Search Results

Search found 13144 results on 526 pages for 'language recognition'.

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 119/526 | < Previous Page | 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126  | Next Page >

  • How to know if your Unit Test Fixture is “right-sized”?

    - by leeand00
    How do you know if you "Test Fixture" is right-sized. And by "Test Fixture" I mean a class with a bunch of tests in it. One thing that I've always noticed with my test fixtures is that they get to be kind of verbose; seeing as they could also be not verbose enough, how do you get a sense of when your unit tests are the right size? My assumption is that (at least in the context of web development) you should have one test fixture class per page. I know of a good quote for this and it's: "Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to remove." - Antoine de Saint-Exupery.

    Read the article

  • Why isn't the eigenclass equivalent to self.class, when it looks so similar?

    - by The Wicked Flea
    I've missed the memo somewhere, and I hope you'll explain this to me. Why is the eigenclass of an object different from self.class? class Foo def initialize(symbol) eigenclass = class << self self end eigenclass.class_eval do attr_accessor symbol end end end My train of logic that equates the eigenclass with class.self is rather simple: class << self is a way of declaring class methods, rather than instance methods. It's a shortcut to def Foo.bar. So within the reference to the class object, returning self should be identical to self.class. This is because class << self would set self to Foo.class for definition of class methods/attributes. Am I just confused? Or, is this a sneaky trick of Ruby meta-programming?

    Read the article

  • Can a variable like 'int' be considered a primitive/fundamental data structure?

    - by Ravi Gupta
    A rough definition of a data structure is that it allows you to store data and apply a set of operations on that data while preserving consistency of data before and after the operation. However some people insist that a primitive variable like 'int' can also be considered as a data structure. I get that part where it allows you to store data but I guess the operation part is missing. Primitive variables don't have operations attached to them. So I feel that unless you have a set of operations defined and attached to it you cannot call it a data structure. 'int' doesn't have any operation attached to it, it can be operated upon with a set of generic operators. Please advise if I got something wrong here.

    Read the article

  • How would you name...

    - by BeowulfOF
    Since naming is a so important thing in programming, I would like to start a thread for giving help to all those that have same problems as I sometimes. Rules: Set a post with the description of the form||control||class or whatever you need to find a good name for. Get name hints in the answers.

    Read the article

  • Add custom method to string object [closed]

    - by cru3l
    Possible Duplicate: Can I add custom methods/attributes to built-in Python types? In Ruby you can override any built-in object class with custom method, like this: class String def sayHello return self+" is saying hello!" end end puts 'JOHN'.downcase.sayHello # >>> 'john is saying hello!' How can i do that in python? Is there a normally way or just hacks?

    Read the article

  • Highly efficient filesystem APIs for certain kinds of operations

    - by romkyns
    I occasionally find myself needing certain filesystem APIs which could be implemented very efficiently if supported by the filesystem, but I've never heard of them. For example: Truncate file from the beginning, on an allocation unit boundary Split file into two on an allocation unit boundary Insert or remove a chunk from the middle of the file, again, on an allocation unit boundary The only way that I know of to do things like these is to rewrite the data into a new file. This has the benefit that the allocation unit is no longer relevant, but is extremely slow in comparison to some low-level filesystem magic. I understand that the alignment requirements mean that the methods aren't always applicable, but I think they can still be useful. For example, a file archiver may be able to trim down the archive very efficiently after the user deletes a file from the archive, even if that leaves a small amount of garbage either side for alignment reasons. Is it really the case that such APIs don't exist, or am I simply not aware of them? I am mostly interested in NTFS, but hearing about other filesystems will be interesting too.

    Read the article

  • How would you calculate all possible permutations of 0 through N iteratively?

    - by Bob Aman
    I need to calculate permutations iteratively. The method signature looks like: int[][] permute(int n) For n = 3 for example, the return value would be: [[0,1,2], [0,2,1], [1,0,2], [1,2,0], [2,0,1], [2,1,0]] How would you go about doing this iteratively in the most efficient way possible? I can do this recursively, but I'm interested in seeing lots of alternate ways to doing it iteratively.

    Read the article

  • Does Anyone Still Prefer N-Tier Architecture After Having *Shipped* an MVC Application?

    - by Jim G.
    Other SO threads have asked people if they prefer N-Tier or MVC architecture. I'm not looking to continue that debate on this thread. I'm looking for something more specific. My Question: Does Anyone Still Prefer N-Tier Architecture After Having Shipped an MVC Application? Reason for My Question: Before I shipped an MVC web application, I wasn't convinced that it was superior to N-Tier Architecture. Specifically, if better unit testing was the only obvious benefit of MVC, then I saw no reason to switch gears and adopt a new architecture. But after having shipped an MVC application, I can see many benefits (which have been enumerated on other threads).

    Read the article

  • In which situation is the c++/c# namespace approach better than the Java approach?

    - by mike g
    The reason I ask this is that c# could easily have copied the java convention, or a variation of it, but opted for the more flexible approach of explicitly declaring namespaces inside files. As a Java programmer often there are things that I wish I could do differently, but namespaces is not one of them. The flexbility has a certain overhead (extra braces, extra decisions for developers, making it harder to view a projects contributions to the namespace, at least without a specialist IDE). So what practical examples are there when this flexiblity is advantageous?

    Read the article

  • Extensions methods and forward compatibilty of source code.

    - by TcKs
    Hi, I would like solve the problem (now hypothetical but propably real in future) of using extension methods and maginification of class interface in future development. Example: /* the code written in 17. March 2010 */ public class MySpecialList : IList<MySpecialClass> { // ... implementation } // ... somewhere elsewhere ... MySpecialList list = GetMySpecialList(); // returns list of special classes var reversedList = list.Reverse().ToList(); // .Reverse() is extension method /* now the "list" is unchanged and "reveresedList" has same items in reversed order */ /* --- in future the interface of MySpecialList will be changed because of reason XYZ*/ /* the code written in some future */ public class MySpecialList : IList<MySpecialClass> { // ... implementation public MySpecialList Reverse() { // reverse order of items in this collection return this; } } // ... somewhere elsewhere ... MySpecialList list = GetMySpecialList(); // returns list of special classes var reversedList = list.Reverse().ToList(); // .Reverse() was extension method but now is instance method and do something else ! /* now the "list" is reversed order of items and "reveresedList" has same items lake in "list" */ My question is: Is there some way how to prevent this case (I didn't find them)? If is now way how to prevent it, is there some way how to find possible issues like this? If is now way how to find possible issues, should I forbid usage of extension methods? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • What is the smallest amount of bits you can write twin-prime calculation?

    - by HH
    A succinct example in Python, its source. Explanation about the syntactic sugar here. s=p=1;exec"if s%p*s%~-~p:print`p`+','+`p+2`\ns*=p*p;p+=2\n"*999 The smallest amount of bits is defined by the smallest amount of 4pcs of things you can see with hexdump, it is not that precise measure but well-enough until an ambiguity. $ echo 's=p=1;exec"if s%p*s%~-~p:print`p`+','+`p+2`\ns*=p*p;p+=2\n"*999' > .test $ hexdump .test | wc 5 36 200 $ hexdump .test 0000000 3d73 3d70 3b31 7865 6365 6922 2066 2573 0000010 2a70 2573 2d7e 707e 703a 6972 746e 7060 0000020 2b60 2b2c 7060 322b 5c60 736e 3d2a 2a70 0000030 3b70 2b70 323d 6e5c 2a22 3939 0a39 000003e so in this case it is 31 because the initial parts are removed.

    Read the article

  • Aliasing `T*` with `char*` is allowed. Is it also allowed the other way around?

    - by StackedCrooked
    Note: This question has been renamed and reduced to make it more focused and readable. Most of the comments refer to the old text. According to the standard objects of different type may not share the same memory location. So this would not be legal: int i = 0; short * s = reinterpret_cast<short*>(&i); // BAD! The standard however allows an exception to this rule: any object may be accessed through a pointer to char or unsigned char: int i = 0; char * c = reinterpret_cast<char*>(&i); // OK However, it is not clear to me if this is also allowed the other way around. For example: char * c = read_socket(...); unsigned * u = reinterpret_cast<unsigned*>(c); // huh? Summary of the answers The answer is NO for two reasons: You an only access an existing object as char*. There is no object in my sample code, only a byte buffer. The pointer address may not have the right alignment for the target object. In that case dereferencing it would result in undefined behavior. On the Intel and AMD platforms it will result performance overhead. On ARM it will trigger a CPU trap and your program will be terminated! This is a simplified explanation. For more detailed information see answers by @Luc Danton, @Cheers and hth. - Alf and @David Rodríguez.

    Read the article

  • Mandatory method documentation

    - by Sjoerd
    On my previous job, providing all methods with javadoc was mandatory, which resulted in things like this: /** * Sets the Frobber. * * @param frobber The frobber */ public setFrobber(Frobber frobber) { ... } As you can see, the documentation adds little to the code, but takes up space and work. Should documenting all methods be mandatory or optional? Is there a rule for which methods to document? What are pros and cons of requiring every method to be documented?

    Read the article

  • Application wide messaging... without singletons?

    - by StormianRootSolver
    So, I want to go for a more Singleton - less design in the future. However, there seem to be a lot of tasks in an application that can't be done in meaningful way without singletons. I call them "application wide services", but they also fall into the same category as the cross cutting concerns, which I usually fix via AOP. Lets take an example: I want an application wide message queue that dispatches messages to components, every component can subscribe and publish there, it's a very nice multicast thing. The message queue and dispatching system are usually a (rather short) singleton class, which is very easy to implement in, say, C#. You can even use double dispatching and utilize message type metadata and the like, it's all so easy to do, it's almost trivial. However, having singletons is not really "object oriented design" (it introduces global variables) and it makes testing harder. Do you have any ideas? I'm asking this question because I'm willing to learn more about this topic, a LOT more. :-)

    Read the article

  • What is the cost of memory access?

    - by Jurily
    We like to think that a memory access is fast and constant, but on modern architectures/OSes, that's not necessarily true. Consider the following C code: int i = 34; int *p = &i; // do something that may or may not involve i and p {...} // 3 days later: *p = 643; What is the estimated cost of this last assignment in CPU instructions, if i is in L1 cache, i is in L2 cache, i is in L3 cache, i is in RAM proper, i is paged out to an SSD disk, i is paged out to a traditional disk? Where else can i be? Of course the numbers are not absolute, but I'm only interested in orders of magnitude. I tried searching the webs, but Google did not bless me this time.

    Read the article

  • Interpreters: Handling includes/imports

    - by sub
    I've built an interpreter in C++ and everything works fine so far, but now I'm getting stuck with the design of the import/include/however you want to call it function. I thought about the following: Handling includes in the tokenizing process: When there is an include found in the code, the tokenizing function is recursively called with the filename specified. The tokenized code of the included file is then added to the prior position of the include. Disadvantages: No conditional includes(!) Handling includes during the interpreting process: I don't know how. All I know is that PHP must do it this way as conditional includes are possible. Now my questions: What should I do about includes? How do modern interpreters (Python/Ruby) handle this? Do they allow conditional includes?

    Read the article

  • Why is there "data" and "newtype" in Haskell?

    - by martingw
    To me it seems that a newtype definition is just a data definition that obeys some restrictions (only one constructor and such), and that due to these restrictions the runtime system can handle newtypes more efficiently. Ok, and the handling of pattern matching for undefined values is slightly different. But suppose Haskell would only knew data definitions, no newtypes: Couldn't the compiler find out for himself whether a given data definition obeys these restrictions, and automatically treat it more efficiently? I'm sure I'm missing out on something, these Haskell designers are so clever, there must be some deeper reason for this...

    Read the article

  • Inter-rater agreement (Fleiss' Kappa, Krippendorff's Alpha etc) Java API?

    - by adam
    I am working on building a Question Classification/Answering corpus as a part of my masters thesis. I'm looking at evaluating my expected answer type taxonomy with respect to inter-rater agreement/reliability, and I was wondering: Does anybody know of any decent (preferably free) Java API(s) that can do this? I'm reasonably certain all I need is Fleiss' Kappa and Krippendorff's Alpha at this point. Weka provides a kappa statistic in it's evaluation package, but I think it can only evaluate a classifier and I'm not at that stage yet (because I'm still building the data set and classes). Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Guidelines for solution source code organisation(OO/DDD)

    - by fearofawhackplanet
    I'm starting on my first business project (.NET) and am trying to follow DDD principles. Are there any guidelines or common patterns for orgaining source code and namespaces? For example, do your domain objects go in a namespace MyProject.Domain or whatever? Would you separate the concrete implementations and the interfaces? In different namespaces? Different folders? Different solutions? I know a lot of this is subjective and dependent on project size, but a few pointers or suggestions to get started on a relatively small but extensible n-tier project would be useful.

    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 | 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126  | Next Page >