlike t', Typeable t') => t -> t' -> Bool sameK a b = typeOf a == typeOf b

    Read the article

  • Accessing type members outside the class in Scala

    - by Pekka Mattila
    Hi, I am trying to understand type members in Scala. I wrote a simple example that tries to explain my question. First, I created two classes for types: class BaseclassForTypes class OwnType extends BaseclassForTypes Then, I defined an abstract type member in trait and then defined the type member in a concerete class: trait ScalaTypesTest { type T <: BaseclassForTypes def returnType: T } class ScalaTypesTestImpl extends ScalaTypesTest { type T = OwnType override def returnType: T = { new T } } Then, I want to access the type member (yes, the type is not needed here, but this explains my question). Both examples work. Solution 1. Declaring the type, but the problem here is that it does not use the type member and the type information is duplicated (caller and callee). val typeTest = new ScalaTypesTestImpl val typeObject:OwnType = typeTest.returnType // declare the type second time here true must beTrue Solution 2. Initializing the class and using the type through the object. I don't like this, since the class needs to be initialized val typeTest = new ScalaTypesTestImpl val typeObject:typeTest.T = typeTest.returnType // through an instance true must beTrue So, is there a better way of doing this or are type members meant to be used only with the internal implementation of a class?

    Read the article

  • An unusual type signature

    - by Travis Brown
    In Monads for natural language semantics, Chung-Chieh Shan shows how monads can be used to give a nicely uniform restatement of the standard accounts of some different kinds of natural language phenomena (interrogatives, focus, intensionality, and quantification). He defines two composition operations, A_M and A'_M, that are useful for this purpose. The first is simply ap. In the powerset monad ap is non-deterministic function application, which is useful for handling the semantics of interrogatives; in the reader monad it corresponds to the usual analysis of extensional composition; etc. This makes sense. The secondary composition operation, however, has a type signature that just looks bizarre to me: (<?>) :: (Monad m) => m (m a -> b) -> m a -> m b (Shan calls it A'_M, but I'll call it <?> here.) The definition is what you'd expect from the types; it corresponds pretty closely to ap: g <?> x = g >>= \h -> return $ h x I think I can understand how this does what it's supposed to in the context of the paper (handle question-taking verbs for interrogatives, serve as intensional composition, etc.). What it does isn't terribly complicated, but it's a bit odd to see it play such a central role here, since it's not an idiom I've seen in Haskell before. Nothing useful comes up on Hoogle for either m (m a -> b) -> m a -> m b or m (a -> b) -> a -> m b. Does this look familiar to anyone from other contexts? Have you ever written this function?

    Read the article

  • Having an issue with Nullable MySQL columns in SubSonic 3.0 templates

    - by omegawkd
    Looking at this line in the Settings.ttinclude string CheckNullable(Column col){ string result=""; if(col.IsNullable && col.SysType !="byte[]" && col.SysType !="string") result="?"; return result; } It describes how it determines if the column is nullable based on requirements and returns either "" or "?" to the generated code. Now I'm not too familiar with the ? nullable type operator but from what I can see a cast is required. For instance, if I have a nullable integer MySQL column and I generate the code using the default template files it returns a line similar to this: int? _User_ID; When trying to compile the project I get the error: Cannot implicitly convert type 'int?' to 'int'. An explicit conversion exists (are you missing a cast?) I checked teh Settings files for the other database types and they all seems to have the same routine. So my question is, is this behaviour expected or is this a bug? I need to solve it one way or the other before I can procede. Thanks for your help.

    Read the article

  • Returning the same type the function was passed

    - by Ken Bloom
    I have the following code implementation of Breadth-First search. trait State{ def successors:Seq[State] def isSuccess:Boolean = false def admissableHeuristic:Double } def breadthFirstSearch(initial:State):Option[List[State]] = { val open= new scala.collection.mutable.Queue[List[State]] val closed = new scala.collection.mutable.HashSet[State] open.enqueue(initial::Nil) while (!open.isEmpty){ val path:List[State]=open.dequeue() if(path.head.isSuccess) return Some(path.reverse) closed += path.head for (x <- path.head.successors) if (!closed.contains(x)) open.enqueue(x::path) } return None } If I define a subtype of State for my particular problem class CannibalsState extends State { //... } What's the best way to make breadthFirstSearch return the same subtype as it was passed? Supposing I change this so that there are 3 different state classes for my particular problem and they share a common supertype: abstract class CannibalsState extends State { //... } class LeftSideOfRiver extends CannibalsState { //... } class InTransit extends CannibalsState { //... } class RightSideOfRiver extends CannibalsState { //... } How can I make the types work out so that breadthFirstSearch infers that the correct return type is CannibalsState when it's passed an instance of LeftSideOfRiver? Can this be done with an abstract type member, or must it be done with generics?

    Read the article

  • Haskell: "how much" of a type should functions receive? and avoiding complete "reconstruction"

    - by L01man
    I've got these data types: data PointPlus = PointPlus { coords :: Point , velocity :: Vector } deriving (Eq) data BodyGeo = BodyGeo { pointPlus :: PointPlus , size :: Point } deriving (Eq) data Body = Body { geo :: BodyGeo , pict :: Color } deriving (Eq) It's the base datatype for characters, enemies, objects, etc. in my game (well, I just have two rectangles as the player and the ground right now :p). When a key, the characters moves right, left or jumps by changing its velocity. Moving is done by adding the velocity to the coords. Currently, it's written as follows: move (PointPlus (x, y) (xi, yi)) = PointPlus (x + xi, y + yi) (xi, yi) I'm just taking the PointPlus part of my Body and not the entire Body, otherwise it would be: move (Body (BodyGeo (PointPlus (x, y) (xi, yi)) wh) col) = (Body (BodyGeo (PointPlus (x + xi, y + yi) (xi, yi)) wh) col) Is the first version of move better? Anyway, if move only changes PointPlus, there must be another function that calls it inside a new Body. I explain: there's a function update which is called to update the game state; it is passed the current game state, a single Body for now, and returns the updated Body. update (Body (BodyGeo (PointPlus xy (xi, yi)) wh) pict) = (Body (BodyGeo (move (PointPlus xy (xi, yi))) wh) pict) That tickles me. Everything is kept the same within Body except the PointPlus. Is there a way to avoid this complete "reconstruction" by hand? Like in: update body = backInBody $ move $ pointPlus body Without having to define backInBody, of course.

    Read the article

  • Linq - How to collect Anonymous Type as Result for a Function

    - by GibboK
    I use c# 4 asp.net and EF 4. I'm precompiling a query, the result should be a collection of Anonymous Type. At the moment I use this code. public static readonly Func<CmsConnectionStringEntityDataModel, string, dynamic> queryContentsList = CompiledQuery.Compile<CmsConnectionStringEntityDataModel, string, dynamic> ( (ctx, TypeContent) => ctx.CmsContents.Where(c => c.TypeContent == TypeContent & c.IsPublished == true & c.IsDeleted == false) .Select(cnt => new { cnt.Title, cnt.TitleUrl, cnt.ContentId, cnt.TypeContent, cnt.Summary } ) .OrderByDescending(c => c.ContentId)); I suspect the RETURN for the FUNCTION Dynamic does not work properly and I get this error Sequence contains more than one element enter code here. I suppose I need to return for my function a Collection of Anonymous Types... Do you have any idea how to do it? What I'm doing wrong? Please post a sample of code thanks! Update: public class ConcTypeContents { public string Title { get; set; } public string TitleUrl { get; set; } public int ContentId { get; set; } public string TypeContent { get; set; } public string Summary { get; set; } } public static readonly Func<CmsConnectionStringEntityDataModel, string, ConcTypeContents> queryContentsList = CompiledQuery.Compile<CmsConnectionStringEntityDataModel, string, ConcTypeContents>( (ctx, TypeContent) => ctx.CmsContents.Where(c => c.TypeContent == TypeContent & c.IsPublished == true & c.IsDeleted == false) .Select(cnt => new ConcTypeContents { cnt.Title, cnt.TitleUrl, cnt.ContentId, cnt.TypeContent, cnt.Summary }).OrderByDescending(c => c.ContentId));

    Read the article

  • How to treat Base* pointer as Derived<T>* pointer?

    - by dehmann
    I would like to store pointers to a Base class in a vector, but then use them as function arguments where they act as a specific class, see here: #include <iostream> #include <vector> class Base {}; template<class T> class Derived : public Base {}; void Foo(Derived<int>* d) { std::cerr << "Processing int" << std::endl; } void Foo(Derived<double>* d) { std::cerr << "Processing double" << std::endl; } int main() { std::vector<Base*> vec; vec.push_back(new Derived<int>()); vec.push_back(new Derived<double>()); Foo(vec[0]); Foo(vec[1]); delete vec[0]; delete vec[1]; return 0; } This doesn't compile: error: call of overloaded 'Foo(Base*&)' is ambiguous Is it possible to make it work? I need to process the elements of the vector differently, according to their int, double, etc. types.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45  | Next Page >