Search Results

Search found 6796 results on 272 pages for 'django templates'.

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 138/272 | < Previous Page | 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145  | Next Page >

  • Why is a Silverlight application created from an exported template show a blank screen in the browse

    - by Edward Tanguay
    I created a silverlight app (without website) named TestApp, with one TextBox: <UserControl x:Class="TestApp.MainPage" xmlns="http://schemas.microsoft.com/winfx/2006/xaml/presentation" xmlns:x="http://schemas.microsoft.com/winfx/2006/xaml" xmlns:d="http://schemas.microsoft.com/expression/blend/2008" xmlns:mc="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/markup-compatibility/2006" mc:Ignorable="d" d:DesignWidth="640" d:DesignHeight="480"> <Grid x:Name="LayoutRoot"> <TextBlock Text="this is a test"/> </Grid> </UserControl> I press F5 and see "this is a test" in my browser (firefox). I select File | Export Template | name it TestAppTemplate and save it. I create a new silverlight app based on the above template. The MainPage.xaml has the exact same XAML as above. I press F5 and see a blank screen in my browser. I look at the HTML source of both of these and they are identical. Everything I have compared in both projects is identical. What do I have to do so that a Silverlight application which is created from my exported template does not show a blank screen?

    Read the article

  • How do you return a pointer to a base class with a virtual function?

    - by Nick Sweet
    I have a base class called Element, a derived class called Vector, and I'm trying to redefine two virtual functions from Element in Vector. //element.h template <class T> class Element { public: Element(); virtual Element& plus(const Element&); virtual Element& minus(const Element&); }; and in another file //Vector.h #include "Element.h" template <class T> class Vector: public Element<T> { T x, y, z; public: //constructors Vector(); Vector(const T& x, const T& y = 0, const T& z =0); Vector(const Vector& u); ... //operations Element<T>& plus(const Element<T>& v) const; Element<T>& minus(const Element<T>& v) const; ... }; //sum template <class T> Element<T>& Vector<T>::plus(const Element<T>& v) const { Element<T>* ret = new Vector((x + v.x), (y + v.y), (z + v.z)); return *ret; } //difference template <class T> Element<T>& Vector<T>::minus(const Element<T>& v) const { Vector<T>* ret = new Vector((x - v.x), (y - v.y), (z - v.z)); return *ret; } but I always get error: 'const class Element' has no member named 'getx' So, can I define my virtual functions to take Vector& as an argument instead, or is there a way for me to access the data members of Vector through a pointer to Element? I'm still fairly new to inheritance polymorphism, fyi.

    Read the article

  • Cannot overload function

    - by anio
    So I've got a templatized class and I want to overload the behavior of a function when I have specific type, say char. For all other types, let them do their own thing. However, c++ won't let me overload the function. Why can't I overload this function? I really really do not want to do template specialization, because then I've got duplicate the entire class. Here is a toy example demonstrating the problem: http://codepad.org/eTgLG932 The same code posted here for your reading pleasure: #include <iostream> #include <cstdlib> #include <string> struct Bar { std::string blah() { return "blah"; } }; template <typename T> struct Foo { public: std::string doX() { return m_getY(my_t); } private: std::string m_getY(char* p_msg) { return std::string(p_msg); } std::string m_getY(T* p_msg) { return p_msg->blah(); } T my_t; }; int main(int, char**) { Foo<char> x; Foo<Bar> y; std::cout << "x " << x.doX() << std::endl; return EXIT_SUCCESS; } Thank you everyone for your suggestions. Two valid solutions have been presented. I can either specialize the doX method, or specialize m_getY() method. At the end of the day I prefer to keep my specializations private rather than public so I'm accepting Krill's answer.

    Read the article

  • clang does not compile but g++ does

    - by user1095108
    Can someone help me with this code: #include <type_traits> #include <vector> struct nonsense { }; template <struct nonsense const* ptr, typename R> typename std::enable_if<!std::is_void<R>::value, int>::type fo(void* const) { return 0; } template <struct nonsense const* ptr, typename R> typename std::enable_if<std::is_void<R>::value, int>::type fo(void* const) { return 1; } typedef int (*func_type)(void*); template <std::size_t O> void run_me() { static struct nonsense data; typedef std::pair<char const* const, func_type> pair_type; std::vector<pair_type> v; v.push_back(pair_type{ "a", fo<&data, int> }); v.push_back(pair_type{ "b", fo<&data, void> }); } int main(int, char*[]) { run_me<2>(); return 0; } clang-3.3 does not compile this code, but g++-4.8.1 does, which of the two compiler is right? Is something wrong with the code, as I suspect? The error reads: a.cpp:32:15: error: no matching constructor for initialization of 'pair_type' (aka 'pair<const char *const, func_type>') v.push_back(pair_type{ "a", fo<&data, int> }); ^ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ a.cpp:33:15: error: no matching constructor for initialization of 'pair_type' (aka 'pair<const char *const, func_type>') v.push_back(pair_type{ "b", fo<&data, void> }); ^ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Read the article

  • Class template specializations with shared functionality

    - by Thomas
    I'm writing a simple maths library with a template vector type: template<typename T, size_t N> class Vector { public: Vector<T, N> &operator+=(Vector<T, N> const &other); // ... more operators, functions ... }; Now I want some additional functionality specifically for some of these. Let's say I want functions x() and y() on Vector<T, 2> to access particular coordinates. I could create a partial specialization for this: template<typename T> class Vector<T, 3> { public: Vector<T, 3> &operator+=(Vector<T, 3> const &other); // ... and again all the operators and functions ... T x() const; T y() const; }; But now I'm repeating everything that already existed in the generic template. I could also use inheritance. Renaming the generic template to VectorBase, I could do this: template<typename T, size_t N> class Vector : public VectorBase<T, N> { }; template<typename T> class Vector<T, 3> : public VectorBase<T, 3> { public: T x() const; T y() const; }; However, now the problem is that all operators are defined on VectorBase, so they return VectorBase instances. These cannot be assigned to Vector variables: Vector<float, 3> v; Vector<float, 3> w; w = 5 * v; // error: no conversion from VectorBase<float, 3> to Vector<float, 3> I could give Vector an implicit conversion constructor to make this possible: template<typename T, size_t N> class Vector : public VectorBase<T, N> { public: Vector(VectorBase<T, N> const &other); }; However, now I'm converting from Vector to VectorBase and back again. Even though the types are the same in memory, and the compiler might optimize all this away, it feels clunky and I don't really like to have potential run-time overhead for what is essentially a compile-time problem. Is there any other way to solve this?

    Read the article

  • velocity: join optional fields with a separator/prefix

    - by SlowStrider
    What would be the most concise/readable way in a velocity template to join multiple fields with a separator while leaving out empty or null Strings without adding excess separators? As an example we have a tooltip or appointments that goes like: Appointment ($number) [with $employee] [-] [$remarks] [-] [$roomToVisit] Where I used brackets to indicate optional data. When filled in it would normally show as Appointment (3) with John - ballroom - serve Java coffee When $remarks is empty but $roomToVisit is not, this becomes: Appointment (3) with John - ballroom When $remarks is "serve Java coffee" but $roomToVisit is empty we get: Appointment (3) with John - serve Java coffee When both are empty: Appointment (3) with John Bonus: also make the field prefix optional. When only $employee is empty we should get: Appointment (2) serve Java coffee - ballroom Ideally I would like the velocity template to look very similar to the first code box. If this is not possible, how would you achieve this with a minimum of distracting code tags? Similar ideas (first is much more verbose): Join with intelligent separators velocity: do something except in last loop iteration

    Read the article

  • New to php and need to format a php page from html statement

    - by Peter D
    My problem is the page shows a vertical line of options. I want to put them into a 4 column table to display instead of just down lhs of page. The code I want to change is as follows: </tr> <tr> <td>{LOOP: JOBTYPE} IF("{JOBTYPE.parent_id}"!="0"){&nbsp; {:IF} IF("{JOBTYPE.catcount}"=="0"){<input type="checkbox" name="jobtype[{JOBTYPE.id}]" value="{JOBTYPE.id}" {JOBTYPE.selected}>{JOBTYPE.title}<br>{:IF} IF("{JOBTYPE.catcount}"!="0"){<strong>{JOBTYPE.title}</strong><br>{:IF} {/LOOP: JOBTYPE}</td> </tr> <tr> <td>&nbsp;</td> </tr> As you can see I have another column there and can split cell further but i would like the job list to be displayed accross the page not vertically. Thank you in advance, Peter

    Read the article

  • Link error for user defined class type template parameter

    - by isurulucky
    Hi, I implemented a Simple STL map in C++. Factored out the comparison as a type as I was instructed to, then implemented the comparison as shown below: template <typename T> int KeyCompare<T>::operator () (T tKey1, T tKey2) { if(tKey1 < tKey2) return -1; else if(tKey1 > tKey2) return 1; else return 0; } here, tKey1 and tKet2 are the two keys I'm comparing. This worked well for all the basic data types and string. I added a template specialization to compare keys of a user defined type named Test and added a specialization as follows: int KeyCompare<Test>::operator () (Test tKey1, Test tKey2) { if(tKey1.a < tKey2.a) return -1; else if(tKey1.a > tKey2.a) return 1; else return 0; } when I run this, I get a linking error saying SimpleMap.obj : error LNK2005: "public: int __thiscall KeyCompare::operator()(class Test,class Test)" (??R?$KeyCompare@VTest@@@@QAEHVTest@@0@Z) already defined in MapTest.obj SimpleMap.obj : error LNK2005: "public: __thiscall KeyCompare::~KeyCompare(void)" (??1?$KeyCompare@VTest@@@@QAE@XZ) already defined in MapTest.obj SimpleMap.obj : error LNK2005: "public: __thiscall KeyCompare::KeyCompare(void)" (??0?$KeyCompare@VTester@@@@QAE@XZ) already defined in MapTest.obj MapTest.cpp is the test harness class in which I wrote the test case. I have used include guards as well, to stop multiple inclusions. Any idea what the matter is?? Thank you very much!!

    Read the article

  • C# generics when T could be an array

    - by bufferz
    I am writing a C# wrapper for a 3rd party library that reads both single values and arrays from a hardware device, but always returns an object[] array even for one value. This requires repeated calls to object[0] when I'd like the end user to be able to use generics to receive either an array or single value. I want to use generics so the callee can use the wrapper in the following ways: MyWrapper<float> mw = new MyWrapper<float>( ... ); float value = mw.Value; //should return float; MyWrapper<float[]> mw = new MyWrapper<float[]>( ... ); float[] values = mw.Value; //should return float[]; In MyWrapper I have the Value property currently as the following: public T Value { get { if(_wrappedObject.Values.Length > 1) return (T)_wrappedObject.Value; //T could be float[]. this doesn't compile. else return (T)_wrappedObject.Values[0]; //T could be float. this compiles. } } I get a compile error in the first case: Cannot convert type 'object[]' to 'T' If I change MyWrapper.Value to T[] I receive: Cannot convert type 'object[]' to 'T[]' Any ideas of how to achieve my goal? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Partial template specialization for more than one typename

    - by Matt Joiner
    In the following code, I want to consider functions (Ops) that have void return to instead be considered to return true. The type Retval, and the return value of Op are always matching. I'm not able to discriminate using the type traits shown here, and attempts to create a partial template specialization based on Retval have failed due the presence of the other template variables, Op and Args. How do I specialize only some variables in a template specialization without getting errors? Is there any other way to alter behaviour based on the return type of Op? template <typename Retval, typename Op, typename... Args> Retval single_op_wrapper( Retval const failval, char const *const opname, Op const op, Cpfs &cpfs, Args... args) { try { CallContext callctx(cpfs, opname); Retval retval; if (std::is_same<bool, Retval>::value) { (callctx.*op)(args...); retval = true; } else { retval = (callctx.*op)(args...); } assert(retval != failval); callctx.commit(cpfs); return retval; } catch (CpfsError const &exc) { cpfs_errno_set(exc.fserrno); LOGF(Info, "Failed with %s", cpfs_errno_str(exc.fserrno)); } return failval; }

    Read the article

  • C++ STL type_traits question.

    - by Kim Sun-wu
    I was watching the latest C9 lecture and noticed something interesting.. In his introduction to type_traits, Stephan uses the following (as he says, contrived) example: template <typename T> void foo(T t, true_type) { std::cout << t << " is integral"; } template <typename T> void foo(T t, false_type) { std::cout << t << " is not integral"; } template <typename T> void bar(T t) { foo(t, typename is_integral<T>::type()); } This seems to be far more complicated than: template <typename T> void foo(T t) { if(std::is_integral<T>::value) std::cout << "integral"; else std::cout << "not integral"; } Is there something wrong with the latter way of doing it? Is his way better? Why? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Where are the function literals in c++?

    - by academicRobot
    First of all, maybe literals is not the right term for this concept, but its the closest I could think of (not literals in the sense of functions as first class citizens). The idea is that when you make a conventional function call, it compiles to something like this: callq <immediate address> But if you make a function call using a function pointer, it compiles to something like this: mov <memory location>,%rax callq *%rax Which is all well and good. However, what if I'm writing a template library that requires a callback of some sort with a specified argument list and the user of the library is expected to know what function they want to call at compile time? Then I would like to write my template to accept a function literal as a template parameter. So, similar to template <int int_literal> struct my_template {...};` I'd like to write template <func_literal_t func_literal> struct my_template {...}; and have calls to func_literal within my_template compile to callq <immediate address>. Is there a facility in C++ for this, or a work around to achieve the same effect? If not, why not (e.g. some cataclysmic side effects)? How about C++0x or another language? Solutions that are not portable are fine. Solutions that include the use of member function pointers would be ideal. I'm not particularly interested in being told "You are a <socially unacceptable term for a person of low IQ>, just use function pointers/functors." This is a curiosity based question, and it seems that it might be useful in some (albeit limited) applications. It seems like this should be possible since function names are just placeholders for a (relative) memory address, so why not allow more liberal use (e.g. aliasing) of this placeholder. p.s. I use function pointers and functions objects all the the time and they are great. But this post got me thinking about the don't pay for what you don't use principle in relation to function calls, and it seems like forcing the use of function pointers or similar facility when the function is known at compile time is a violation of this principle, though a small one.

    Read the article

  • "Ambiguous template specialization" problem

    - by Setien
    I'm currently porting a heap of code that has previously only been compiled with Visual Studio 2008. In this code, there's an arrangement like this: template <typename T> T convert( const char * s ) { // slow catch-all std::istringstream is( s ); T ret; is >> ret; return ret; } template <> inline int convert<int>( const char * s ) { return (int)atoi( s ); } Generally, there are a lot of specializations of the templated function with different return types that are invoked like this: int i = convert<int>( szInt ); The problem is, that these template specializations result in "Ambiguous template specialization". If it was something besides the return type that differentiated these function specializations, I could obviously just use overloads, but that's not an option. How do I solve this without having to change all the places the convert functions are called?

    Read the article

  • C++, function pointer to the template function pointer

    - by Ian
    I am having a pointer to the common static method class MyClass { private: static double ( *pfunction ) ( const Object *, const Object *); ... }; pointing to the static method class SomeClass { public: static double getA ( const Object *o1, const Object *o2); ... }; Initialization: double ( *MyClass::pfunction ) ( const Object *o1, const Object *o2 ) = &SomeClass::getA; I would like to convert this pointer to the static template function pointer: template <class T> static T ( *pfunction ) ( const Object <T> *, const Object <T> *); //Compile error where: class SomeClass { public: template <class T> static double getA ( const Object <T> *o1, const Object <T> *o2); ... }; But there is some error... Thanks for your help...

    Read the article

  • Detecting const-ness of nested type

    - by Channel72
    Normally, if I need to detect whether a type is const I just use boost::is_const. However, I ran into trouble when trying to detect the const-ness of a nested type. Consider the following traits template, which is specialized for const types: template <class T> struct traits { typedef T& reference; }; template <class T> struct traits<const T> { typedef T const& reference; }; The problem is that boost::is_const doesn't seem to detect that traits<const T>::reference is a const type. For example: std::cout << std::boolalpha; std::cout << boost::is_const<traits<int>::reference>::value << " "; std::cout << boost::is_const<traits<const int>::reference>::value << std::endl; This outputs: false false Why doesn't it output false true?

    Read the article

  • Where are the function address literals in c++?

    - by academicRobot
    First of all, maybe literals is not the right term for this concept, but its the closest I could think of (not literals in the sense of functions as first class citizens). <UPDATE> After some reading with help from answer by Chris Dodd, what I'm looking for is literal function addresses as template parameters. Chris' answer indicates how to do this for standard functions, but how can the addresses of member functions be used as template parameters? Since the standard prohibits non-static member function addresses as template parameters (c++03 14.3.2.3), I suspect the work around is quite complicated. Any ideas for a workaround? Below the original form of the question is left as is for context. </UPDATE> The idea is that when you make a conventional function call, it compiles to something like this: callq <immediate address> But if you make a function call using a function pointer, it compiles to something like this: mov <memory location>,%rax callq *%rax Which is all well and good. However, what if I'm writing a template library that requires a callback of some sort with a specified argument list and the user of the library is expected to know what function they want to call at compile time? Then I would like to write my template to accept a function literal as a template parameter. So, similar to template <int int_literal> struct my_template {...};` I'd like to write template <func_literal_t func_literal> struct my_template {...}; and have calls to func_literal within my_template compile to callq <immediate address>. Is there a facility in C++ for this, or a work around to achieve the same effect? If not, why not (e.g. some cataclysmic side effects)? How about C++0x or another language? Solutions that are not portable are fine. Solutions that include the use of member function pointers would be ideal. I'm not particularly interested in being told "You are a <socially unacceptable term for a person of low IQ>, just use function pointers/functors." This is a curiosity based question, and it seems that it might be useful in some (albeit limited) applications. It seems like this should be possible since function names are just placeholders for a (relative) memory address, so why not allow more liberal use (e.g. aliasing) of this placeholder. p.s. I use function pointers and functions objects all the the time and they are great. But this post got me thinking about the don't pay for what you don't use principle in relation to function calls, and it seems like forcing the use of function pointers or similar facility when the function is known at compile time is a violation of this principle, though a small one. Edit The intent of this question is not to implement delegates, rather to identify a pattern that will embed a conventional function call, (in immediate mode) directly into third party code, possibly a template.

    Read the article

  • How can variadic char template arguments from user defined literals be converted back into numeric types?

    - by Pubby
    This question is being asked because of this one. C++11 allows you to define literals like this for numeric literals: template<char...> OutputType operator "" _suffix(); Which means that 503_suffix would become <'5','0','3'> This is nice, although it isn't very useful in the form it's in. How can I transform this back into a numeric type? This would turn <'5','0','3'> into a constexpr 503. Additionally, it must also work on floating point literals. <'5','.','3> would turn into int 5 or float 5.3 A partial solution was found in the previous question, but it doesn't work on non-integers: template <typename t> constexpr t pow(t base, int exp) { return (exp > 0) ? base * pow(base, exp-1) : 1; }; template <char...> struct literal; template <> struct literal<> { static const unsigned int to_int = 0; }; template <char c, char ...cv> struct literal<c, cv...> { static const unsigned int to_int = (c - '0') * pow(10, sizeof...(cv)) + literal<cv...>::to_int; }; // use: literal<...>::to_int // literal<'1','.','5'>::to_int doesn't work // literal<'1','.','5'>::to_float not implemented

    Read the article

  • Can I write a test that succeeds if and only if a statement does not compile?

    - by Billy ONeal
    I'd like to prevent clients of my class from doing something stupid. To that end, I have used the type system, and made my class only accept specific types as input. Consider the following example (Not real code, I've left off things like virtual destructors for the sake of example): class MyDataChunk { //Look Ma! Implementation! }; class Sink; class Source { virtual void Run() = 0; Sink *next_; void SetNext(Sink *next) { next_ = next; } }; class Sink { virtual void GiveMeAChunk(const MyDataChunk& data) { //Impl }; }; class In { virtual void Run { //Impl } }; class Out { }; //Note how filter and sorter have the same declaration. Concrete classes //will inherit from them. The seperate names are there to ensure only //that some idiot doesn't go in and put in a filter where someone expects //a sorter, etc. class Filter : public Source, public Sink { //Drop objects from the chain-of-command pattern that don't match a particular //criterion. }; class Sorter : public Source, public Sink { //Sorts inputs to outputs. There are different sorters because someone might //want to sort by filename, size, date, etc... }; class MyClass { In i; Out o; Filter f; Sorter s; public: //Functions to set i, o, f, and s void Execute() { i.SetNext(f); f.SetNext(s); s.SetNext(o); i.Run(); } }; What I don't want is for somebody to come back later and go, "Hey, look! Sorter and Filter have the same signature. I can make a common one that does both!", thus breaking the semantic difference MyClass requires. Is this a common kind of requirement, and if so, how might I implement a test for it?

    Read the article

  • Simplest way to mix sequences of types with iostreams?

    - by Kylotan
    I have a function void write<typename T>(const T&) which is implemented in terms of writing the T object to an ostream, and a matching function T read<typename T>() that reads a T from an istream. I am basically using iostreams as a plain text serialisation format, which obviously works fine for most built-in types, although I'm not sure how to effectively handle std::strings just yet. I'd like to be able to write out a sequence of objects too, eg void write<typename T>(const std::vector<T>&) or an iterator based equivalent (although in practice, it would always be used with a vector). However, while writing an overload that iterates over the elements and writes them out is easy enough to do, this doesn't add enough information to allow the matching read operation to know how each element is delimited, which is essentially the same problem that I have with a single std::string. Is there a single approach that can work for all basic types and std::string? Or perhaps I can get away with 2 overloads, one for numerical types, and one for strings? (Either using different delimiters or the string using a delimiter escaping mechanism, perhaps.)

    Read the article

  • Template inheritance: X is not a template

    - by user2923917
    I am trying to build a inheritance-structure which looks like: Base - template Grandpa - template Father class Base {}; template <int x> class Grandpa: public Base {}; template <int x> class Father: public Grandpa<x> {}; However, the compiler complains when compiling Father, that Grandpa is not a template. I guess it is just some synthatic issue, however everything I've tried so far led to even more compiler complaints ;) Any idea whats wrong?

    Read the article

  • If you use MVC in your web app then you dont need to use Smarty(TemplateEngine) Right?

    - by Imran
    I'm just trying to understand the Templating(system). If you use MVC in your web application then you don't need to use something like Smarty(template engine) as you are already separating application code from presentation code anyway by using MVC right? please correct me? So am i correct in thinking it's MVC OR Templating or do you use both in your apps?If any one could explain this in detail it would be great. Thank you in advance;-)

    Read the article

  • Wordpress Shortcode in Theme, Trying to use Gallery

    - by Akash Kava
    We are using SuperSlidShow Plugin to display gallery of images in our post. However when I write shortcode [gallery] in my post/page images appear correctly, but can anyone guide me if I want to fix this [gallery] shortcode in the theme itself like page.php/post.php so that images will appear on all pages. We have images for every page/post.

    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 | 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145  | Next Page >