Search Results

Search found 11672 results on 467 pages for 'formal methods'.

Page 2/467 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Stepping into Ruby Meta-Programming: Generating proxy methods for multiple internal methods

    - by mstksg
    Hi all; I've multiply heard Ruby touted for its super spectacular meta-programming capabilities, and I was wondering if anyone could help me get started with this problem. I have a class that works as an "archive" of sorts, with internal methods that process and output data based on an input. However, the items in the archive in the class itself are represented and processed with integers, for performance purposes. The actual items outside of the archive are known by their string representation, which is simply number_representation.to_s(36). Because of this, I have hooked up each internal method with a "proxy method" that converts the input into the integer form that the archive recognizes, runs the internal method, and converts the output (either a single other item, or a collection of them) back into strings. The naming convention is this: internal methods are represented by _method_name; their corresponding proxy method is represented by method_name, with no leading underscore. For example: class Archive ## PROXY METHODS ## ## input: string representation of id's ## output: string representation of id's def do_something_with id result = _do_something_with id.to_i(36) return nil if result == nil return result.to_s(36) end def do_something_with_pair id_1,id_2 result = _do_something_with_pair id_1.to_i(36), id_2.to_i(36) return nil if result == nil return result.to_s(36) end def do_something_with_these ids result = _do_something_with_these ids.map { |n| n.to_i(36) } return nil if result == nil return result.to_s(36) end def get_many_from id result = _get_many_from id return nil if result == nil # no sparse arrays returned return result.map { |n| n.to_s(36) } end ## INTERNAL METHODS ## ## input: integer representation of id's ## output: integer representation of id's def _do_something_with id # does something with one integer-represented id, # returning an id represented as an integer end def do_something_with_pair id_1,id_2 # does something with two integer-represented id's, # returning an id represented as an integer end def _do_something_with_these ids # does something with multiple integer ids, # returning an id represented as an integer end def _get_many_from id # does something with one integer-represented id, # returns a collection of id's represented as integers end end There are a couple of reasons why I can't just convert them if id.class == String at the beginning of the internal methods: These internal methods are somewhat computationally-intensive recursive functions, and I don't want the overhead of checking multiple times at every step There is no way, without adding an extra parameter, to tell whether or not to re-convert at the end I want to think of this as an exercise in understanding ruby meta-programming Does anyone have any ideas? edit The solution I'd like would preferably be able to take an array of method names @@PROXY_METHODS = [:do_something_with, :do_something_with_pair, :do_something_with_these, :get_many_from] iterate through them, and in each iteration, put out the proxy method. I'm not sure what would be done with the arguments, but is there a way to test for arguments of a method? If not, then simple duck typing/analogous concept would do as well.

    Read the article

  • Get and Set property accessors are ‘actually’ methods

    - by nmarun
    Well, they are ‘special’ methods, but they indeed are methods. See the class below: 1: public class Person 2: { 3: private string _name; 4:  5: public string Name 6: { 7: get 8: { 9: return _name; 10: } 11: set 12: { 13: if (value == "aaa") 14: { 15: throw new ArgumentException("Invalid Name"); 16: } 17: _name = value; 18: } 19: } 20:  21: public void Save() 22: { 23: Console.WriteLine("Saving..."); 24: } 25: } Ok, so a class with a field, a property with the get and set accessors and a method. Now my calling code says: 1: static void Main() 2: { 3: try 4: { 5: Person person1 = new Person 6: { 7: Name = "aaa", 8: }; 9:  10: } 11: catch (Exception ex) 12: { 13: Console.WriteLine(ex.Message); 14: Console.WriteLine(ex.StackTrace); 15: Console.WriteLine("--------------------"); 16: } 17: } When the code is run, you’ll get the following exception message displayed: Now, you see the first line of the stack trace where it says that the exception was thrown in the method set_Name(String value). Wait a minute, we have not declared any method with that name in our Person class. Oh no, we actually have. When you create a property, this is what happens behind the screen. The CLR creates two methods for each get and set property accessor. Let’s look at the signature once again: set_Name(String value) This also tells you where the ‘value’ keyword comes from in our set property accessor. You’re actually wiring up a method parameter to a field. 1: set 2: { 3: if (value == "aaa") 4: { 5: throw new ArgumentException("Invalid Name"); 6: } 7: _name = value; 8: } Digging deeper on this, I ran the ILDasm tool and this is what I see: We see the ‘free’ constructor (named .ctor) that the compiler gives us, the _name field, the Name property and the Save method. We also see the get_Name and set_Name methods. In order to compare the Save and the set_Name methods, I double-clicked on the two methods and this is what I see: The ‘.method’ keyword tells that both Save and set_Name are both methods (no guessing there!). Seeing the set_Name method as a public method did kinda surprise me. So I said, why can’t I do a person1.set_Name(“abc”) since it is declared as public. This cannot be done because the get_Name and set_Name methods have an extra attribute called ‘specialname’. This attribute is used to identify an IL (Intermediate Language) token that can be treated with special care by the .net language. So the thumb-rule is that any method with the ‘specialname’ attribute cannot be generally called / invoked by the user (a simple test using intellisense proves this). Their functionality is exposed through other ways. In our case, this is done through the property itself. The same concept gets extended to constructors as well making them special methods too. These so-called ‘special’ methods can be identified through reflection. 1: static void ReflectOnPerson() 2: { 3: Type personType = typeof(Person); 4:  5: MethodInfo[] methods = personType.GetMethods(); 6:  7: for (int i = 0; i < methods.Length; i++) 8: { 9: Console.Write("Method: {0}", methods[i].Name); 10: // Determine whether or not each method is a special name. 11: if (methods[i].IsSpecialName) 12: { 13: Console.Write(" has 'SpecialName' attribute"); 14: } 15: Console.WriteLine(); 16: } 17: } Line 11 shows the ‘IsSpecialName’ boolean property. So a method with a ‘specialname’ attribute gets mapped to the IsSpecialName property. The output is displayed as: Wuhuuu! There they are.. our special guests / methods. Verdict: Getting to know the internals… helps!

    Read the article

  • Extension Methods and Application Code

    - by Mystagogue
    I have seen plenty of online guidelines for authoring extension methods, usually along these lines: 1) Avoid authoring extension methods when practical - prefer other approaches first (e.g. regular static methods). 2) Don't author extension methods to extend code you own or currently develop. Instead, author them to extend 3rd party or BCL code. But I have the impression that a couple more guidelines are either implied or advisable. What does the community think of these two additional guidelines: A) Prefer to author extension methods to contain generic functionality rather than application-specific logic. (This seems to follow from guideline #2 above) B) An extension method should be sizeable enough to justify itself (preferably at least 5 lines of code in length). Item (B) is intended to discourage a develoer from writing dozens of extension methods (totalling X lines of code) to refactor or replace what originally was already about X lines of inline code. Perhaps item (B) is badly qualified, or even misinformed about how a one line extension method is actually powerful and justified. I'm curious to know. But if item (B) is somehow dismissed by the community, I must admist I'm still particularly interested in feedback on guideline (A).

    Read the article

  • Extension methods for encapsulation and reusability

    - by tzaman
    In C++ programming, it's generally considered good practice to "prefer non-member non-friend functions" instead of instance methods. This has been recommended by Scott Meyers in this classic Dr. Dobbs article, and repeated by Herb Sutter and Andrei Alexandrescu in C++ Coding Standards (item 44); the general argument being that if a function can do its job solely by relying on the public interface exposed by the class, it actually increases encapsulation to have it be external. While this confuses the "packaging" of the class to some extent, the benefits are generally considered worth it. Now, ever since I've started programming in C#, I've had a feeling that here is the ultimate expression of the concept that they're trying to achieve with "non-member, non-friend functions that are part of a class interface". C# adds two crucial components to the mix - the first being interfaces, and the second extension methods: Interfaces allow a class to formally specify their public contract, the methods and properties that they're exposing to the world. Any other class can choose to implement the same interface and fulfill that same contract. Extension methods can be defined on an interface, providing any functionality that can be implemented via the interface to all implementers automatically. And best of all, because of the "instance syntax" sugar and IDE support, they can be called the same way as any other instance method, eliminating the cognitive overhead! So you get the encapsulation benefits of "non-member, non-friend" functions with the convenience of members. Seems like the best of both worlds to me; the .NET library itself providing a shining example in LINQ. However, everywhere I look I see people warning against extension method overuse; even the MSDN page itself states: In general, we recommend that you implement extension methods sparingly and only when you have to. So what's the verdict? Are extension methods the acme of encapsulation and code reuse, or am I just deluding myself?

    Read the article

  • How to prevent duplicate data access methods that retrieve similar data?

    - by Ronald Wildenberg
    In almost every project I work on with a team, the same problem seems to creep in. Someone writes UI code that needs data and writes a data access method: AssetDto GetAssetById(int assetId) A week later someone else is working on another part of the application and also needs an AssetDto but now including 'approvers' and writes the following: AssetDto GetAssetWithApproversById(int assetId) A month later someone needs an asset but now including the 'questions' (or the 'owners' or the 'running requests', etc): AssetDto GetAssetWithQuestionsById(int assetId) AssetDto GetAssetWithOwnersById(int assetId) AssetDto GetAssetWithRunningRequestsById(int assetId) And it gets even worse when methods like GetAssetWithOwnerAndQuestionsById start to appear. You see the pattern that emerges: an object is attached to a large object graph and you need different parts of this graph in different locations. Of course, I'd like to prevent having a large number of methods that do almost the same. Is it simply a matter of team discipline or is there some pattern I can use to prevent this? In some cases it might make sense to have separate methods, i.e. getting an asset with running requests may be expensive so I do not want to include these all the time. How to handle such cases?

    Read the article

  • Use python decorators on class methods and subclass methods

    - by AlexH
    Goal: Make it possible to decorate class methods. When a class method gets decorated, it gets stored in a dictionary so that other class methods can reference it by a string name. Motivation: I want to implement the equivalent of ASP.Net's WebMethods. I am building this on top of google app engine, but that does not affect the point of difficulty that I am having. How it Would look if it worked: class UsefulClass(WebmethodBaseClass): def someMethod(self, blah): print(blah) @webmethod def webby(self, blah): print(blah) # the implementation of this class could be completely different, it does not matter # the only important thing is having access to the web methods defined in sub classes class WebmethodBaseClass(): def post(self, methodName): webmethods[methodName]("kapow") ... a = UsefulClass() a.post("someMethod") # should error a.post("webby") # prints "kapow" There could be other ways to go about this. I am very open to suggestions

    Read the article

  • Information on Rojiani's Numerical methods C textbook

    - by yCalleecharan
    Hi, having taken a look at a few textbooks that discuss numerical methods and C programming, I was gladly surprised when browsing through "programming in C with numerical methods for engineers" by Rojiani. I understand of course it's important that one need to have a solid background in numerical methods prior to try implementing them on a computer. I would like to know if someone here has been using this book and if possible point out strengths and weaknesses of this textbook. Thanks a lot...

    Read the article

  • Structure for Django methods that span different models

    - by Duncan
    I have two models (say A and B) which are independent and have independent methods. I want to add some methods that operate on both models though. for example, addX() will create an object from both models A and B. What's the best way to structure code in this situation, since it doesnt make sense to have the method belong to either of the models methods. Is the standard to write a service for the kind of 'abstract' model?

    Read the article

  • object / class methods serialized as well?

    - by Mat90
    I know that data members are saved to disk but I was wondering whether object's/class' methods are saved in binary format as well? Because I found some contradictionary info, for example: Ivor Horton: "Class objects contain function members as well as data members, and all the members, both data and functions, have access specifiers; therefore, to record objects in an external file, the information written to the file must contain complete specifications of all the class structures involved." and: Are methods also serialized along with the data members in .NET? Thus: are method's assembly instructions (opcodes and operands) stored to disk as well? Just like a precompiled LIB or DLL? During the DOS ages I used assembly so now and then. As far as I remember from Delphi and the following site (answer by dan04): Are methods also serialized along with the data members in .NET? sizeof(<OBJECT or CLASS>) will give the size of all data members together (no methods/procedures). Also a nice C example is given there with data and members declared in one class/struct but at runtime these methods are separate procedures acting on a struct of data. However, I think that later class/object implementations like Pascal's VMT may be different in memory.

    Read the article

  • SAF Evaluation part II the Formal Methods

    OnI talked about evaluating a candidate architecture in code. This post is dedicated to evaluation on paper.I remember one system I was working on, I was keen on making the architecture asynchronous and message oriented (it was all circa 2001 by the way) However, I was new on the team and my role (as the [...]...Did you know that DotNetSlackers also publishes .net articles written by top known .net Authors? We already have over 80 articles in several categories including Silverlight. Take a look: here.

    Read the article

  • Protected and Private methods

    - by cabaret
    I'm reading through Beginning Ruby and I'm stuck at the part about private and protected methods. This is a newbie question, I know. I searched through SO for a bit but I couldn't manage to find a clear and newbie-friendly explanation of the difference between private and protected methods. The book gives two examples, the first one for private methods: class Person def initialize(name) set_name(name) end def name @first_name + ' ' + @last_name end private def set_name(name) first_name, last_name = name.split(/\s+/) set_first_name(first_name) set_last_name(last_name) end def set_first_name(name) @first_name = name end def set_last_name(name) @last_name = name end end In this case, if I try p = Person.new("Fred Bloggs") p.set_last_name("Smith") It will tell me that I can't use the set_last_name method, because it's private. All good till there. However, in the other example, they define an age method as protected and when I do fred = Person.new(34) chris = Person.new(25) puts chris.age_difference_with(fred) puts chris.age It gives an error: :20: protected method 'age' called for #<Person:0x1e5f28 @age=25> (NoMethodError) I honestly fail to see the difference between the private and protected methods, it sounds the same to me. Could someone provide me with a clear explanation so I'll never get confused about this again? I'll provide the code for the second example if necessary.

    Read the article

  • Action -methods vs public methods in PHP frameworks

    - by Tower
    There are plenty of PHP frameworks out there as many of you know, and I am interested in your thoughts on this: Zend Framework has so-called action controllers that must contain at least one action method, a method whose name ends in "Action". For example: public function indexAction() {} The word "Action" is important, without it you can't access the method directly via the URI. However, in some other frameworks like Kohana you have public and private methods, where public methods are accessible and private are not. So my question is which do you think is a better approach? From a secure point of view I would vote Zend's approach, but I am interested in knowing what others think.

    Read the article

  • Collect all extension methods to generic class in another generic class

    - by Hun1Ahpu
    I'd like to create a lot of extension methods for some generic class, e.g. for public class SimpleLinkedList<T> where T:IComparable And I've started creating methods like this: public static class LinkedListExtensions { public static T[] ToArray<T>(this SimpleLinkedList<T> simpleLinkedList) where T:IComparable { //// code } } But when I tried to make LinkedListExtensions class generic like this: public static class LinkedListExtensions<T> where T:IComparable { public static T[] ToArray(this SimpleLinkedList<T> simpleLinkedList) { ////code } } I get "Extension methods can only be declared in non-generic, non-nested static class". And I'm trying to guess where this restriction came from and have no ideas.

    Read the article

  • To static or not to static

    - by Idsa
    I really like to use static methods (especially for helpers classes). But as static methods are not stubbable, eventually they are a bad practice, aren't they? So I have to choose between static methods usage convenience and testability. Is there any compromise?

    Read the article

  • Parsing C#, finding methods and putting try/catch to all methods

    - by erdogany
    I know it sounds weird but I am required to put a wrapping try catch block to every method to catch all exceptions. We have thousands of methods and I need to do it in an automated way. What do you suggest? I am planning to parse all cs files and detect methods and insert a try catch block with an application. Can you suggest me any parser that I can easily use? or anything that will help me... every method has its unique number like 5006 public static LogEntry Authenticate(....) { LogEntry logEntry = null; try { .... return logEntry; } catch (CompanyException) { throw; } catch (Exception ex) { logEntry = new LogEntry( "5006", RC.GetString("5006"), EventLogEntryType.Error, LogEntryCategory.Foo); throw new CompanyException(logEntry, ex); } } I created this for this; http://thinkoutofthenet.com/index.php/2009/01/12/batch-code-method-manipulation/

    Read the article

  • Refering to javascript instance methods with a pound/hash sign

    - by Josh
    This question is similar to http://stackoverflow.com/questions/736120/why-are-methods-in-ruby-documentation-preceded-by-a-pound-sign I understand why in Ruby instance methods are proceeded with a pound sign, helping to differentiate talking about SomeClass#someMethod from SomeObject.someMethod and allowing rdoc to work. And I understand that the authors of PrototypeJS admire Ruby (with good reason) and so they use the hash mark convention in their documentation. My question is: is this a standard practice amongst JavaScript developers or is it just Prototype developers who do this? Asked another way, is it proepr for me to refer to instance methods in comments/documentation as SomeClass#someMethod? Or should my documentation refer to `SomeClass.someMethod?

    Read the article

  • Code optimization - Unused methods

    - by Yochai Timmer
    How can I tell if a method will never be used ? I know that for dll files and libraries you can't really know if someone else (another project) will ever use the code. In general I assume that anything public might be used somewhere else. But what about private methods ? Is it safe to assume that if I don't see an explicit call to that method, it won't be used ? I assume that for private methods it's easier to decide. But is it safe to decide it ONLY for private methods ?

    Read the article

  • Implementing a "state-machine" logic for methods required by an object in C++

    - by user827992
    What I have: 1 hypothetical object/class + other classes and related methods that gives me functionality. What I want: linking this object to 0 to N methods in realtime on request when an event is triggered Each event is related to a single method or a class, so a single event does not necessarily mean "connect this 1 method only" but can also mean "connect all the methods from that class or a group of methods" Avoiding linked lists because I have to browse the entire list to know what methods are linked, because this does not ensure me that the linked methods are kept in a particular order (let's say an alphabetic order by their names or classes), and also because this involve a massive amount of pointers usage. Example: I have an object Employee Jon, Jon acquires knowledge and forgets things pretty easily, so his skills may vary during a period of time, I'm responsible for what Jon can add or remove from his CV, how can I implement this logic?

    Read the article

  • Why do some programmers think there is a contrast between theory and practice?

    - by Giorgio
    Comparing software engineering with civil engineering, I was surprised to observe a different way of thinking: any civil engineer knows that if you want to build a small hut in the garden you can just get the materials and go build it whereas if you want to build a 10-storey house you need to do quite some maths to be sure that it won't fall apart. In contrast, speaking with some programmers or reading blogs or forums I often find a wide-spread opinion that can be formulated more or less as follows: theory and formal methods are for mathematicians / scientists while programming is more about getting things done. What is normally implied here is that programming is something very practical and that even though formal methods, mathematics, algorithm theory, clean / coherent programming languages, etc, may be interesting topics, they are often not needed if all one wants is to get things done. According to my experience, I would say that while you do not need much theory to put together a 100-line script (the hut), in order to develop a complex application (the 10-storey building) you need a structured design, well-defined methods, a good programming language, good text books where you can look up algorithms, etc. So IMO (the right amount of) theory is one of the tools for getting things done. So my question is why do some programmers think that there is a contrast between theory (formal methods) and practice (getting things done)? Is software engineering (building software) perceived by many as easy compared to, say, civil engineering (building houses)? Or are these two disciplines really different (apart from mission-critical software, software failure is much more acceptable than building failure)?

    Read the article

  • uitableview delegate methods are not called

    - by Sean
    hi all i got the problem that the tableview methods are not called the first time the tableview is shown. if switch back to the previous view and then click the button to show the tableview again, the methods are called this time. i've to say that i show an actionsheet while the tableview is loading. the actionsheet i call in the ViewWillAppear method. thanks in advance sean

    Read the article

  • code style for private methods in c#

    - by illdev
    I just found out, that it seems a common pattern to user UpperFirstLetterPascalCase() for private methods. I for myself, find this completely inconsistent with naming rules of private instance fields and variables and I find it difficult to read/debug, too. I would want to ask, why using a first upper letter for methods could be a better choice than a first lower (doThis())? Just out of curiosity...

    Read the article

  • Java: when to use static methods

    - by KP65
    Hello, I am wondering when to use static methods? Say If i have a class with a few getters and setters, a method or two, and i want those methods only to be invokable on an instance object of the class. Does this mean i should use a static method? e.g Obj x = new Obj(); x.someMethod or Obj.someMethod (is this the static way?) I'm rather confused!

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >