Search Results

Search found 38773 results on 1551 pages for 'anonymous function'.

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 4/1551 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • php Set a anonymous function in an instance

    - by geekay
    I am just starting out with PHP, and I am wondering if there is a way to add an anonymous function to a class instance. For instance, lets say... class A{ public B; } $c = new A(); //This is where I am getting a little confused... //The following wont work $c->B = function(){echo('HelloWorld');}; $c->B(); What I am hoping to do is reuse the same spit of code in a great number of different applications, and make it so that I can just 'swap-out' and replace functions in specific instances. I am using php5.3 (so anonymous functions should work, just not in the way that I am using them). Thanks so very much for your time!! -GK

    Read the article

  • Why PHP Function Naming so Inconsistent?

    - by Shamim Hafiz
    I was going through some PHP functions and I could not help notice the following: <?php function foo(&$var) { } foo($a); // $a is "created" and assigned to null $b = array(); foo($b['b']); var_dump(array_key_exists('b', $b)); // bool(true) $c = new StdClass; foo($c->d); var_dump(property_exists($c, 'd')); // bool(true) ?> Notice the array_key_exists() and property_exists() function. In the first one, the property name(key for an array) is the first parameter while in the second one it is the second parameter. By intuition, one would expect them to have similar signature. This can lead to confusion and the development time may be wasted by making corrections of this type. Shouldn't PHP, or any language for that matter, consider making the signatures of related functions consistent?

    Read the article

  • Turn on anonymous access in SharePoint2010 Site collection

    - by ybbest
    In this post, I would like to show you how to turn on anonymous access in SharePoint2010 Site collection using SharePoint Web UI. If you would like to achieve the same thing using PowerShell you can check this blog post here. 1. You need to go to Central AdminàManage Web Applications 2. Click Authentication provider 3. Click Default and Enable anonymous access 4. Go to your site collection and click on Site actions then click Site Permissions 5. Click on Anonymous Access 6. Select the Entire Web site and click OK. 7 Navigate to your site collection and boom you are all set for the anonymous access for your SharePoint site collection.

    Read the article

  • Creating an anonymous site in SharePoint 2010

    - by shehan
    Here’s how: Open up the Central Administration site and click on “Manage Web Applications” under the “Application Management” section From the ribbon click on “New” (Note: if its an existing web app, then click on “Extend”) Fill in the fields with appropriate values. Under “Security Configurations” make sure to select “Yes” for “Allow Anonymous” Click OK Once the web application has been created, a site collection would need to be created. Navigate to “Application Management” –> “Create Site Collection” Fill in the fields with the appropriate values and create the site collection Next sign into the newly created site collection as the Site Collection Administrator. From the “Site Actions” menu, select “Site Permissions” In the permissions page that loads, click on the Anonymous Access button appearing on the ribbon. A modal dialog would popup. Select the appropriate option and click OK. If you selected “Entire Web Site” its advisable to restart the browser to test anonymous access Technorati Tags: SharePoint 2010,anonymous,site collection,web application

    Read the article

  • Anonymous Live OS, l'OS qui ne vient PAS des Anonymous : la déclinaison d'Ubuntu apparue avant-hier reste pleine de mystères

    Anonymous Live OS, l'OS qui ne vient PAS des Anonymous La déclinaison d'Ubuntu apparue hier est pleine de mystères, voire de Trojans La nouvelle a fait le tour du Web en quelques minutes. Mais elle n'avait pas été vérifiée. Et a priori, elle ne risque pas de l'être. L'histoire commence avec la découverte sur SourceForge d'une distribution baptisée Anonymous OS Live. Déclinée de Ubuntu 11.10, le système y était décrit par ses auteurs comme « pédagogique » et/ou destiné à vérifier la sécurité des sites. Des auteurs qui n'ont pas été identifiés (normal pour des membres du mouvement), mais il n'en fallait pas plus pour que l'arrivée d'un OS estampillé Anonymous se propage. Prob...

    Read the article

  • Anonymous method as function result

    - by iamjoosy
    What I want to do is to assign an anonymous method which I get as a function result to a variable of the same type. Delphi complains about not beeing able to do the assignement. Obviously Delphi things I want to assign the "GetListener" function instead of the result of that same function. Any help with this is very much appreciated. type TPropertyChangedListener = reference to procedure (Sender: TStimulus); TMyClass = class function GetListener:TPropertyChangedListener end; .... var MyClass: TMyClass; Listener: TPropertyChangedListener; begin MyClass:= TMyClass.create; Listener:= MyClass.GetListener; // Delphi compile error: E2010 Incompatible types: TPropertyChangedListener' and 'Procedure of object' end;

    Read the article

  • Javascript Anonymous Functions and Global Variables

    - by Jonathan Swift
    I thought I would try and be clever and create a Wait function of my own (I realise there are other ways to do this). So I wrote: var interval_id; var countdowntimer = 0; function Wait(wait_interval) { countdowntimer = wait_interval; interval_id = setInterval(function() { --countdowntimer <=0 ? clearInterval(interval_id) : null; }, 1000); do {} while (countdowntimer >= 0); } // Wait a bit: 5 secs Wait(5); This all works, except for the infinite looping. Upon inspection, if I take the While loop out, the anonymous function is entered 5 times, as expected. So clearly the global variable countdowntimer is decremented. However, if I check the value of countdowntimer, in the While loop, it never goes down. This is despite the fact that the anonymous function is being called whilst in the While loop! Clearly, somehow, there are two values of countdowntimer floating around, but why?

    Read the article

  • Self-referencing anonymous closures: is JavaScript incomplete?

    - by Tom Auger
    Does the fact that anonymous self-referencing function closures are so prevelant in JavaScript suggest that JavaScript is an incomplete specification? We see so much of this: (function () { /* do cool stuff */ })(); and I suppose everything is a matter of taste, but does this not look like a kludge, when all you want is a private namespace? Couldn't JavaScript implement packages and proper classes? Compare to ActionScript 3, also based on EMACScript, where you get package com.tomauger { import bar; class Foo { public function Foo(){ // etc... } public function show(){ // show stuff } public function hide(){ // hide stuff } // etc... } } Contrast to the convolutions we perform in JavaScript (this, from the jQuery plugin authoring documentation): (function( $ ){ var methods = { init : function( options ) { // THIS }, show : function( ) { // IS }, hide : function( ) { // GOOD }, update : function( content ) { // !!! } }; $.fn.tooltip = function( method ) { // Method calling logic if ( methods[method] ) { return methods[ method ].apply( this, Array.prototype.slice.call( arguments, 1 )); } else if ( typeof method === 'object' || ! method ) { return methods.init.apply( this, arguments ); } else { $.error( 'Method ' + method + ' does not exist on jQuery.tooltip' ); } }; })( jQuery ); I appreciate that this question could easily degenerate into a rant about preferences and programming styles, but I'm actually very curious to hear how you seasoned programmers feel about this and whether it feels natural, like learning different idiosyncrasies of a new language, or kludgy, like a workaround to some basic programming language components that are just not implemented?

    Read the article

  • C++ Pointer member function with templates assignment with a member function of another class

    - by Agusti
    Hi, I have this class: class IShaderParam{ public: std::string name_value; }; template<class TParam> class TShaderParam:public IShaderParam{ public: void (TShaderParam::*send_to_shader)( const TParam&,const std::string&); TShaderParam():send_to_shader(NULL){} TParam value; void up_to_shader(); }; typedef TShaderParam<float> FloatShaderParam; typedef TShaderParam<D3DXVECTOR3> Vec3ShaderParam; In another class, I have a vector of IShaderParams* and functions that i want to send to "send_to_shader". I'm trying assign the reference of these functions like this: Vec3ShaderParam *_param = new Vec3ShaderParam; _param-send_to_shader = &TShader::setVector3; This is the function: void TShader::setVector3(const D3DXVECTOR3 &vec, const std::string &name){ //... } And this is the class with IshaderParams*: class TShader{ std::vector params; public: Shader effect; std::string technique_name; TShader(std::string& afilename):effect(NULL){}; ~TShader(); void setVector3(const D3DXVECTOR3 &vec, const std::string &name); When I compile the project with Visual Studio C++ Express 2008 I recieve this error: Error 2 error C2440: '=' :can't make the conversion 'void (__thiscall TShader::* )(const D3DXVECTOR3 &,const std::string &)' a 'void (__thiscall TShaderParam::* )(const TParam &,const std::string &)' c:\users\isagoras\documents\mcv\afoc\shader.cpp 127 Can I do the assignment? No? I don't know how :-S Yes, I know that I can achieve the same objective with other techniques, but I want to know how can I do this..

    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

  • 10 steps to enable &lsquo;Anonymous Access&rsquo; for your SharePoint 2010 site

    - by KunaalKapoor
    What’s Anonymous Access? Anonymous access to your SharePoint site enables all visitors to view your SharePoint site anonymously without having to log in. With this blog I’d like to go through an easy step wise procedure to enable/set up anonymous access. Before you actually enable anonymous access on the site, you’ll have to change some settings at the web app level. So let’s start with that: Prerequisite(s): 1. A hosted SharePoint 2010 farm/server. 2. An existing SharePoint site. I just thought I’d mention the above pre-reqs, since the steps mentioned below would’nt be valid or a different type of a site. Step 1: In Central Administration, under Application Management, click on the Manage web applications. Step 2: Now select the site you want to enable anonymous access and click on the Authentication Providers icon. Step 3: On the modal window click on the Default zone. Step 4: Now under the Edit Authentication section, check Enable anonymous access and click Save. This is basically to make the Anonymous Access authentication mechanism available at the web app level @ IIS. Now, web application will allow anonymous access to be set. 5. Going back to Web Application Management click on the Anonymous Policy icon. Step 6: Also before we proceed any further, under the Anonymous Access Restrictions (@ web app mgmt.) select your Zone and set the Permissions to None – No policy and click Save. Step 7:  Now lets navigate to your top level site collection for the web application. Click the Site Actions > Site Settings. Under Users and Permissions click Site permissions. Step 8: Under Users and Permissions, click on Site Permissions. Step 9: Under the Edit tab, click on Anonymous Access. Step 10: Choose whether you want Anonymous users to have access to the entire Web site or to lists and libraries only, and then click on OK. You should now be able to see the view as below under your permissions Also keep in mind: If you are trying to access the site from a browser within the domain, then you’ll need to change some browser settings to see the after affects. Normally this is because the browsers (Internet Explorer) is set to log in automatically to intranet zone only , not sure if you have explicitly changed the zones and added it to trusted sites. If this is from a box within your domain please try to access the site by temporarily changing the Internet Explorer setting to Anonymous Logon on the zone that the site is added example "Intranet" and try . You will find the same settings by clicking on Tools > Internet Options > Security Tab.

    Read the article

  • How to break WinDbg in an anonymous method?

    - by Richard Berg
    Title kinda says it all. The usual SOS command !bpmd doesn't do a lot of good without a name. Some ideas I had: dump every method, then use !bpmd -md when you find the corresponding MethodDesc not practical in real world usage, from what I can tell. Even if I wrote a macro to limit the dump to anonymous types/methods, there's no obvious way to tell them apart. use Reflector to dump the MSIL name doesn't help when dealing with dynamic assemblies and/or Reflection.Emit. Visual Studio's inability to read local vars inside such scenarios is the whole reason I turned to Windbg in the first place... set the breakpoint in VS, wait for it to hit, then change to Windbg using the noninvasive trick attempting to detach from VS causes it to hang (along with the app). I think this is due to the fact that the managed debugger is a "soft" debugger via thread injection instead of a standard "hard" debugger. Or maybe it's just a VS bug specific to Silverlight (would hardly be the first I've encountered). set a breakpoint on some other location known to call into the anonymous method, then single-step your way in my backup plan, though I'd rather not resort to it if this Q&A reveals a better way

    Read the article

  • Anonymous union definition/declaration in a macro GNU vs VS2008

    - by Alan_m
    I am attempting to alter an IAR specific header file for a lpc2138 so it can compile with Visual Studio 2008 (to enable compatible unit testing). My problem involves converting register definitions to be hardware independent (not at a memory address) The "IAR-safe macro" is: #define __IO_REG32_BIT(NAME, ADDRESS, ATTRIBUTE, BIT_STRUCT) \ volatile __no_init ATTRIBUTE union \ { \ unsigned long NAME; \ BIT_STRUCT NAME ## _bit; \ } @ ADDRESS //declaration //(where __gpio0_bits is a structure that names //each of the 32 bits as P0_0, P0_1, etc) __IO_REG32_BIT(IO0PIN,0xE0028000,__READ_WRITE,__gpio0_bits); //usage IO0PIN = 0x0xAA55AA55; IO0PIN_bit.P0_5 = 0; This is my comparable "hardware independent" code: #define __IO_REG32_BIT(NAME, BIT_STRUCT)\ volatile union \ { \ unsigned long NAME; \ BIT_STRUCT NAME##_bit; \ } NAME; //declaration __IO_REG32_BIT(IO0PIN,__gpio0_bits); //usage IO0PIN.IO0PIN = 0xAA55AA55; IO0PIN.IO0PIN_bit.P0_5 = 1; This compiles and works but quite obviously my "hardware independent" usage does not match the "IAR-safe" usage. How do I alter my macro so I can use IO0PIN the same way I do in IAR? I feel this is a simple anonymous union matter but multiple attempts and variants have proven unsuccessful. Maybe the IAR GNU compiler supports anonymous unions and vs2008 does not. Thank you.

    Read the article

  • Linq - How to collect Anonymous Type as Result for a Function

    - by GibboK
    I use c# 4 asp.net and EF 4. I'm precompiling a query, the result should be a collection of Anonymous Type. At the moment I use this code. public static readonly Func<CmsConnectionStringEntityDataModel, string, dynamic> queryContentsList = CompiledQuery.Compile<CmsConnectionStringEntityDataModel, string, dynamic> ( (ctx, TypeContent) => ctx.CmsContents.Where(c => c.TypeContent == TypeContent & c.IsPublished == true & c.IsDeleted == false) .Select(cnt => new { cnt.Title, cnt.TitleUrl, cnt.ContentId, cnt.TypeContent, cnt.Summary } ) .OrderByDescending(c => c.ContentId)); I suspect the RETURN for the FUNCTION Dynamic does not work properly and I get this error Sequence contains more than one element enter code here. I suppose I need to return for my function a Collection of Anonymous Types... Do you have any idea how to do it? What I'm doing wrong? Please post a sample of code thanks! Update: public class ConcTypeContents { public string Title { get; set; } public string TitleUrl { get; set; } public int ContentId { get; set; } public string TypeContent { get; set; } public string Summary { get; set; } } public static readonly Func<CmsConnectionStringEntityDataModel, string, ConcTypeContents> queryContentsList = CompiledQuery.Compile<CmsConnectionStringEntityDataModel, string, ConcTypeContents>( (ctx, TypeContent) => ctx.CmsContents.Where(c => c.TypeContent == TypeContent & c.IsPublished == true & c.IsDeleted == false) .Select(cnt => new ConcTypeContents { cnt.Title, cnt.TitleUrl, cnt.ContentId, cnt.TypeContent, cnt.Summary }).OrderByDescending(c => c.ContentId));

    Read the article

  • Why can't c# use inline anonymous lambdas or delegates?

    - by Samuel Meacham
    I hope I worded the title of my question appropriately. In c# I can use lambdas (as delegates), or the older delegate syntax to do this: Func<string> fnHello = () => "hello"; Console.WriteLine(fnHello()); Func<string> fnHello2 = delegate() { return "hello 2"; }; Console.WriteLine(fnHello2()); So why can't I "inline" the lambda or the delegate body, and avoid capturing it in a named variable (making it anonymous)? // Inline anonymous lambda not allowed Console.WriteLine( (() => "hello inline lambda")() ); // Inline anonymous delegate not allowed Console.WriteLine( (delegate() { return "hello inline delegate"; })() ); An example that works in javascript (just for comparison) is: alert( (function(){ return "hello inline anonymous function from javascript"; })() ); Which produces the expected alert box. UPDATE: It seems you can have an inline anonymous lambda in C#, if you cast appropriately, but the amount of ()'s starts to make it unruly. // Inline anonymous lambda with appropriate cast IS allowed Console.WriteLine( ((Func<string>)(() => "hello inline anonymous lambda"))() ); Perhaps the compiler can't infer the sig of the anonymous delegate to know which Console.WriteLine() you're trying to call? Does anyone know why this specific cast is required?

    Read the article

  • Every function key on laptop works except for brightness

    - by Dave M G
    I have an Asus UX21A, and I'm pleased to discover that almost all the hardware functions and features work perfectly with Ubuntu 12.10. The only thing that is not working straight "out of the box" are the brightness keys. In theory, the screen brightness can be adjusted downward by pressing fn+f5, and adjusted upward by pressing fn+f6. Is there a way I can connect the monitor brightness settings to these function keys?

    Read the article

  • Accessing C# Anonymous Type Objects

    - by Ali Kazmi
    Hi, How do i access objects of an anonymous type outside the scope where its declared? for e.g. void FuncB() { var obj = FuncA(); Console.WriteLine(obj.Name); } ??? FuncA() { var a = (from e in DB.Entities where e.Id == 1 select new {Id = e.Id, Name = e.Name}).FirstOrDefault(); return a; }

    Read the article

  • Overload Anonymous Functions

    - by Nissan Fan
    Still wrapping my head around Delegates and I'm curious: Is it possible to overload anonymous functions? Such that: delegate void Output(string x, int y); Supports: Output show = (x, y) => Console.WriteLine("{0}: {1}", x.ToString(), y.ToString()); And: delegate void Output(string x, string y); Allowing: show( "ABC", "EFG" ); And: show( "ABC", 123 );

    Read the article

  • detachEvent not working with named anonymous functions

    - by Polshgiant
    I ran into a problem in IE8 today (Note that I only need to support IE) that I can't seem to explain: detachEvent wouldn't work when using a named anonymous function handler. document.getElementById('iframeid').attachEvent("onreadystatechange", function onIframeReadyStateChange() { if (event.srcElement.readyState != "complete") { return; } event.srcElement.detachEvent("onreadystatechange", onIframeReadyStateChange); // code here was running every time my iframe's readyState // changed to "complete" instead of only the first time }); I eventually figured out that changing onIframeReadyStateChange to use arguments.callee (which I normally avoid) instead solved the issue: document.getElementById('iframeid').attachEvent("onreadystatechange", function () { if (event.srcElement.readyState != "complete") { return; } event.srcElement.detachEvent("onreadystatechange", arguments.callee); // code here now runs only once no matter how many times the // iframe's readyState changes to "complete" }); What gives?! Shouldn't the first snippet work fine?

    Read the article

  • PHP anonymous functions scope question

    - by Dan
    Hi, I'm trying to sort an array of objects by a common property, however I cannot get my $property parameter to register in the inner function (I can use it in the outer one OK). The way I read the documentation, it sounded like the parameter would be available, have I misunderstood something? Here is what I have: public static function sortObjectsByProperty($objects, $property) { function compare_object($a, $b) { $a = $a->$property; $b = $b->$property; if ($a->$property == $b->$property) { return 0; } return ($a->$property > $b->$property) ? +1 : -1; } usort($objects, 'compare_object'); return $objects; } Any advice appreciated. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Anonymous class implementing interface

    - by Flo
    I have the following code inside a method: var list = new[] { new { Name = "Red", IsSelected = true }, new { Name = "Green", IsSelected = false }, new { Name = "Blue", IsSelected = false }, }; I would like to call a function that requires a list of elements with each element implementing an interface (ISelectable). I know how this is done with normal classes, but in this case I am only trying to fill in some demo data. Is it possible to create an anonymous class implementing an interface? like this: new { Name = "Red", IsSelected = true } : ISelectable

    Read the article

  • How To Test if a Type is Anonymous?

    - by DaveDev
    Hi Guys I have the following method which serialises an object to a HTML tag. I only want to do this though if the type isn't Anonymous. private void MergeTypeDataToTag(object typeData) { if (typeData != null) { Type elementType = typeData.GetType(); if (/* elementType != AnonymousType */) { _tag.Attributes.Add("class", elementType.Name); } // do some more stuff } } Can somebody show me how to achieve this? Thanks Dave

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