Search Results

Search found 44956 results on 1799 pages for 'type checking'.

Page 6/1799 | < Previous Page | 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13  | Next Page >

  • Using type aliases to Java enums

    - by oxbow_lakes
    I would like to achieve something similar to how scala defines Map as both a predefined type and object. In Predef: type Map[A, +B] = collection.immutable.Map[A, B] val Map = collection.immutable.Map //object Map However, I'd like to do this using Java enums (from a shared library). So for example, I'd have some global alias: type Country = my.bespoke.enum.Country val Country = my.bespok.enum.Country //compile error: "object Country is not a value" The reason for this is that I'd like to be able to use code like: if (city.getCountry == Country.UNITED_KINGDOM) //or... if (city.getCountry == UNITED_KINGDOM) Howver, this not possible whilst importing my type alias at the same time. Note: this code would work just fine if I had not declared a predefined type and imported it! Is there some syntax I can use here to achieve this?

    Read the article

  • How change Subversion's default binary mime-type?

    - by lamcro
    Subversion sets a binary file's svn:mime-type property to application/octet-stream by default. I need to change this default to some other mime-type. When I import for the first time this code, I would like Subversion to set mime-type to the one I choose. The reason is that my code base contains code in binary files (proprietary format), and I have the applications necessary to emulate diff and diff3 for these. But Subversion does not let me due to their default mime-type. Please note: There is no default extension (*.jar, *.py, etc) for these code files. Some files don't even have an extension. So configuring mime-type by file extension is not possible.

    Read the article

  • How do I create Ntlm Type 1 and Type 3 messages in .Net

    - by brj011
    I need to create Type 1 message and Type 3 message for NTLM handshaking. Is there any .Net API for this? Essentially, the application is WPF based, but Socket is used in order to stream data from the server. Use of socket is a technical requirement, but the problem is when user needs to connect to the server using a proxy server. Further, if the proxy authorization is based on Ntlm, the client application needs to create Type 1 and Type 3 messages in order to handshake with the proxy server. My question is: Is there any API already available in .NET libraries that can be consumed in order to create these different types of NTLM messages? Any help or alternatives will be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Getting a Type variable knowing the name of type C#

    - by StuffHappens
    Hello! I'm developing a TypeTranslator class which has a method Type TranslateType(Type type). This method gets a type of an interface and if there's a class of interface name without leading I it creates it, otherwise an exception is raised. Here's some code to clearify what's written before: class Program { interface IAnimal { } class Animal : IAnimal { } void Function() { TypeTranslator typeTranslator = new TypeTranslator(); Assert(typeTranslator.TranslateType(typeof(IAnimal) == typeof(Animal))); } } Is it possible to get what I want? Thank you for your help!

    Read the article

  • PHP: SUBMIT Type vs IMAGE Type

    - by sebb
    I have noticed that when using a SUBMIT type its name attribute gets passed via POST , while an IMAGE type button do not have this data sent, can any one clear this up for me? In both instances the NAME attribute is present at HTML level, but only the SUMBIT type has the NAME sent via POST....is this right?

    Read the article

  • C# Proposal: Compile Time Static Checking Of Dynamic Objects

    - by Paulo Morgado
    C# 4.0 introduces a new type: dynamic. dynamic is a static type that bypasses static type checking. This new type comes in very handy to work with: The new languages from the dynamic language runtime. HTML Document Object Model (DOM). COM objects. Duck typing … Because static type checking is bypassed, this: dynamic dynamicValue = GetValue(); dynamicValue.Method(); is equivalent to this: object objectValue = GetValue(); objectValue .GetType() .InvokeMember( "Method", BindingFlags.InvokeMethod, null, objectValue, null); Apart from caching the call site behind the scenes and some dynamic resolution, dynamic only looks better. Any typing error will only be caught at run time. In fact, if I’m writing the code, I know the contract of what I’m calling. Wouldn’t it be nice to have the compiler do some static type checking on the interactions with these dynamic objects? Imagine that the dynamic object that I’m retrieving from the GetValue method, besides the parameterless method Method also has a string read-only Property property. This means that, from the point of view of the code I’m writing, the contract that the dynamic object returned by GetValue implements is: string Property { get; } void Method(); Since it’s a well defined contract, I could write an interface to represent it: interface IValue { string Property { get; } void Method(); } If dynamic allowed to specify the contract in the form of dynamic(contract), I could write this: dynamic(IValue) dynamicValue = GetValue(); dynamicValue.Method(); This doesn’t mean that the value returned by GetValue has to implement the IValue interface. It just enables the compiler to verify that dynamicValue.Method() is a valid use of dynamicValue and dynamicValue.OtherMethod() isn’t. If the IValue interface already existed for any other reason, this would be fine. But having a type added to an assembly just for compile time usage doesn’t seem right. So, dynamic could be another type construct. Something like this: dynamic DValue { string Property { get; } void Method(); } The code could now be written like this; DValue dynamicValue = GetValue(); dynamicValue.Method(); The compiler would never generate any IL or metadata for this new type construct. It would only thee used for compile type static checking of dynamic objects. As a consequence, it makes no sense to have public accessibility, so it would not be allowed. Once again, if the IValue interface (or any other type definition) already exists, it can be used in the dynamic type definition: dynamic DValue : IValue, IEnumerable, SomeClass { string Property { get; } void Method(); } Another added benefit would be IntelliSense. I’ve been getting mixed reactions to this proposal. What do you think? Would this be useful?

    Read the article

  • calling template function without <>; type inference

    - by Oops
    Hi, if I have a function template with typename T, where the compiler can set the type by itself, I do not have to write the type explicitely when I call the function like: template < typename T > T min( T v1, T v2 ) { return ( v1 < v2 ) ? v1: v2; } int i1 = 1, i2 = 2; int i3 = min( i1, i2 ); //no explicit <type> but if I have a function template with two different typenames like... template < typename TOut, typename TIn > TOut round( TIn v ) { return (TOut)( v + 0.5 ); } double d = 1.54; int i = round<int>(d); //explicit <int> Is it true that I have to specify at least 1 typename, always? I assume the reason is because C++ can not distinguish functions between different return types, true? but if I use a void function and handover a reference, again I must not explicitely specify the return typename: template < typename TOut, typename TIn > void round( TOut & vret, TIn vin ) { vret = (TOut)(vin + 0.5); } double d = 1.54; int i; round(i, d); //no explicit <int> should the conclusion be to avoid functions with return and more prefer void functions that return via a reference when writing templates? Or is there a possibility to avoid explicitely writing the return type? something like "type inference" for templates... is "type inference" possible in C++0x? I hope I was not too unclear. many thanks in advance Oops

    Read the article

  • Scala path dependent return type from parameter

    - by Rich Oliver
    In the following code using 2.10.0M3 in Eclipse plugin 2.1.0 for 2.10M3. I'm using the default setting which is targeting JVM 1.5 class GeomBase[T <: DTypes] { abstract class NewObjs { def newHex(gridR: GridBase, coodI: Cood): gridR.HexRT } class GridBase { selfGrid => type HexRT = HexG with T#HexTr def uniformRect (init: NewObjs) { val hexCood = Cood(2 ,2) val hex: HexRT = init.newHex(selfGrid, hexCood)// won't compile } } } Error message: Description Resource Path Location Type type mismatch; found: GeomBase.this.GridBase#HexG with T#HexTr required: GridBase.this.HexRT (which expands to) GridBase.this.HexG with T#HexTr GeomBase.scala Why does the compiler think the method returns the type projection GridBase#HexG when it should be this specific instance of GridBase? Edit transferred to a simpler code class in responce to comments now getting a different error message. package rStrat class TestClass { abstract class NewObjs { def newHex(gridR: GridBase): gridR.HexG } class GridBase { selfGrid => def uniformRect (init: NewObjs) { val hex: HexG = init.newHex(this) //error here } class HexG { val test12 = 5 } } } . Error line 11:Description Resource Path Location Type type mismatch; found : gridR.HexG required: GridBase.this.HexG possible cause: missing arguments for method or constructor TestClass.scala /SStrat/src/rStrat line 11 Scala Problem Update I've switched to 2.10.0M4 and updated the plug-in to the M4 version on a fresh version of Eclipse and switched to JVM 1.6 (and 1.7) but the problems are unchanged.

    Read the article

  • Is Haskell's type system an obstacle to understanding functional programming?

    - by FarmBoy
    I'm studying Haskell for the purpose of understanding functional programming, with the expectation that I'll apply the insight that I gain in other languages (Groovy, Python, JavaScript mainly.) I choose Haskell because I had the impression that it is very purely functional, and wouldn't allow for any reliance on state. I did not choose to learn Haskell because I was interested in navigating an extremely rigid type system. My question is this: Is a strong type system a necessary by-product of an extremely pure functional language, or is this an unrelated design choice particular to Haskell? If it is the latter, I'm curious what would be the most purely functional language that is dynamically typed. I'm not particularly opposed to strong typing, it has its place, but I'm having a hard time seeing how it benefits me in this educational endeavor.

    Read the article

  • Is Haskell's type system an obstacle to understanding functional programming?

    - by Eric Wilson
    I'm studying Haskell for the purpose of understanding functional programming, with the expectation that I'll apply the insight that I gain in other languages (Groovy, Python, JavaScript mainly.) I choose Haskell because I had the impression that it is very purely functional, and wouldn't allow for any reliance on state. I did not choose to learn Haskell because I was interested in navigating an extremely rigid type system. My question is this: Is a strong type system a necessary by-product of an extremely pure functional language, or is this an unrelated design choice particular to Haskell? If it is the latter, I'm curious what would be the most purely functional language that is dynamically typed. I'm not particularly opposed to strong typing, it has its place, but I'm having a hard time seeing how it benefits me in this educational endeavor.

    Read the article

  • Thoughts on type aliases/synonyms?

    - by Rei Miyasaka
    I'm going to try my best to frame this question in a way that doesn't result in a language war or list, because I think there could be a good, technical answer to this question. Different languages support type aliases to varying degrees. C# allows type aliases to be declared at the beginning of each code file, and they're valid only throughout that file. Languages like ML/Haskell use type aliases probably as much as they use type definitions. C/C++ are sort of a Wild West, with typedef and #define often being used seemingly interchangeably to alias types. The upsides of type aliasing don't invoke too much dispute: It makes it convenient to define composite types that are described naturally by the language, e.g. type Coordinate = float * float or type String = [Char]. Long names can be shortened: using DSBA = System.Diagnostics.DebuggerStepBoundaryAttribute. In languages like ML or Haskell, where function parameters often don't have names, type aliases provide a semblance of self-documentation. The downside is a bit more iffy: aliases can proliferate, making it difficult to read and understand code or to learn a platform. The Win32 API is a good example, with its DWORD = int and its HINSTANCE = HANDLE = void* and its LPHANDLE = HANDLE FAR* and such. In all of these cases it hardly makes any sense to distinguish between a HANDLE and a void pointer or a DWORD and an integer etc.. Setting aside the philosophical debate of whether a king should give complete freedom to their subjects and let them be responsible for themselves or whether they should have all of their questionable actions intervened, could there be a happy medium that would allow the benefits of type aliasing while mitigating the risk of its abuse? As an example, the issue of long names can be solved by good autocomplete features. Visual Studio 2010 for instance will alllow you to type DSBA in order to refer Intellisense to System.Diagnostics.DebuggerStepBoundaryAttribute. Could there be other features that would provide the other benefits of type aliasing more safely?

    Read the article

  • technique for checking modifications in configuration file while starting up a program

    - by rajesh
    I'm writing a software for periodically checking a specific range of networked devices' reach-ability. I'm specifying the address range and the time frequency for checking their reachability, in an xml file. Which technique can I use to check that xml file during the start up of the program for any modifications done in either the range or the frequency and do the necessary update in specific database?

    Read the article

  • HTTP Content-Type in ASP.Net SoapHttpClientProtocol

    - by Daniel Fone
    Hi there, I have a problem with a Web Service Consumer written in ASP.NET. The error message is: System.InvalidOperationException: Client found response content type of 'application/xml; charset=utf-8', but expected 'text/xml'. The client is based on System.Web.Services.Protocols.SoapHttpClientProtocol. We can't change the Content-Type given by the provider, this has to be 'application/xml; charset=utf-8'. Is there any way to change what Content-Type the SoapHttpClientProtocol expects? Unfortunately, we are probably limited to .NET 1.1. Thanks! Update: We found a way to change the Content-Type sent by the provider, and this solved the problem. I'd still be curious to know how to change the expectations of the consumer though.

    Read the article

  • Getting ActiveRecord (Rails) to_xml to use xsi:nil and xsi:type instead of nil and type

    - by nbeyer
    The default behavior of XML serialization (to_xml) for ActiveRecord objects will emit 'type' and 'nil' attributes that are similar to XML Schema Instance attributes, but aren't set in a XML Namespace. For example, a model might produce an output like this: <user> <username nil="true" /> <first-name type="string">Name</first-name> </user> Is there anyway to get to_xml to utilize the XML Schema Instance namespace and prefix the attributes and the values? Using the above example, I'd like to produce the following: <user xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/1999/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/1999/XMLSchema"> <username xsi:nil="true" /> <first-name xsi:type="xs:string">Name</first-name> </user>

    Read the article

  • Type attribute for text_field

    - by Koning Baard XIV
    I have this code: <%= f.text_field :email, :type => "email", :placeholder => "[email protected]" %> So people can enter their email on an iPhone with the email keyboard instead of the ASCII keyboard. However, the output is: <input id="user_email" name="user[email]" placeholder="[email protected]" size="30" type="text" /> which should be: <input id="user_email" name="user[email]" placeholder="[email protected]" size="30" type="email" /> Is there a way to force Rails to use the email type instead of text, or must I use HTML directly? Thanks

    Read the article

  • wpf: design time error while writing Nested type in xaml

    - by viky
    I have created a usercontrol which accept type of enum and assign the values of that enum to a ComboBox control in that usercontrol. Very Simple. I am using this user control in DataTemplates. Problem comes when there comes nested type. I assign that using this notation EnumType="{x:Type myNamespace:ParentType + NestedType}" It works fine at runtime. but at design time it throws error saying Could not create an instance of type 'TypeExtension' Why? Due to this I am not able to see my window at design time. Any help?

    Read the article

  • Java class object from type variable

    - by Alexander Temerev
    Is there a way to get Class object from the type variable in Java generic class? Something like that: public class Bar extends Foo<T> { public Class getParameterClass() { return T.class; // doesn't compile } } This type information is available at compile time and therefore should not be affected by type erasure, so, theoretically, there should be a way to accomplish this. Does it exist?

    Read the article

  • Unboxing to unknown type

    - by Robert
    I'm trying to figure out syntax that supports unboxing an integral type (short/int/long) to its intrinsic type, when the type itself is unknown. Here is a completely contrived example that demonstrates the concept: // Just a simple container that returns values as objects struct DataStruct { public short ShortVale; public int IntValue; public long LongValue; public object GetBoxedShortValue() { return LongValue; } public object GetBoxedIntValue() { return LongValue; } public object GetBoxedLongValue() { return LongValue; } } static void Main( string[] args ) { DataStruct data; // Initialize data - any value will do data.LongValue = data.IntValue = data.ShortVale = 42; DataStruct newData; // This works if you know the type you are expecting! newData.ShortVale = (short)data.GetBoxedShortValue(); newData.IntValue = (int)data.GetBoxedIntValue(); newData.LongValue = (long)data.GetBoxedLongValue(); // But what about when you don't know? newData.ShortVale = data.GetBoxedShortValue(); // error newData.IntValue = data.GetBoxedIntValue(); // error newData.LongValue = data.GetBoxedLongValue(); // error } In each case, the integral types are consistent, so there should be some form of syntax that says "the object contains a simple type of X, return that as X (even though I don't know what X is)". Because the objects ultimately come from the same source, there really can't be a mismatch (short != long). I apologize for the contrived example, it seemed like the best way to demonstrate the syntax. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Explain ML type inference to a C++ programmer

    - by Tsubasa Gomamoto
    How does ML perform the type inference in the following function definition: let add a b = a + b Is it like C++ templates where no type-checking is performed until the point of template instantiation after which if the type supports the necessary operations, the function works or else a compilation error is thrown ? i.e. for example, the following function template template <typename NumType> NumType add(NumType a, NumType b) { return a + b; } will work for add<int>(23, 11); but won't work for add<ostream>(cout, fout); Is what I am guessing is correct or ML type inference works differently? PS: Sorry for my poor English; it's not my native language.

    Read the article

  • functional dependencies vs type families

    - by mhwombat
    I'm developing a framework for running experiments with artificial life, and I'm trying to use type families instead of functional dependencies. Type families seems to be the preferred approach among Haskellers, but I've run into a situation where functional dependencies seem like a better fit. Am I missing a trick? Here's the design using type families. (This code compiles OK.) {-# LANGUAGE TypeFamilies, FlexibleContexts #-} import Control.Monad.State (StateT) class Agent a where agentId :: a -> String liveALittle :: Universe u => a -> StateT u IO a -- plus other functions class Universe u where type MyAgent u :: * withAgent :: (MyAgent u -> StateT u IO (MyAgent u)) -> String -> StateT u IO () -- plus other functions data SimpleUniverse = SimpleUniverse { mainDir :: FilePath -- plus other fields } defaultWithAgent :: (MyAgent u -> StateT u IO (MyAgent u)) -> String -> StateT u IO () defaultWithAgent = undefined -- stub -- plus default implementations for other functions -- -- In order to use my framework, the user will need to create a typeclass -- that implements the Agent class... -- data Bug = Bug String deriving (Show, Eq) instance Agent Bug where agentId (Bug s) = s liveALittle bug = return bug -- stub -- -- .. and they'll also need to make SimpleUniverse an instance of Universe -- for their agent type. -- instance Universe SimpleUniverse where type MyAgent SimpleUniverse = Bug withAgent = defaultWithAgent -- boilerplate -- plus similar boilerplate for other functions Is there a way to avoid forcing my users to write those last two lines of boilerplate? Compare with the version using fundeps, below, which seems to make things simpler for my users. (The use of UndecideableInstances may be a red flag.) (This code also compiles OK.) {-# LANGUAGE MultiParamTypeClasses, FunctionalDependencies, FlexibleInstances, UndecidableInstances #-} import Control.Monad.State (StateT) class Agent a where agentId :: a -> String liveALittle :: Universe u a => a -> StateT u IO a -- plus other functions class Universe u a | u -> a where withAgent :: Agent a => (a -> StateT u IO a) -> String -> StateT u IO () -- plus other functions data SimpleUniverse = SimpleUniverse { mainDir :: FilePath -- plus other fields } instance Universe SimpleUniverse a where withAgent = undefined -- stub -- plus implementations for other functions -- -- In order to use my framework, the user will need to create a typeclass -- that implements the Agent class... -- data Bug = Bug String deriving (Show, Eq) instance Agent Bug where agentId (Bug s) = s liveALittle bug = return bug -- stub -- -- And now my users only have to write stuff like... -- u :: SimpleUniverse u = SimpleUniverse "mydir"

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13  | Next Page >