Search Results

Search found 5625 results on 225 pages for 'sean foo'.

Page 64/225 | < Previous Page | 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71  | Next Page >

  • What is the result of this SQL query?

    - by Martin
    I'm working on a mock exam paper at the moment, however I have no set of correct answers and I'm not sure what the correct answer of this SQL query is. Given a table: foo, bar a , 1 b , 3 a , 2 c , 1 and the query: SELECT foo, sum(bar) FROM table GROUP BY foo The two ways I can see this going are either: a 3 a 3 b 3 c 1 or a 3 b 3 c 1 Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Point one style class to another?

    - by user246114
    Hi, I have a css class like: .foo { background-color: red; } then I have a class specified for a list: .list1 li { background-color: tan; } is it possible to set one style class to just point to another? Something like: .list1 li { .foo; } not sure how to articulate that - I just want the .list li style to be whatever I define for the .foo class. Thanks

    Read the article

  • How can I make hash key lookup case-insensitive?

    - by mseery
    Evidently hash keys are compared in a case-sensitive manner. $ perl -e '%hash = ( FOO => 1 ); printf "%s\n", ( exists $hash{foo} ) ? "Yes" : "No";' No $ perl -e '%hash = ( FOO => 1 ); printf "%s\n", ( exists $hash{FOO} ) ? "Yes" : "No";' Yes Is there a setting to change that for the current script? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Why can't I enforce derived classes to have parameterless constructors?

    - by FrisbeeBen
    I am trying to do the following: public class foo<T> where T : bar, new() { public foo() { _t = new T(); } private T _t; } public abstract class bar { public abstract void someMethod(); // Some implementation } public class baz : bar { public overide someMethod(){//Implementation} } And I am attempting to use it as follows: foo<baz> fooObject = new foo<baz>(); And I get an error explaining that 'T' must be a non-abstract type with a public parameterless constructor in order to use it as parameter 'T' in the generic type or method. I fully understand why this must be, and also understand that I could pass a pre-initialized object of type 'T' in as a constructor argument to avoid having to 'new' it, but is there any way around this? any way to enforce classes that derive from 'bar' to supply parameterless constructors?

    Read the article

  • Xcode method navigation

    - by Bill
    In Xcode 4, I can press Ctrl-6 to get a list of all the methods in the current file. The problem is, if I have private methods declared at the top of my implementation file, say: @interface Foo () -(void)tap:(id)sender; @end @implementation Foo ... -(void)tap:(id)sender { ... } then starting to type "tap" while the method list is visible will just take me to the declaration, since it comes first in the file, when what I really want is the implementation. Is there any way to exclude these declarations from the method list or do I need to resort to separate Foo.h and Foo+Private.h headers? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Override one css class with another?

    - by user246114
    Hi, I have a list, with an li style defined. I want to replace the style of an individual element, but it doesn't seem to have any visual effect. Example: .myList li { background-color: yellow; } .foo { background-color: green; } <ul class='myList'> <li>Hello</li> </ul> When I add an item to the list, it has the .myList li style applied properly. I try now to remove all styles and apply the foo style to a single item (using jquery): $(item).removeClass(); $(item).addClass("foo"); the item does not change color to green though, but this reports the class is set to 'foo': alert($(item).attr('class')); so I guess I'm not understanding css rules here, looks like the li class definition is just overriding whatever else I do, however I want the reverse to be true, I want to override the li style definition with foo. How do we do this? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Sorting Custom Objects with Parameter in VB.Net/C#

    - by Jeffrey Kern
    Let's say I have a custom object of Foo Is there anyway I can sort through a list of these objects, like list<of foo>.sort() and also be able to sort this list with a passable parameter. which will influence the sort? list<of foo>.sort(pValue) I'm guessing I'll need to define two separate sorts, but I am not sure. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • zend form multicheckboxes naming

    - by neziric
    how do i have to nest multicheckboxes so that they are named like this 'foo[]['bar']' . i've used subforms but they give me naming like this 'foo[bar][]'. my code: $sub = new Zend_Form_SubForm('sub'); $wish = new Zend_Form_Element_MultiCheckbox('bar'); $wish ->setMultiOptions($education_direction->getAll()) ->setLabel('Wish') ->setRequired(true); $sub-addElements(array( $wish )); $this-addSubForm($sub, 'foo');

    Read the article

  • How do I restrict accepting only one type in my generic method?

    - by kunjaan
    I have a generic function foo, which accepts any type and prints them out. public static <T> T foo(T... arg) { List<T> foo = Arrays.asList(arg); for (T t : foo) { System.out.println(t); } return null; } How do I make sure that the arguments received are of only 1 type. For example, {1,'a',3} should be invalid. It should either be all numbers or all characters.

    Read the article

  • How to serialize this Xml in .NET (array)

    - by Morri
    I need Xml that looks like this <foo> <bar ... /> <bar ... /> </foo> And currently have the following class structure : [XmlRoot("foo")] public class Foo { [XmlArrayItem("bar")] public List<Bar> myBars; } But this gives me Xml where bar items are wrapped inside a bars element. How should I define my custom XmlAttributes so I'd get the Xml structure I need?

    Read the article

  • autofac's Func<T> to resolve named service

    - by ppiotrowicz
    Given registered services: builder.RegisterType<Foo1>().Named<IFoo>("one").As<IFoo>(); builder.RegisterType<Foo2>().Named<IFoo>("two").As<IFoo>(); builder.RegisterType<Foo3>().Named<IFoo>("three").As<IFoo>(); Can I retrieve named implementations of IFoo interface by injecting something like Func<string, IFoo ? public class SomeClass(Func<string, IFoo> foo) { var f = foo("one"); Debug.Assert(f is Foo1); var g = foo("two"); Debug.Assert(g is Foo2); var h = foo("three"); Debug.Assert(h is Foo3); } I know I can do it with Meta<, but I don't want to use it.

    Read the article

  • template specilization using member enums

    - by Altan
    struct Bar { enum { Special = 4 }; }; template<class T, int K> struct Foo {}; template<class T> struct Foo<T::Special> {}; Usage: Foo<Bar> aa; fails to compile using gcc 4.1.2 It complains about the usage of T::Special for partial specilization of Foo. If Special was a class the solution would be to a typename in front of it. Is there something equivalent to it for enums (or integers)? Thanks, Altan

    Read the article

  • R: How to replace elements of a data.frame?

    - by John
    I'm trying to replace elements of a data.frame containing "#N/A" with "NULL", and I'm running into problems: foo <- data.frame("day"= c(1, 3, 5, 7), "od" = c(0.1, "#N/A", 0.4, 0.8)) indices_of_NAs <- which(foo == "#N/A") replace(foo, indices_of_NAs, "NULL") Error in [<-.data.frame(*tmp*, list, value = "NULL") : new columns would leave holes after existing columns I think that the problem is that my index is treating the data.frame as a vector, but that the replace function is treating it differently somehow, but I'm not sure what the issue is?

    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

  • Is read-only auto-imlemented property possible?

    - by abatishchev
    Hello. I found a topic on MSDN that talks that yes, this is possible. I did a test that seems to break this statement: using System; namespace Test { class Program { static void Main(string[] args) { Foo f = new Foo("1"); Console.WriteLine(f.Bar); // prints 1 f.Test("2"); Console.WriteLine(f.Bar);// successfully prints 2 } } class Foo { public Foo(string b) { this.Bar = b; } public string Bar { get; private set; } public void Test(string b) { // this would be impossible for readonly field! // next error would be occur: CS0191 or CS0191 // A readonly field cannot be assigned to (except in a constructor or a variable initializer) this.Bar = b; } } } Where am I wrong?

    Read the article

  • How to access a superclass method from a nested class?

    - by m01
    I hope this code explains the problem: class Foo { void a() { / *stuff */ } } class Bar extends Foo { void a() { throw new Exception("This is not allowed for Bar"); } class Baz { void blah() { // how to access Foo.a from here? } } } I know that I may be doing something wrong, because inheritance perhaps shouldn't be used in such way. But it's the easiest way in my situation. And, beside that, I'm just curious. Is it possible?

    Read the article

  • PHP Simplify a ternary operation

    - by Obay
    In PHP, is there a way to simplify this even more, without using an if()? $foo = $bar!==0 ? $foo : ''; I was wondering if there was a way to not reassign $foo to itself if the condition is satisfied. I understand there is a way to do this in Javascript (using &&, right?), but was wondering if there was a way to do this in PHP.

    Read the article

  • How do I return an object that is able to execute on the server?

    - by mafutrct
    Coming from a Java background, this is the way I'm thinking: The server provides an object to the client. This object should be able to execute on the server. Server: private string _S = "A"; public interface IFoo { void Bar(); } private class Foo : IFoo { void Bar() { _S = "B";} } public IFoo GetFoo() { return new Foo(); } Client: IFoo foo = serverChannel.GetFoo(); foo.Bar(); Remoting is legacy (everyone keeps pointing to WCF instead) and WCF does not support this at all basically ( http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2431510 ), so how should I implement this kind of behavior? Using 3rd party components is possible iff required. I searched on SO but found no similar question. If this has indeed been answered before, just let me know and I'll delete.

    Read the article

  • jquery, attaching objects (instead of string attribute) to an element

    - by binaryLV
    Hi! I'm trying to build DOM with jQuery and fill it with data that is received with AJAX (data type = json). I'd like to also store this data as an object, attached to a specific DOM element. Does jQuery provide any method for this? The reason I want to do it is because only part of data is initially displayed; other data might be needed later, depending on user actions. I tried using attr(), but it stores a string "[object Object]" instead of an actual object: var div = $('<div/>'); div.attr('foo', {bar: 'foobar'}); alert(div.attr('foo')); // gives "[object Object]" alert(typeof div.attr('foo')); // gives "string" alert(div.attr('foo').bar); // gives "undefined" Another way to do this would be by "bypassing" jQuery (div[0].foo = {bar: 'foobar'};), though this seems to be a "dirty workaround", if jQuery happens to already support attaching objects. Any ideas? Thanks in advance!

    Read the article

  • AS3: Performance question calling an event function with null param

    - by adehaas
    Lately I needed to call a listener function without an actual listener like so: foo(null); private function foo(event:Event):void { //do something } So I was wondering if there is a significant difference regarding performance between this and using the following, in which I can prevent the null in calling the function without the listener, but am still able to call it with a listener as well: foo(); private function foo(event:Event = null):void { } I am not sure wether it is just a question of style, or actually bad practice and I should write two similar functions, one with and one without the event param (which seems cumbersome to me). Looking forward to your opinions, thx.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71  | Next Page >