Search Results

Search found 16061 results on 643 pages for 'array indexing'.

Page 7/643 | < Previous Page | 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14  | Next Page >

  • Casting Type array to Generic array?

    - by George R
    The short version of the question - why can't I do this? I'm restricted to .NET 3.5. T[] genericArray; // Obviously T should be float! genericArray = new T[3]{ 1.0f, 2.0f, 0.0f }; // Can't do this either, why the hell not genericArray = new float[3]{ 1.0f, 2.0f, 0.0f }; Longer version - I'm working with the Unity engine here, although that's not important. What is - I'm trying to throw conversion between its fixed Vector2 (2 floats) and Vector3 (3 floats) and my generic Vector< class. I can't cast types directly to a generic array. using UnityEngine; public struct Vector { private readonly T[] _axes; #region Constructors public Vector(int axisCount) { this._axes = new T[axisCount]; } public Vector(T x, T y) { this._axes = new T[2] { x, y }; } public Vector(T x, T y, T z) { this._axes = new T[3]{x, y, z}; } public Vector(Vector2 vector2) { // This doesn't work this._axes = new T[2] { vector2.x, vector2.y }; } public Vector(Vector3 vector3) { // Nor does this this._axes = new T[3] { vector3.x, vector3.y, vector3.z }; } #endregion #region Properties public T this[int i] { get { return _axes[i]; } set { _axes[i] = value; } } public T X { get { return _axes[0];} set { _axes[0] = value; } } public T Y { get { return _axes[1]; } set { _axes[1] = value; } } public T Z { get { return this._axes.Length (Vector2 vector2) { Vector vector = new Vector(vector2); return vector; } public static explicit operator Vector(Vector3 vector3) { Vector vector = new Vector(vector3); return vector; } #endregion }

    Read the article

  • Understanding c-pointers for rows in 2-dimensional array

    - by utdiscant
    I have the following code: int main() { int n = 3, m = 4, a[n][m], i, j, (* p)[m] = a; for (i = 0; i < n; i++) for (j = 0; j < m; j++) a[i][j] = 1; p++; (*p)[2] = 9; return 0; } I have a hard time understanding what p is here, and the consequences of the operations on p in the end. Can someone give me a brief explanation of what happens. I know c-pointers in their simple settings, but here it get slightly more complicated.

    Read the article

  • Indexing XMLType columns

    - by Chris
    Hello, I am working with a XMLType and currently experiencing significant performance issues and would like to incorporate indexing to the column type. Currently I am taking the approach of using the XMLTable() and XQuery functions to create a virtual table. I would like to use this Virtual Table to create a function based index on the table containing the XMLType, but I am receiving this error: Error report: SQL Error: ORA-00907: missing right parenthesis 00907. 00000 - "missing right parenthesis" *Cause: *Action: This is the index.. any assistance would be greatly appreciated. CREATE INDEX indx_medicinalproduct ON d.ProductName XMLTable('for $i at $a in /safetyreport/patient//drug for $j in $i/medicinalproduct return element r { $i/medicinalproduct }' PASSING s.safetyreport COLUMNS ProductName varchar2(70) PATH 'medicinalproduct') d;

    Read the article

  • Blogger still visible after moving to WP; Google Indexing issues after moving from Blogger to WP

    - by Erin
    I recently migrated from Blogger to Wordpress and am having two major transition issues that are really hurting. Despite literally hours of searching and experimenting, I cannot resolve the following: ISSUE ONE: I fixed all of my old blogger links to 301 redirect successfully to my WP links (the 2 structures are different and I realized too late), but my old blogger blog is still sometimes visible! (the 2 designs are completely different) I had 31 hits on my blogger site just yesterday. I have updated my privacy settings to hide my blogger blog from search engines and not be visible on blogger. I also removed my custom domain from blogger already as well. HELP! Not sure how to stop this. ISSUE two: Despite submitting a new site map and reindexing my pages for my WP blog, I am not visible in search engines, although I was very visible previously. In fact, some of my OLD links are showing up. Am I being penalized?? Any thoughts on how to fix. THANK YOU! Erin my site: www.thelawstudentswife.com

    Read the article

  • Google is still crawling and indexing my old, dummy, test pages which now are 404 not found

    - by Ace
    I have set up my site with sample pages and data (lorem ipsum, etc..) and Google has crawled these pages. I deleted all these pages and actually added real content but in webmaster tools, i still get a lot of 404 errors Google trying to crawl these pages. I have set them to "mark as resolved" but some pages still come back as 404. Furthermore, I have a lot of these sample pages still listed when i do a search of my site on Google. How to remove them. I think these irrelevant pages are hurting my rating. I actually wanted to erase all these pages and start getting my site being being indexed as a new one but I read it's not possible? (I have submitted a sitemap and used "Fetch as Google.")

    Read the article

  • How to prevent a search engines from indexing a section of a page?

    - by BrunoLM
    I have many pages with lots of text in it. But I will always have two sections of text and I want to prevent one section from appearing in search results, the other section must be indexed. <p class="please-index-me">text</p> <p class="get-out">never index me please</p> I thought that maybe if I load the "please don't index me text" with Javascript maybe search engines wouldn't look for it. But I am not sure it would work and this is not really nice. I was wondering if there is a way to tell search engines "hey, this text you can't grab, move on". So, is there a way to do it?

    Read the article

  • Is Google indexing pages that has no connection with other pages? [duplicate]

    - by Grkmksk
    This question already has an answer here: How did Google find my unlinked newly created pages? 3 answers I am working on a web project that has nearly 100 thousand instant users and there is a webpage that we are using for test cases. There are no links pointing to it from other pages. It shouldn't be indexed by Google or any other search engines. "noindex" can be used in this situation, I know but I wonder if Google (or any others) indexes this page, if I don't do anything to prevent it.

    Read the article

  • Changing the indexing on existing table in SQL Server 2000

    - by Raj
    Guys, Here is the scenario: SQL Server 2000 (8.0.2055) Table currently has 478 million rows of data. The Primary Key column is an INT with IDENTITY. There is an Unique Constraint imposed on two other columns with a Non-Clustered Index. This is a vendor application and we are only responsible for maintaining the DB. Now the vendor has recommended doing the following "to improve performance" Drop the PK and Clustered Index Drop the non-clustered index on the two columns with the UNIQUE CONSTRAINT Recreate the PK, with a NON-CLUSTERED index Create a CLUSTERED index on the two columns with the UNIQUE CONSTRAINT I am not convinced that this is the right thing to do. I have a number of concerns. By dropping the PK and indexes, you will be creating a heap with 478 million rows of data. Then creating a CLUSTERED INDEX on two columns would be a really mammoth task. Would creating another table with the same structure and new indexing scheme and then copying the data over, dropping the old table and renaming the new one be a better approach? I am also not sure how the stored procs will react. Will they continue using the cached execution plan, considering that they are not being explicitly recompiled. I am simply not able to understand what kind of "performance improvement" this change will provide. I think that this will actually have the reverse effect. All thoughts welcome. Thanks in advance, Raj

    Read the article

  • W7-pro indexing mydoc on disk partition does not work

    - by Yvan Thery
    I am working on a HP-7100 mini tower running W7 Pro 64bits. My Local HD includes C:/ + 2 disk partitions : all my documents are located on disk partition L:/ and all my media files are on disk partition M:/ The indexing process works well on C:/ and M:/ but does not index the L:/ any more also all of them are allowed to be indexed, also the system is present on all drive security tabs. I have tested to rebuilt the indexing file with a new setting including few directories present on drive C/M/L but still with L: does not work ! One more thing I can tell you is that even after rebuilding the indexing file, I can find some residual directories or files which are out of the test selection. It is like unerased components remaining in the indexing database. As I do not know precisely how the indexing process works it is hard to know what to do ... Recently I had a bad time after using a past restoration procedure ... maybe it did corrupt the indexing file ???? If I start indexing the all L:/ disk partition the system stop at 39 found index also many more are existing .... Does any one from you guys could advise the process to create a new indexing database ... ? Any idea to get out of this mess ? Many thanks for assistance Yvan

    Read the article

  • How to define a static array without a contant size in a constructor of a class? (C++)

    - by Keand64
    I have a class defined as: class Obj { public: int width, height; Obj(int w, int h); } and I need it to contain a static array like so: int presc[width][height]; however, I cannot define within the class, so it it possible to create a pointer to a 2D array (and, out of curiosity, 3, 4, and 5D arrays), have that as a member of the class, and intitalize it in the constructor like: int ar[5][6]; Obj o(5, 6, &ar); If that isn't possible, is there any way to get a static array without a contant size in a class, or am I going to have to use a dynamic array? (Something I don't want to do because I don't plan on ever changing the size of the array after it's created.)

    Read the article

  • How to remove duplicates from multidimensional array in php

    - by JackTurky
    i have an array like: Array ( [prom] => Array ( [cab] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [code] => 01 [price1] => 1000 [price2] => 2000 [available] => 2 [max] => 2 [gca] => 2 ) [1] => Array ( [code] => 04 [price1] => 870 [price2] => 2500 [available] => 3 [max] => 4 [gca] => 10 ) [2] => Array ( [code] => 01 [price1] => 1000 [price2] => 2000 [available] => 2 [max] => 2 [gca] => 2 ) [3] => Array ( [code] => 05 [price1] => 346 [price2] => 1022 [available] => 10 [max] => 2 [gca] => 20 ) ) [cab1] => Array........ ) [prom1] = Array.... ) What i have to do is to remove duplicates inside every [cab*] array.. so to have something like: Array ( [prom] => Array ( [cab] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [code] => 01 [price1] => 1000 [price2] => 2000 [available] => 2 [max] => 2 [gca] => 2 ) [1] => Array ( [code] => 04 [price1] => 870 [price2] => 2500 [available] => 3 [max] => 4 [gca] => 10 ) [2] => Array ( [code] => 05 [price1] => 346 [price2] => 1022 [available] => 10 [max] => 2 [gca] => 20 ) ) [cab1] => Array........ ) [prom1] = Array.... ) In know that there is array_unique combined with array_map to remove duplicates.. but i know that it works only on 2D array.. what can i do? can someone help me pls? thanks!!!

    Read the article

  • Sum Values in Multidimensional Array

    - by lemonpole
    Hello all. I'm experimenting with arrays in PHP and I am setting up a fake environment where a "team's" record is held in arrays. $t1 = array ( "basicInfo" => array ( "The Sineps", "December 25, 2010", "lemonpole" ), "overallRecord" => array ( 0, 0, 0, 0 ), "overallSeasons" => array ( "season1.cs" => array (0, 0, 0), "season2.cs" => array (0, 0, 0) ), "matches" => array ( "season1.cs" => array ( "week1" => array ("12", "3", "1"), "week2" => array ("8", "8" ,"0"), "week3" => array ("8", "8" ,"0") ), "season2.cs" => array ( "week1" => array ("9", "2", "5"), "week2" => array ("12", "2" ,"2") ) ) ); What I am trying to achieve is to add all the wins, loss, and draws, from each season's week to their respective week. So for example, the sum of all the weeks in $t1["matches"]["season1.cs"] will be added to $t1["overallSeasons"]["season1.cs"]. The result would leave: "overallSeasons" => array ( "season1.cs" => array (28, 19, 1), "season2.cs" => array (21, 4, 7) ), I tried to work this out on my own for the past hour and all I have gotten is a little more knowledge of for-loops and foreach-loops :o... so I think I now have the basics down such as using foreach loops and so on; however, I am still fairly new to this so bear with me! I can get the loop to point to $t1["matches"] key and go through each season but I can't seem to figure out how to add all of the wins, loss, and draw, for each individual week. For now, I'm only looking for answers concerning the overall seasons sum since I can work from there once I figure out how to achieve this. Any help will be much appreciated but please, try and keep it simple for me... or comment the code accordingly please! Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Indexing on only part of a field in MongoDB

    - by Rob Hoare
    Is there a way to create an index on only part of a field in MongoDB, for example on the first 10 characters? I couldn't find it documented (or asked about on here). The MySQL equivalent would be CREATE INDEX part_of_name ON customer (name(10));. Reason: I have a collection with a single field that varies in length from a few characters up to over 1000 characters, average 50 characters. As there are a hundred million or so documents it's going to be hard to fit the full index in memory (testing with 8% of the data the index is already 400MB, according to stats). Indexing just the first part of the field would reduce the index size by about 75%. In most cases the search term is quite short, it's not a full-text search. A work-around would be to add a second field of 10 (lowercased) characters for each item, index that, then add logic to filter the results if the search term is over ten characters (and that extra field is probably needed anyway for case-insensitive searches, unless anybody has a better way). Seems like an ugly way to do it though. [added later] I tried adding the second field, containing the first 12 characters from the main field, lowercased. It wasn't a big success. Previously, the average object size was 50 bytes, but I forgot that includes the _id and other overheads, so my main field length (there was only one) averaged nearer to 30 bytes than 50. Then, the second field index contains the _id and other overheads. Net result (for my 8% sample) is the index on the main field is 415MB and on the 12 byte field is 330MB - only a 20% saving in space, not worthwhile. I could duplicate the entire field (to work around the case insensitive search problem) but realistically it looks like I should reconsider whether MongoDB is the right tool for the job (or just buy more memory and use twice as much disk space). [added even later] This is a typical document, with the source field, and the short lowercased field: { "_id" : ObjectId("505d0e89f56588f20f000041"), "q" : "Continental Airlines", "f" : "continental " } Indexes: db.test.ensureIndex({q:1}); db.test.ensureIndex({f:1}); The 'f" index, working on a shorter field, is 80% of the size of the "q" index. I didn't mean to imply I included the _id in the index, just that it needs to use that somewhere to show where the index will point to, so it's an overhead that probably helps explain why a shorter key makes so little difference. Access to the index will be essentially random, no part of it is more likely to be accessed than any other. Total index size for the full file will likely be 5GB, so it's not extreme for that one index. Adding some other fields for other search cases, and their associated indexes, and copies of data for lower case, does start to add up, which I why I started looking into a more concise index.

    Read the article

  • Specific complex array sorting

    - by TheDeadMedic
    Okay, a before; Array ( 'home' => array('order' => 1), 'about' => array(), 'folio' => array('order' => 2), 'folio/web' => array('order' => 2), 'folio/print' => array('order' => 1) 'contact' => array('order' => 2) ) And a desired after; Array ( 'home' => array('order' => 1), 'contact' => array('order' => 2), 'folio' => array('order' => 2), 'folio/print' => array('order' => 1), 'folio/web' => array('order' => 2), 'about' => array() ) I know, horrific (don't ask!) See how the slash in the key indicates children, and how the order is nested accordingly? And items without orders are simply shifted to the bottom. But also how multiple 'same level' items with the same order are merely sorted by key?

    Read the article

  • PHP: Recursive array function

    - by Industrial
    Hi everybody, I want to create a function that returns the full path from a set node, back to the root value. I tried to make a recursive function, but ran out of luck totally. What would be an appropriate way to do this? I assume that a recursive function is the only way? Here's the array: Array ( [0] => Array ( [id] => 1 [name] => Root category [_parent] => ) [1] => Array ( [id] => 2 [name] => Category 2 [_parent] => 1 ) [2] => Array ( [id] => 3 [name] => Category 3 [_parent] => 1 ) [3] => Array ( [id] => 4 [name] => Category 4 [_parent] => 3 ) ) The result I want my function to output when getting full path of node id#4: Array ( [0] => Array ( [id] => 1 [name] => Root category [_parent] => ) [1] => Array ( [id] => 3 [name] => Category 3 [_parent] => 1 ) [2] => Array ( [id] => 4 [name] => Category 4 [_parent] => 3 ) ) The notoriously bad example of my recursive skills: function recursive ($id, $array) { $innerarray = array(); foreach ($array as $k => $v) { if ($v['id'] === $id) { if ($v['_parent'] !== '') { $innerarray[] = $v; recursive($v['id'], $array); } } } return $innerarray; } Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Convert PostgreSQL array to PHP array

    - by EarthMind
    I have trouble reading Postgresql arrays in PHP. I have tried explode(), but this breaks arrays containing commas in strings, and str_getcsv() but it's also no good as PostgreSQL doesn't quote the Japanese strings. Not working: explode(',', trim($pgArray, '{}')); str_getcsv( trim($pgArray, '{}') );

    Read the article

  • Convert between python array and .NET Array

    - by dungema
    I have a python method that returns a Python byte array.array('c'). Now, I want to copy this array using System.Runtime.InteropServices.Marshal.Copy. This method however expects a .NET array. import array from System.Runtime.InteropServices import Marshal bytes = array.array('c') bytes.append('a') bytes.append('b') bytes.append('c') Marshal.Copy(bytes, dest, 0, 3) Is there a way to make this work without copying the data? If not, how do I convert the data in the Python array to the .NET array?

    Read the article

  • Formatting associative array declaration

    - by Drew Stephens
    When declaring an associative array, how do you handle the indentation of the elements of the array? I've seen a number of different styles (PHP syntax, since that's what I've been in lately). This is a pretty picky and trivial thing, so move along if you're interested in more serious pursuits. 1) Indent elements one more level: $array = array( 'Foo' => 'Bar', 'Baz' => 'Qux' ); 2) Indent elements two levels: $array = array( 'Foo' => 'Bar', 'Baz' => 'Qux' ); 3) Indent elements beyond the array constructor, with closing brace aligned with the start of the constructor: $array = array( 'Foo' => 'Bar', 'Baz' => 'Qux' ); 4) Indent elements beyond the array construct, with closing brace aligned with opening brace: $array = array( 'Foo' => 'Bar', 'Baz' => 'Qux' ); Personally, I like #3—the broad indentation makes it clear that we're at a break point in the code (constructing the array), and having the closing brace floating a bit to the left of all of the array's data makes it clear that this declaration is done.

    Read the article

  • Javascript array length incorrect on array of objects

    - by Serenti
    Could someone explain this (strange) behavior? Why is the length in the first example 3 and not 2, and most importantly, why is the length in the second example 0? As long as the keys are numerical, length works. When they are not, length is 0. How can I get the correct length from the second example? Thank you. a = []; a["1"] = {"string1":"string","string2":"string"}; a["2"] = {"string1":"string","string2":"string"}; alert(a.length); // returns 3 b = []; b["key1"] = {"string1":"string","string2":"string"}; b["key2"] = {"string1":"string","string2":"string"}; alert(b.length); // returns 0

    Read the article

  • Sort array by keys of another array.

    - by marbrun
    Hello There are 2 arrays, both with the same length and with the same keys: $a1 = [1=>2000,65=>1354,103=>1787]; $a2 = [1=>'hello',65=>'hi',103=>'goodevening']; asort($a1); The keys of a1 and a2 are id's from a database. a1 gets sorted by value. Once sorted, how can we use the same sorting order in a2? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Echo a multidimensional array in PHP

    - by Jennifer
    I have a multidimensional array and I'm trying to find out how to simply "echo" the elements of the array. The depth of the array is not known, so it could be deeply nested. In the case of the array below, the right order to echo would be: This is a parent comment This is a child comment This is the 2nd child comment This is another parent comment This is the array I was talking about: Array ( [0] => Array ( [comment_id] => 1 [comment_content] => This is a parent comment [child] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [comment_id] => 3 [comment_content] => This is a child comment [child] => Array ( [0] => Array ( [comment_id] => 4 [comment_content] => This is the 2nd child comment [child] => Array ( ) ) ) ) ) ) [1] => Array ( [comment_id] => 2 [comment_content] => This is another parent comment [child] => Array ( ) ) )

    Read the article

  • get the array with html array path

    - by antpaw
    hey, i have this path name from an input element interesse[angebote][flurfuerderfahrzeuge] as a string in my php var. now i need convert it somehow (with regex or explode()) so it looks like this: $_POST['interesse']['angebote']['flurfuerderfahrzeuge'] and the use eval() to get the value. But I'm sure there must be a much easier way do this. Any ideas? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • This for array colllision function doesn't work with anything but first object in array

    - by Zee Bashew
    For some reason, this simple simple loop is totally broken. (characterSheet is my character Class, it's just a movieClip with some extra functionality) (hitBox, is basically a square movieclip) Anyway: every time hitBox make contact with a characterSheet in a different order than they were created: Nothing happens. The program only seems to be listening to collisions that are made with o2[0]. As soon as another hitBox is created, it pushes the last one out of o2[0] and the last one becomes totally useless. What's super weird is that I can hit characterSheets in any order I like.... public function collisions(o1:Array, o2:Array) { if((o1.lenght>=0)&&(o2.length>=0)){ for (var i = 0; i < o1.length; i++) { var ob1 = o1[i]; for (var f = 0; f < o1.length; f++) { var ob2 = o2[f]; if (ob1 is characterSheet) { if (ob2.hitTestObject(ob1)) { var right:Boolean = true; if (ob1.x < hitBox(ob2).origin.x) right = false; characterSheet(ob1).specialDamage(hitBox(ob2).damageType, hitBox(ob2).damage, right); }}}}}} Also it might be somewhat helpful to see the function for creating a new hitBox public function SpawnHitBox(targeted, following, atype, xoff, yoff, ... args) { var newHitBox = new hitBox(targeted, following, atype, xoff, yoff, args); badCollisionObjects.push(newHitBox); arraydictionary[newHitBox] = badCollisionObjects; addChild(newHitBox); }

    Read the article

  • Find key of parent in array / PHP

    - by 106691756905536410593
    Perhaps someone can help me out with this one: I'm using a basic search function to find an array deep within an array. The problem is, once that array is found, I'd also like to return it's parent key. Is there a PHP function that can determine the parent key of an array? Below is an example of the Search Function... Ideally I'd like to return the array that is found, as well as it's parent key. function search($array, $key, $value){ $results = array(); if (is_array($array)){ if ($array[$key] == $value){ $results[] = $array; } foreach ($array as $subarray){ $results = array_merge($results, search($subarray, $key, $value)); } } return $results; }

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14  | Next Page >