Search Results

Search found 11565 results on 463 pages for 'variable expansion'.

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 63/463 | < Previous Page | 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70  | Next Page >

  • Logical value of an assignment in C

    - by Andy Shulman
    while (curr_data[1] != (unsigned int)NULL && ((curr_ptr = (void*)curr_data[1]) || 1)) Two part question. What will (curr_ptr = (void*)curr_data[1]) evaluate to, logically. TRUE? Also, I know its rather hack-ish, but is the while statement legal C? I would have to go through great contortions to put the assignment elsewhere in the code, so I'd be really nice if I could leave it there, but if it's so egregious that it makes everyone's eyeballs burst into flames, I'll change it.

    Read the article

  • Adding buttons dynamically to a uitableviewcell - iPhone app

    - by alan
    I have a verb conjugation app that displays verb translations in the first cell of a table. At present the translation list is just a string (comma-separated list) but I'd like to change it to have clickable buttons. I had a play around adding buttons to the cell view without too much success but my only experience with custom cells has been using specific positioning so I'm unsure as to how to achieve a dynamic list of buttons (varying widths) within a cell. Any help greatly appreciated. Cheers.

    Read the article

  • JQuery will not set a higher scoped object in callback

    - by user344666
    Hello, I have a jquery callback function. In that function I want it to change the value of a varible that is in a higher scope, for somereason it is not doing that. Here is the code. Thanks function add() { var returnedData = { my_id: 0 }; $.post("add_event.php", { event : toSendText }, function(data) {returnedData.my_id = 5;}, "json"); if(add_page == true){ alert(returnedData.my_id); window.open('content-list.php?cal_id='); } }

    Read the article

  • Property Scope (Iphone)

    - by Hank
    Hello All. I am having trouble accessing a declared property and I think I am missing something fundamental about the nature of properties and perhaps view controllers. Here's what I'm doing so far: declaring a property "myPhone" in a root view controller called RootViewController. grabbing a phone number from a modally presented people picker setting "myPhone" to the value from the people picker (from within shouldContinueAfterSelectingPerson of ABPeoplePickerNavigationController) trying to access "myPhone" from another modally presented view controller "myPhone" continues to NSLog to null despite trying every permutation of self.myPhone, super, RootViewController, etc. to try and access the value I set. What am I missing?

    Read the article

  • Using variables for colors in table cells

    - by Mark Robinson
    Using the variables extension, I want to change the background color of a cell in a table. So far I've done this: {{#vardefine:green|<span style="background:Green; color:White">text</span>}} The problem is that, when I add {{#var:green}} to the cell, only the text itself has a green background. Ideally, I want the whole cell to have a background color, like it does if I use this: | bgcolor="#ff00ff" | test or this | style="background:silver" |silver in the cell. Does anyone know how to solve this?

    Read the article

  • When I overload the assignment operator for my simple class array, I get the wrong answer I espect

    - by user299648
    //output is "01234 00000" but the output should be or what I want it to be is // "01234 01234" because of the assignment overloaded operator #include <iostream> using namespace std; class IntArray { public: IntArray() : size(10), used(0) { a= new int[10]; } IntArray(int s) : size(s), used(0) { a= new int[s]; } int& operator[]( int index ); IntArray& operator =( const IntArray& rightside ); ~IntArray() { delete [] a; } private: int *a; int size; int used;//for array position }; int main() { IntArray copy; if( 2>1) { IntArray arr(5); for( int k=0; k<5; k++) arr[k]=k; copy = arr; for( int j=0; j<5; j++) cout<<arr[j]; } cout<<" "; for( int j=0; j<5; j++) cout<<copy[j]; return 0; } int& IntArray::operator[]( int index ) { if( index >= size ) cout<<"ilegal index in IntArray"<<endl; return a[index]; } IntArray& IntArray::operator =( const IntArray& rightside ) { if( size != rightside.size )//also checks if on both side same object { delete [] a; a= new int[rightside.size]; } size=rightside.size; used=rightside.used; for( int i = 0; i < used; i++ ) a[i]=rightside.a[i]; return *this; }

    Read the article

  • What is the most idiomatic way to emulating Perl's Test::More::done_testing?

    - by DVK
    I have to build unit tests for in environment with a very old version of Test::More (perl5.8 with $Test::More::VERSION being '0.80') which predates the addition of done_testing(). Upgrading to newer Test::More is out of the question for practical reasons. And I am trying to avoid using no_tests - it's generally a bad idea not catching when your unit test exits prematurely - say due to some logic not executing when you expected it to. What is the most idiomatic way of running a configurable amount of tests, assuming no no_tests or done_testing() is used? Details: My unit tests usually take the form of: use Test::More; my @test_set = ( [ "Test #1", $param1, $param2, ... ] ,[ "Test #1", $param1, $param2, ... ] # ,... ); foreach my $test (@test_set) { run_test($test); } sub run_test { # $expected_tests += count_tests($test); ok(test1($test)) || diag("Test1 failed"); # ... } The standard approach of use Test::More tests => 23; or BEGIN {plan tests => 23} does not work since both are obviously executed before @tests is known. My current approach involves making @tests global and defining it in the BEGIN {} block as follows: use Test::More; BEGIN { our @test_set = (); # Same set of tests as above my $expected_tests = 0; foreach my $test (@tests) { my $expected_tests += count_tests($test); } plan tests = $expected_tests; } our @test_set; # Must do!!! Since first "our" was in BEGIN's scope :( foreach my $test (@test_set) { run_test($test); } # Same sub run_test {} # Same I feel this can be done more idiomatically but not certain how to improve. Chief among the smells is the duplicate our @test_test declarations - in BEGIN{} and after it. Another approach is to emulate done_testing() by calling Test::More->builder->plan(tests=>$total_tests_calculated). I'm not sure if it's any better idiomatically-wise.

    Read the article

  • Accessing variables with different scope in C++

    - by Portablejim
    With #include <iostream> using namespace std; int a = 1; int main() { int a = 2; if(true) { int a = 3; cout << a << " " << ::a // Can I access a = 2 here? << " " << ::a << endl; } cout << a << " " << ::a << endl; } having the output 3 1 1 2 1 Is there a way to access the 'a' equal to 2 inside the if statement where there is the 'a' equal to 3, with the output 3 2 1 2 1 Note: I know this should not be done (and the code should not get to the point where I need to ask). This question is more "can it be done".

    Read the article

  • Local Variables take 7x longer to access than global variables?

    - by ItzWarty
    I was trying to benchmark the gain/loss of "caching" math.floor, in hopes that I could make calls faster. Here was the test: <html> <head> <script> window.onload = function() { var startTime = new Date().getTime(); var k = 0; for(var i = 0; i < 1000000; i++) k += Math.floor(9.99); var mathFloorTime = new Date().getTime() - startTime; startTime = new Date().getTime(); window.mfloor = Math.floor; k = 0; for(var i = 0; i < 1000000; i++) k += window.mfloor(9.99); var globalFloorTime = new Date().getTime() - startTime; startTime = new Date().getTime(); var mfloor = Math.floor; k = 0; for(var i = 0; i < 1000000; i++) k += mfloor(9.99); var localFloorTime = new Date().getTime() - startTime; document.getElementById("MathResult").innerHTML = mathFloorTime; document.getElementById("globalResult").innerHTML = globalFloorTime; document.getElementById("localResult").innerHTML = localFloorTime; }; </script> </head> <body> Math.floor: <span id="MathResult"></span>ms <br /> var mathfloor: <span id="globalResult"></span>ms <br /> window.mathfloor: <span id="localResult"></span>ms <br /> </body> </html> My results from the test: [Chromium 5.0.308.0]: Math.floor: 49ms var mathfloor: 271ms window.mathfloor: 40ms [IE 8.0.6001.18702] Math.floor: 703ms var mathfloor: 9890ms [LOL!] window.mathfloor: 375ms [Firefox [Minefield] 3.7a4pre] Math.floor: 42ms var mathfloor: 2257ms window.mathfloor: 60ms [Safari 4.0.4[531.21.10] ] Math.floor: 92ms var mathfloor: 289ms window.mathfloor: 90ms [Opera 10.10 build 1893] Math.floor: 500ms var mathfloor: 843ms window.mathfloor: 360ms [Konqueror 4.3.90 [KDE 4.3.90 [KDE 4.4 RC1]]] Math.floor: 453ms var mathfloor: 563ms window.mathfloor: 312ms The variance is random, of course, but for the most part In all cases [this shows time taken]: [takes longer] mathfloor Math.floor window.mathfloor [is faster] Why is this? In my projects i've been using var mfloor = Math.floor, and according to my not-so-amazing benchmarks, my efforts to "optimize" actually slowed down the script by ALOT... Is there any other way to make my code more "efficient"...? I'm at the stage where i basically need to optimize, so no, this isn't "premature optimization"...

    Read the article

  • dwoo template variables inside JavaScript?

    - by user344711
    Hi everyone! i have this code. {if $loginUrl} {literal} <script type="text/javascript"> var newwindow; var intId; function login() { var screenX = typeof window.screenX != 'undefined' ? window.screenX : window.screenLeft, screenY = typeof window.screenY != 'undefined' ? window.screenY : window.screenTop, outerWidth = typeof window.outerWidth != 'undefined' ? window.outerWidth : document.body.clientWidth, outerHeight = typeof window.outerHeight != 'undefined' ? window.outerHeight : (document.body.clientHeight - 22), width = 500, height = 270, left = parseInt(screenX + ((outerWidth - width) / 2), 10), top = parseInt(screenY + ((outerHeight - height) / 2.5), 10), features = ( 'width=' + width + ',height=' + height + ',left=' + left + ',top=' + top ); newwindow=window.open('{$loginUrl}','Login by facebook',features); if (window.focus) {newwindow.focus()} return false; } </script> {/literal} {/if} It is dwoo templates, i wonder how can i use my dwoo variables inside javascript? im trying to do it just at you can see at the code, but it doesnt work. I need to warp my code between {literal} so it can work.

    Read the article

  • Can't access form elements

    - by linkcool
    Hi, my problem is that my variables are not working in javascript. all variables need names without some character at the beginning, this is the stupid thing...Anyways, im trying to make a funtion that makes "select all checkboxes". It is not working so i looked at the page source/info and found out that the variables were not changing. this is my input: echo "<input onclick='checkAll(1);' type='checkbox' name='master'/><br/>"; My function: function checkAll(i) { for(var i=1; i < <?php echo $num; ?>; i++) { if(document.demo.master[i].checked == true) { document.demo.message[i].checked = true; } else { document.demo.message[i].checked = false; } } } so yes that's it. I can tell you that i also tried without the <i> in: checkAll("i") Thanks for the help. EDIT: each checkbox for each messsage has this code:echo "<input style='margin-left:-15px;margin-top:20px;' type='checkbox' name='message' value='$rid' /><br/>";

    Read the article

  • Access PHP var from external javascript file

    - by FFish
    I can access a PHP var with Javascript like this: <?php $fruit = "apple"; $color = "red"; ?> <script type="text/javascript"> alert("fruit: " + "<?php echo $fruit; ?>"); // or shortcut "<?= $fruit ?>" </script> But what if I want to use an external JS file: <script type="text/javascript" src="externaljs.js"></script> externaljs.js: alert("color: " + "<?php echo $color; ?>");

    Read the article

  • Reason for unintuitive UnboundLocalError behaviour 2

    - by Jonathan
    Following up on Reason for unintuitive UnboundLocalError behaviour (I will assume you've read it). Consider the following Python script: def f(): # a+=1 # 1 aa=a aa+=1 # b+='b' # 2 bb=b bb+='b' c[0]+='c' # 3 c.append('c') cc=c cc.append('c') # 4 a=1 b='b' c=['c'] f() print a print b print c The result of the script is: 1 b ['cc', 'c', 'c'] The commented out lines (marked 1,2) are lines that would through an UnboundLocalError and the SO question I referenced explains why. However, the line marked 3 works! By default, lists are copied by reference in Python, therefore it's understandable that c changes when cc changes. But why should Python allow c to change in the first place, if it didn't allow changes to a and b directly from the method's scope? I don't see how the fact that by default lists are copied by reference in Python should make this design decision inconsistent. What am I missing folks?

    Read the article

  • naming a function that exhibits "set if not equal" behavior

    - by Chris Sears
    This might be an odd question, but I'm looking for a word to use in a function name. I'm normally good at coming up with succinct, meaningful function names, but this one has me stumped so I thought I'd appeal for help. The function will take some desired state as an argument and compare it to the current state. If no change is needed, the function will exit normally without doing anything. Otherwise, the function will take some action to achieve the desired state. For example, if wanted to make sure the front door was closed, i might say: my_house.<something>_front_door('closed') What word or term should use in place of the something? I'd like it to be short, readable, and minimize the astonishment factor. A couple clarifying points... I would want someone calling the function to intuitively know they didn't need to wrap the function an 'if' that checks the current state. For example, this would be bad: if my_house.front_door_is_open(): my_house.<something>_front_door('closed') Also, they should know that the function won't throw an exception if the desired state matches the current state. So this should never happen: try: my_house.<something>_front_door('closed') except DoorWasAlreadyClosedException: pass Here are some options I've considered: my_house.set_front_door('closed') my_house.setne_front_door('closed') # ne=not equal, from the setne x86 instruction my_house.ensure_front_door('closed') my_house.configure_front_door('closed') my_house.update_front_door('closed') my_house.make_front_door('closed') my_house.remediate_front_door('closed') And I'm open to other forms, but most I've thought of don't improve readability. Such as... my_house.ensure_front_door_is('closed') my_house.conditionally_update_front_door('closed') my_house.change_front_door_if_needed('closed') Thanks for any input!

    Read the article

  • Scope of const char*

    - by Neeraj
    Consider this code: const char* someFun() { // ... some stuff return "Some text!!" } int main() { { // Block: A const char* retStr = someFun(); // use retStr } } My question is in the function sumFun() where is "some Text!!", stored (i think may be in some static area in ROM) and what will be its scope? Will the memory pointed by retStr be occupied throughout the program or be released once the block A exits? -- Thanks

    Read the article

  • Javascript variables are not working

    - by linkcool
    Hi, my problem is that my variables are not working in javascript. all variables need names without some character at the beginning, this is the stupid thing...Anyways, im trying to make a funtion that makes "select all checkboxes". It is not working so i looked at the page source/info and found out that the variables were not changing. this is my input: echo "<input onclick='checkAll(1);' type='checkbox' name='master'/><br/>"; My function: function checkAll(i) { for(var i=1; i < <?php echo $num; ?>; i++) { if(document.demo.master[i].checked == true) { document.demo.message[i].checked = true; } else { document.demo.message[i].checked = false; } } } so yes that's it. I can tell you that i also tried without the <i> in: checkAll("i") Thanks for the help.

    Read the article

  • How do I add on multiple $_POST['row'] and variables?

    - by Ralph The Mouf
    I am struggling to find out the syntactically correct way in which to add on more variables and rows to these statements: /* WANT TO ADD ON FIVE MORE $_POST[''] */ if(isset($_POST['check_prof']) && $_POST['check_prof'] == 'checked') { $check_prof = "checked"; }else{ $check_prof = "unchecked"; } /* SAME HERE, WANT TO ADD THE OTHER FIVE IN HERE AS WELL */ $query = "UPDATE `Users` SET `check_prof` = '" . $check_prof . "' WHERE `id` = '" . $auth->id . "' LIMIT 1"; mysql_query($query,$connection); $auth->refresh(); }

    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 | 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70  | Next Page >