Search Results

Search found 214 results on 9 pages for 'jian liang'.

Page 8/9 | < Previous Page | 4 5 6 7 8 9  | Next Page >

  • It is said that Mercurial's "hg clone" is very cheap... but it is 400MB on my hard drive? (on Mac OS

    - by Jian Lin
    I have a project I cloned over the network to the Mac hard drive (OS X Snow Leopard). The project is about 1GB in the hard drive du -s 2073848 . so when I hg clone proj proj2 then when I MacBook-Pro ~/development $ du -s proj 2073848 proj MacBook-Pro ~/development $ du -s proj2 894840 proj2 MacBook-Pro ~/development $ du -s 2397928 . so the clone seems not so cheap... probably around 400MB... is that so? also, the whole folder grew by about 200MB, which is not the total of proj and proj2 by the way... are there some links and some are not links, that's why the overlapping is not counted twice?

    Read the article

  • How to change a primary key in SQL to auto_increment?

    - by Jian Lin
    I have a table in MySQL that has a primary key: mysql> desc gifts; +---------------+-------------+------+-----+---------+-------+ | Field | Type | Null | Key | Default | Extra | +---------------+-------------+------+-----+---------+-------+ | giftID | int(11) | NO | PRI | NULL | | | name | varchar(80) | YES | | NULL | | | filename | varchar(80) | YES | | NULL | | | effectiveTime | datetime | YES | | NULL | | +---------------+-------------+------+-----+---------+-------+ but I wanted to make it auto_increment. The following statement failed. How can it be modified so that it can work? thanks mysql> alter table gifts modify giftID int primary key auto_increment; ERROR 1068 (42000): Multiple primary key defined

    Read the article

  • In Javascript, a function starts a new scope, but we have to be careful that the function must be in

    - by Jian Lin
    In Javascript, I am sometimes too immerged in the idea that a function creates a new scope, that sometimes I even think the following anonymous function will create a new scope when it is being defined and assigned to onclick: <a href="#" id="link1">ha link 1</a> <a href="#" id="link2">ha link 2</a> <a href="#" id="link3">ha link 3</a> <a href="#" id="link4">ha link 4</a> <a href="#" id="link5">ha link 5</a> <script type="text/javascript"> for (i = 1; i <= 5; i++) { document.getElementById('link' + i).onclick = function() { var x = i; alert(x); return false; } } </script> but in fact, the anonymous function will create a new scope, that's right, but ONLY when it is being invoked, is that so? So the x inside the anonymous function is not created, no new scope is created. When the function was later invoked, there is a new scope alright, but the i is in the outside scope, and the x gets its value, and it is all 6 anyways. The following code will actually invoke a function and create a new scope and that's why the x is a new local variable x in the brand new scope each time, and the invocation of the function when the link is clicked on will use the different x in the different scopes. <a href="#" id="link1">ha link 1</a> <a href="#" id="link2">ha link 2</a> <a href="#" id="link3">ha link 3</a> <a href="#" id="link4">ha link 4</a> <a href="#" id="link5">ha link 5</a> <script type="text/javascript"> for (var i = 1; i <= 5; i++) { (function() { var x = i; document.getElementById('link' + i).onclick = function() { alert(x); return false; } })(); // invoking it now! } </script> If we take away the var in front of x, then it is a global x and so no local variable x is created in the new scope, and therefore, clicking on the links get all the same number, which is the value of the global x.

    Read the article

  • Is it true that in most Object Oriented Programming Languages, an "i" in an instance method always r

    - by Jian Lin
    In the following code: <script type="text/javascript"> var i = 10; function Circle(radius) { this.r = radius; this.i = radius; } Circle.i = 123; Circle.prototype.area = function() { alert(i); } var c = new Circle(1); var a = c.area(); </script> What is being alerted? The answer is at the end of this question. I found that the i in the alert call either refers to any local (if any), or the global variable. There is no way that it can be the instance variable or the class variable even when there is no local and no global defined. To refer to the instance variable i, we need this.i, and to the class variable i, we need Circle.i. Is this actually true for almost all Object oriented programming languages? Any exception? Are there cases that when there is no local and no global, it will look up the instance variable and then the class variable scope? (or in this case, are those called scope?) the answer is: 10 is being alerted.

    Read the article

  • How to create a function and pass in variable length argument list?

    - by Jian Lin
    We can create a function p in the following code: var p = function() { }; if (typeof(console) != 'undefined' && console.log) { p = function() { console.log(arguments); }; } but the arguments are passed like an array to console.log, instead of passed one by one as in console.log(arguments[0], arguments[1], arguments[2], ... Is there a way to expand the arguments and pass to console.log like the way above? Note that if the original code were var p = function() { }; if (typeof(console) != 'undefined' && console.log) { p = console.log; } then it works well on Firefox and IE 8 but not on Chrome.

    Read the article

  • TextMate can show definition of a function easily?

    - by Jian Lin
    I am using TextMate on a Ruby on Rails project and wonder if you can put the mouse on link_to, and then press a key and it will show the definition of link_to, or does this for any other helper functions? Or, click open a box and type in a function name and it will show you the definition?

    Read the article

  • In SQL, why is "Distinct" not used in a subquery, when looking for some items "not showing up" in th

    - by Jian Lin
    Usually when looking for some items not showing up in the other table, we can use: select * from gifts where giftID not in (select giftID from sentgifts); or select * from gifts where giftID not in (select distinct giftID from sentgifts); the second line is with "distinct" added, so that the resulting table is smaller, and probably let the search for "not in" faster too. So, won't using "distinct" be desirable? Often than not, I don't see it being used in the subquery in such a case. Is there advantage or disadvantage of using it? thanks.

    Read the article

  • In CSS, does it make sense or is it legal to nest an id in another id -- such as "#main #display img

    - by Jian Lin
    In CSS, if it is #main #display img { height: 80px } that means all images within an element with id display that is within another element with id main. But does it make sense or is it legal since id seems to be just global names. It is because SASS actually allow nesting and some code may nest it like #main width: 700px #display img height: 80px which is "id within id".

    Read the article

  • In MVC framworks (such as Ruby on Rails), do usually Model spell as singular and controller and view

    - by Jian Lin
    I usually see Ruby on Rails books using script/generate model Story name:string link:string which is a singular Story, while when it is controller script/generate controller Stories index then the Story now is Stories, which is plural. Is this a standard on Ruby on Rails? Is it true in other MVC frameworks too, like CakePHP, Symfony, Django, or TurboGears? I see that in the book Rails Space, the controller is also called User, which is the same as the model name, and it is the only exception I see.

    Read the article

  • In Ruby, why is a method invocation not able to be treated as a unit when "do" and "end" is used?

    - by Jian Lin
    The following question is related to the question "Ruby Print Inject Do Syntax". My question is, can we insist on using do and end and make it work with puts or p? This works: a = [1,2,3,4] b = a.inject do |sum, x| sum + x end puts b # prints out 10 so, is it correct to say, inject is an instance method of the Array object, and this instance method takes a block of code, and then returns a number. If so, then it should be no different from calling a function or method and getting back a return value: b = foo(3) puts b or b = circle.getRadius() puts b In the above two cases, we can directly say puts foo(3) puts circle.getRadius() so, there is no way to make it work directly by using the following 2 ways: a = [1,2,3,4] puts a.inject do |sum, x| sum + x end but it gives ch01q2.rb:7:in `inject': no block given (LocalJumpError) from ch01q2.rb:4:in `each' from ch01q2.rb:4:in `inject' from ch01q2.rb:4 grouping the method call using ( ) doesn't work either: a = [1,2,3,4] puts (a.inject do |sum, x| sum + x end) and this gives: ch01q3.rb:4: syntax error, unexpected kDO_BLOCK, expecting ')' puts (a.inject do |sum, x| ^ ch01q3.rb:4: syntax error, unexpected '|', expecting '=' puts (a.inject do |sum, x| ^ ch01q3.rb:6: syntax error, unexpected kEND, expecting $end end) ^ finally, the following version works: a = [1,2,3,4] puts a.inject { |sum, x| sum + x } but why doesn't the grouping of the method invocation using ( ) work in the earlier example? What if a programmer insist that he uses do and end, can it be made to work?

    Read the article

  • If the "with" statement in Javascript creates a new scope, why does the following code not work as e

    - by Jian Lin
    If the "with" statement in Javascript creates a new scope, shouldn't clicking on the links show a different x which are in different scopes? It doesn't. <a href="#" id="link1">ha link 1</a> <a href="#" id="link2">ha link 2</a> <a href="#" id="link3">ha link 3</a> <a href="#" id="link4">ha link 4</a> <a href="#" id="link5">ha link 5</a> <script type="text/javascript"> for (i = 1; i <= 5; i++) { with({foo:"bar"}) { var x = i; document.getElementById('link' + i).onclick = function() { alert(x); return false; } } } </script>

    Read the article

  • In SQL, a Join is actually an Intersection? And it is also a linkage or a "Sideway Union"?

    - by Jian Lin
    I always thought of a Join in SQL as some kind of linkage between two tables. For example, select e.name, d.name from employees e, departments d where employees.deptID = departments.deptID In this case, it is linking two tables, to show each employee with a department name instead of a department ID. And kind of like a "linkage" or "Union" sideway". But, after learning about inner join vs outer join, it shows that a Join (Inner join) is actually an intersection. For example, when one table has the ID 1, 2, 7, 8, while another table has the ID 7 and 8 only, the way we get the intersection is: select * from t1, t2 where t1.ID = t2.ID to get the two records of "7 and 8". So it is actually an intersection. So we have the "Intersection" of 2 tables. Compare this with the "Union" operation on 2 tables. Can a Join be thought of as an "Intersection"? But what about the "linking" or "sideway union" aspect of it?

    Read the article

  • In SQL, why is "select *, count(*) from sentGifts group by whenSent;" ok, but when "*" and "count(*)

    - by Jian Lin
    In SQL, using the table: mysql> select * from sentGifts; +--------+------------+--------+------+---------------------+--------+ | sentID | whenSent | fromID | toID | trytryWhen | giftID | +--------+------------+--------+------+---------------------+--------+ | 1 | 2010-04-24 | 123 | 456 | 2010-04-24 01:52:20 | 100 | | 2 | 2010-04-24 | 123 | 4568 | 2010-04-24 01:56:04 | 100 | | 3 | 2010-04-24 | 123 | NULL | NULL | 1 | | 4 | 2010-04-24 | NULL | 111 | 2010-04-24 03:10:42 | 2 | | 5 | 2010-03-03 | 11 | 22 | 2010-03-03 00:00:00 | 6 | | 6 | 2010-04-24 | 11 | 222 | 2010-04-24 03:54:49 | 6 | | 7 | 2010-04-24 | 1 | 2 | 2010-04-24 03:58:45 | 6 | +--------+------------+--------+------+---------------------+--------+ 7 rows in set (0.00 sec) The following is OK: mysql> select *, count(*) from sentGifts group by whenSent; +--------+------------+--------+------+---------------------+--------+----------+ | sentID | whenSent | fromID | toID | trytryWhen | giftID | count(*) | +--------+------------+--------+------+---------------------+--------+----------+ | 5 | 2010-03-03 | 11 | 22 | 2010-03-03 00:00:00 | 6 | 1 | | 1 | 2010-04-24 | 123 | 456 | 2010-04-24 01:52:20 | 100 | 6 | +--------+------------+--------+------+---------------------+--------+----------+ 2 rows in set (0.00 sec) But suppose we want the count(*) to appear as the first column: mysql> select count(*), * from sentGifts group by whenSent; ERROR 1064 (42000): You have an error in your SQL syntax; check the manual that corresponds to your MySQL server version for the right syntax to use near '* from sentGifts group by whenSent' at line 1 it gave an error. Why is it so and what is a way to fix it? I realized that this is ok: mysql> select count(*), whenSent from sentGifts group by whenSent; +----------+------------+ | count(*) | whenSent | +----------+------------+ | 1 | 2010-03-03 | | 6 | 2010-04-24 | +----------+------------+ 2 rows in set (0.00 sec) but what about the one above that gave an error? thanks.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 4 5 6 7 8 9  | Next Page >