Search Results

Search found 6839 results on 274 pages for 'functional tests'.

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 40/274 | < Previous Page | 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47  | Next Page >

  • Is it possible to create a C++ factory system that can create an instance of any "registered" object

    - by chrensli
    Hello, I've spent my entire day researching this topic, so it is with some scattered knowledge on the topic that i come to you with this inquiry. Please allow me to describe what I am attempting to accomplish, and maybe you can either suggest a solution to the immediate question, or another way to tackle the problem entirely. I am trying to mimic something related to how XAML files work in WPF, where you are essentially instantiating an object tree from an XML definition. If this is incorrect, please inform. This issue is otherwise unrelated to WPF, C#, or anything managed - I solely mention it because it is a similar concept.. So, I've created an XML parser class already, and generated a node tree based on ObjectNode objects. ObjectNode objects hold a string value called type, and they have an std::vector of child ObjectNode objects. The next step is to instantiate a tree of objects based on the data in the ObjectNode tree. This intermediate ObjectNode tree is needed because the same ObjectNode tree might be instantiated multiple times or delayed as needed. The tree of objects that is being created is such that the nodes in the tree are descendants of a common base class, which for now we can refer to as MyBase. Leaf nodes can be of any type, not necessarily derived from MyBase. To make this more challenging, I will not know what types of MyBase derived objects might be involved, so I need to allow for new types to be registered with the factory. I am aware of boost's factory. Their docs have an interesting little design paragraph on this page: o We may want a factory that takes some arguments that are forwarded to the constructor, o we will probably want to use smart pointers, o we may want several member functions to create different kinds of objects, o we might not necessarily need a polymorphic base class for the objects, o as we will see, we do not need a factory base class at all, o we might want to just call the constructor - without #new# to create an object on the stack, and o finally we might want to use customized memory management. I might not be understanding this all correctly, but that seems to state that what I'm trying to do can be accomplished with boost's factory. But all the examples I've located, seem to describe factories where all objects are derived from a base type. Any guidance on this would be greatly appreciated. Thanks for your time!

    Read the article

  • Abort early in a fold

    - by Heptic
    What's the best way to terminate a fold early? As a simplified example, imagine I want to sum up the numbers in an Iterable, but if I encounter something I'm not expecting (say an odd number) I might want to terminate. This is a first approximation def sumEvenNumbers(nums: Iterable[Int]): Option[Int] = { nums.foldLeft (Some(0): Option[Int]) { case (None, _) => None case (Some(s), n) if n % 2 == 0 => Some(s + n) case (Some(_), _) => None } } However, this solution is pretty ugly (as in, if I did a .foreach and a return -- it'd be much cleaner and clearer) and worst of all, it traverses the entire iterable even if it encounters a non-even number. So what would be the best way to write a fold like this, that terminates early? Should I just go and write this recursively, or is there a more accepted way?

    Read the article

  • Haskell: How to compose `not` with a function of arbitrary arity?

    - by Hynek -Pichi- Vychodil
    When I have some function of type like f :: (Ord a) => a -> a -> Bool f a b = a > b I should like make function which wrap this function with not. e.g. make function like this g :: (Ord a) => a -> a -> Bool g a b = not $ f a b I can make combinator like n f = (\a -> \b -> not $ f a b) But I don't know how. *Main> let n f = (\a -> \b -> not $ f a b) n :: (t -> t1 -> Bool) -> t -> t1 -> Bool Main> :t n f n f :: (Ord t) => t -> t -> Bool *Main> let g = n f g :: () -> () -> Bool What am I doing wrong? And bonus question how I can do this for function with more and lest parameters e.g. t -> Bool t -> t1 -> Bool t -> t1 -> t2 -> Bool t -> t1 -> t2 -> t3 -> Bool

    Read the article

  • What advantage does Monad give us over an Applicative?

    - by arrowdodger
    I've read this article, but didn't understand last section. The author says that Monad gives us context sensitivity, but it's possible to achieve the same result using only an Applicative instance: let maybeAge = (\futureYear birthYear -> if futureYear < birthYear then yearDiff birthYear futureYear else yearDiff futureYear birthYear) <$> (readMay futureYearString) <*> (readMay birthYearString) It's uglier for sure, but beside that I don't see why we need Monad. Can anyone clear this up for me?

    Read the article

  • Cartesian Plane

    - by NuNu
    I'm trying to define a function in Haskell that takes an integer argument c and returns the list of all points on the cartesian plane of the form (x/c,y/c) where x and y are integers. x/c is between -2 and 1 and y/r is between -1 and 1 This is what I've gotten so far which I'm almost sure is right but I'm getting a parse error on input = when I run it particularly at this line: cart xs ys c = [(y/c,x/c) | x <- xs, y <- ys] plane :: Int -> [a] plane c = cart [-1*c .. 1*c] [-2*c .. 1*c] c cart xs ys c = [(y/c,x/c) | x <- xs, y <- ys] A sample output would be: plane 1 would generate: [(-2.0, -1.0), (-1.0, -1.0), ( 0.0, -1.0), ( 1.0, -1.0), (-2.0, 0.0), (-1.0, 0.0), ( 0.0, 0.0), ( 1.0, 0.0), (-2.0, 1.0), (-1.0, 1.0), ( 0.0, 1.0), ( 1.0, 1.0)] Anyone have any idea how I can fix this! Thanks

    Read the article

  • Using enum values to represent binary operators (or functions)

    - by Bears will eat you
    I'm looking for an elegant way to use values in a Java enum to represent operations or functions. My guess is, since this is Java, there just isn't going to be a nice way to do it, but here goes anyway. My enum looks something like this: public enum Operator { LT, LTEQ, EQEQ, GT, GTEQ, NEQ; ... } where LT means < (less than), LTEQ means <= (less than or equal to), etc - you get the idea. Now I want to actually use these enum values to apply an operator. I know I could do this just using a whole bunch of if-statements, but that's the ugly, OO way, e.g.: int a = ..., b = ...; Operator foo = ...; // one of the enum values if (foo == Operator.LT) { return a < b; } else if (foo == Operator.LTEQ) { return a <= b; } else if ... // etc What I'd like to be able to do is cut out this structure and use some sort of first-class function or even polymorphism, but I'm not really sure how. Something like: int a = ..., b = ...; Operator foo = ...; return foo.apply(a, b); or even int a = ..., b = ...; Operator foo = ...; return a foo.convertToOperator() b; But as far as I've seen, I don't think it's possible to return an operator or function (at least, not without using some 3rd-party library). Any suggestions?

    Read the article

  • Heap Algorithmic Issue

    - by OberynMarDELL
    I am having this algorithmic problem that I want to discuss about. Its not about find a solution but about optimization in terms of runtime. So here it is: Suppose we have a race court of Length L and a total of N cars that participate on the race. The race rules are simple. Once a car overtakes an other car the second car is eliminated from the race. The race ends when no more overtakes are possible to happen. The tricky part is that the k'th car has a starting point x[k] and a velocity v[k]. The points are given in an ascending order, but the velocities may differ. What I've done so far: Given that a car can get overtaken only by its previous, I calculated the time that it takes for each car to reach its next one t = (x[i] - x[i+1])/(v[i] - v[i+1]) and I insert these times onto a min heap in O(n log n). So in theory I have to pop the first element in O(logn), find its previous, pop it as well , update its time and insert it in the heap once more, much like a priority queue. My main problem is how I can access specific points of a heap in O(log n) or faster in order to keep the complexity in O(n log n) levels. This program should be written on Haskell so I would like to keep things simple as far as possible EDIT: I Forgot to write the actual point of the race. The goal is to find the order in which cars exit the game

    Read the article

  • Dividing a list in specific number of sublists

    - by Surya
    I want to divide a list in "a specific number of" sublists. That is, for example if I have a list List(34, 11, 23, 1, 9, 83, 5) and the number of sublists expected is 3 then I want List(List(34, 11), List(23, 1), List(9, 83, 5)). How do I go about doing this? I tried grouped but it doesn't seem to be doing what I want. PS: This is not a homework question. Kindly give a direct solution instead of some vague suggestions.

    Read the article

  • 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

  • How do I code a tree of objects in Haskell with pointers to parent and children?

    - by axilmar
    I've got the following problem: I have a tree of objects of different classes where an action in the child class invalidates the parent. In imperative languages, it is trivial to do. For example, in Java: public class A { private List<B> m_children = new LinkedList<B>(); private boolean m_valid = true; public void invalidate() { m_valid = false; } public void addChild(B child) { m_children.add(child); child.m_parent = this; } } public class B { public A m_parent = null; private int m_data = 0; public void setData(int data) { m_data = 0; m_parent.invalidate(); } } public class Main { public static void main(String[] args) { A a = new A(); B b = new B(); b.setData(0); //invalidates A } } How do I do the above in Haskell? I cannot wrap my mind around this, since once I construct an object in Haskell, it cannot be changed. I would be much obliged if the relevant Haskell code is posted.

    Read the article

  • JS best practice for member functions

    - by MickMalone1983
    I'm writing a little mobile games library, and I'm not sure the best practice for declaring member functions of instantiated function objects. For instance, I might create a simple object with one property, and a method to print it: function Foo(id){ this.id = id; this.print = function(){ console.log(this.id); }; }; However, a function which does not need access to 'private' members of the function does not need to be declared in the function at all. I could equally have written: function print(){ console.log(this.id); }; function Foo(id){ this.id = id; this.print = print; }; When the function is invoked through an instance of Foo, the instance becomes the context for this, so the output is the same in either case. I'm not entirely sure how memory is allocated with JS, and I can't find anything that I can understand about something this specific, but it seems to me that with the first example all members of Foo, including the print function, are duplicated each time it is instantiated - but with the second, it just gets a pointer to one, pre-declared function, which would save any more memory having to be allocated as more instances of Foo are created. Am I correct, and if I am, is there any memory/performance benefit to doing this?

    Read the article

  • How can I bind the second argument in a function but not the first (in an elegant way)?

    - by Frank Osterfeld
    Is there a way in Haskell to bind the second argument but not the first of a function without using lambda functions or defining another "local" function? Example. I have a binary function like: sub :: Int -> Int -> Int sub x y = x - y Now if I want to bind the first argument, I can do so easily using (sub someExpression): mapSubFrom5 x = map (sub 5) x *Main> mapSubFrom5 [1,2,3,4,5] [4,3,2,1,0] That works fine if I want to bind the first n arguments without "gap". If I want to bind the second argument but not the first, the two options I am aware of are more verbose: Either via another, local, function: mapSub5 x = map sub5 x where sub5 x = sub x 5 *Main> mapSub5 [1,2,3,4,5] [-4,-3,-2,-1,0] Or using lambda: mapSub5 x = map (\x -> sub x 5) x While both are working fine, I like the elegance of "sub 5" and wonder if there is a similarly elegant way to bind the n-th (n 1) argument of a function?

    Read the article

  • Can Scala be considered a functional superset of Java?

    - by Giorgio
    Apart from the differences in syntax, can Scala be considered a superset of Java that adds the functional paradigm to the object-oriented paradigm? Or are there any major features in Java for which there is no direct Scala equivalent? With major features I mean program constructs that would force me to heavily rewrite / restructure my code, e.g., if I had to port a Java program to Scala. Or can I expect that, given a Java program, I can port it to Scala almost line-by-line?

    Read the article

  • What norms/standards should I follow when writing a functional spec?

    - by user970696
    I would like to know what documents (ISO?) should I follow when I write a functional specification. Or what should designers follow when creating the system design? I was told that there was a progress in last years but was not told what the progress was in (college professor). Thank you EDIT: I do not speak about document content etc. but about standards for capturing requirements, for business analysis.

    Read the article

  • How to programmatically start a WPF application from a unit test?

    - by Lernkurve
    Problem VS2010 and TFS2010 support creating so-called Coded UI Tests. All the demos I have found, start with the WPF application already running in the background when the Coded UI Test begins or the EXE is started using the absolute path to it. I, however, would like to start my WPF application under test from the unit test code. That way it'll also work on the build server and on my peer's working copies. How do I accomplish that? My discoveries so far a) This post shows how to start a XAML window. But that's not what I want. I want to start the App.xaml because it contains XAML resources and there is application logic in the code behind file. b) The second screenshot on this post shows a line starting with ApplicationUnterTest calculatorWindow = ApplicationUnderTest.Launch(...); which is conceptually pretty much what I am looking for, except that again this example uses an absolute path the the executable file. c) A Google search for "Programmatically start WPF" didn't help either.

    Read the article

  • How do I write an RSpec test to unit-test this interesting metaprogramming code?

    - by Kyle Kaitan
    Here's some simple code that, for each argument specified, will add specific get/set methods named after that argument. If you write attr_option :foo, :bar, then you will see #foo/foo= and #bar/bar= instance methods on Config: module Configurator class Config def initialize() @options = {} end def self.attr_option(*args) args.each do |a| if not self.method_defined?(a) define_method "#{a}" do @options[:"#{a}"] ||= {} end define_method "#{a}=" do |v| @options[:"#{a}"] = v end else throw Exception.new("already have attr_option for #{a}") end end end end end So far, so good. I want to write some RSpec tests to verify this code is actually doing what it's supposed to. But there's a problem! If I invoke attr_option :foo in one of the test methods, that method is now forever defined in Config. So a subsequent test will fail when it shouldn't, because foo is already defined: it "should support a specified option" do c = Configurator::Config c.attr_option :foo # ... end it "should support multiple options" do c = Configurator::Config c.attr_option :foo, :bar, :baz # Error! :foo already defined # by a previous test. # ... end Is there a way I can give each test an anonymous "clone" of the Config class which is independent of the others?

    Read the article

  • Testing When Correctness is Poorly Defined?

    - by dsimcha
    I generally try to use unit tests for any code that has easily defined correct behavior given some reasonably small, well-defined set of inputs. This works quite well for catching bugs, and I do it all the time in my personal library of generic functions. However, a lot of the code I write is data mining code that basically looks for significant patterns in large datasets. Correct behavior in this case is often not well defined and depends on a lot of different inputs in ways that are not easy for a human to predict (i.e. the math can't reasonably be done by hand, which is why I'm using a computer to solve the problem in the first place). These inputs can be very complex, to the point where coming up with a reasonable test case is near impossible. Identifying the edge cases that are worth testing is extremely difficult. Sometimes the algorithm isn't even deterministic. Usually, I do the best I can by using asserts for sanity checks and creating a small toy test case with a known pattern and informally seeing if the answer at least "looks reasonable", without it necessarily being objectively correct. Is there any better way to test these kinds of cases?

    Read the article

  • Integration tests - "no exceptions are thrown" approach. Does it make sense?

    - by Andrew Florko
    Sometimes integration tests are rather complex to write or developers have no enough time to check output - does it make sense to write tests that make sure "no exceptions are thrown" only? Such tests provide some input parameters set(s) and doesn't check the result, but only make sure code not failed with exception? May be such tests are not very useful but appropriate in situations when you have no time?

    Read the article

  • Do you do unit tests for non production code?

    - by Ikaso
    I am interested in the following scenario specifically. Suppose you have team that writes production code and a team that writes automatic tests. The team that writes automatic tests has a dedicated framework intended to write the automatic tests. Should the testing team write unit tests for their framework although the framework is not used in production?

    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 | 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47  | Next Page >