Search Results

Search found 17899 results on 716 pages for 'oracle templates rtf'.

Page 360/716 | < Previous Page | 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367  | Next Page >

  • How to return number of rows in the template

    - by xRobot
    In my view I return all posts of one blog: posts = Post.objects.filter(blog=blog) and pass it to context. But.. How can I get the number of posts in the template ? This is my template: <h1>Number of posts: {{ ??? }} </h1> {% for post in posts %} {{ post.title }} {{ post.body }} {% endfor %}

    Read the article

  • Accept templated parameter of stl_container_type<string>::iterator

    - by Rodion Ingles
    I have a function where I have a container which holds strings (eg vector<string>, set<string>, list<string>) and, given a start iterator and an end iterator, go through the iterator range processing the strings. Currently the function is declared like this: template< typename ContainerIter> void ProcessStrings(ContainerIter begin, ContainerIter end); Now this will accept any type which conforms to the implicit interface of implementing operator*, prefix operator++ and whatever other calls are in the function body. What I really want to do is have a definition like the one below which explicitly restricts the amount of input (pseudocode warning): template< typename Container<string>::iterator> void ProcessStrings(Container<string>::iterator begin, Container<string>::iterator end); so that I can use it as such: vector<string> str_vec; list<string> str_list; set<SomeOtherClass> so_set; ProcessStrings(str_vec.begin(), str_vec.end()); // OK ProcessStrings(str_list.begin(), str_list.end()); //OK ProcessStrings(so_set.begin(), so_set.end()); // Error Essentially, what I am trying to do is restrict the function specification to make it obvious to a user of the function what it accepts and if the code fails to compile they get a message that they are using the wrong parameter types rather than something in the function body that XXX function could not be found for XXX class.

    Read the article

  • Django: Is there any way to have "unique for date range"?

    - by tomwolber
    If my model for Items is: class Item(models.Model): name = models.CharField(max_length=500) startDate = models.DateField("Start Date", unique="true") endDate = models.DateField("End Date") Each Item needs to have a unique date range. for example, if i create an Item that has a date range of June 1st to June 8th, how can I keep and Item with a date range of June 3rd to June 5th from being created (or render an error with template logic)?

    Read the article

  • Is this call to a function object inlined?

    - by dehmann
    In the following code, Foo::add calls a function via a function object: struct Plus { inline int operator()(int x, int y) const { return x + y; } }; template<class Fct> struct Foo { Fct fct; Foo(Fct f) : fct(f) {} inline int add(int x, int y) { return fct(x,y); // same efficiency adding directly? } }; Is this the same efficiency as calling x+y directly in Foo::add? In other words, does the compiler typically directly replace fct(x,y) with the actual call, inlining the code, when compiling with optimizations enabled?

    Read the article

  • C++ -- typedef "inside" template arguments?

    - by redmoskito
    Imagine I have a template function like this: template<Iterator> void myfunc(Iterator a, Iterator::value_type b) { ... } Is there a way to declare a typedef for Iterator::valuetype that I can use in the function signature? For example: template< typename Iterator, typedef Iterator::value_type type> void myfunc(Iterator a, type b) { ... } Thus far, I've resorted to using default template arguments and Boost concept checking to ensure the default is always used: template< typename Iterator, typename type = Iterator::value_type > void myfunc(Iterator a, type b) { BOOST_STATIC_ASSERT(( boost::type_traits::is_same< typename Iterator::value_type, type >::value )); ... } ...but it would be nice if there was support in the language for this type of thing.

    Read the article

  • std::conditional compile-time branch evaluation

    - by cmannett85
    Compiling this: template < class T, class Y, class ...Args > struct isSame { static constexpr bool value = std::conditional< sizeof...( Args ), typename std::conditional< std::is_same< T, Y >::value, isSame< Y, Args... >, // Error! std::false_type >::type, std::is_same< T, Y > >::type::value; }; int main() { qDebug() << isSame< double, int >::value; return EXIT_SUCCESS; } Gives me this compiler error: error: wrong number of template arguments (1, should be 2 or more) The issue is that isSame< double, int > has an empty Args parameter pack, so isSame< Y, Args... > effectively becomes isSame< Y > which does not match the signature. But my question is: Why is that branch being evaluated at all? sizeof...( Args ) is false, so the inner std:conditional should not be evaluated. This isn't a runtime piece of code, the compiler knows that sizeof..( Args ) will never be true with the given template types. If you're curious, it's supposed to be a variadic version of std::is_same, not that it works...

    Read the article

  • VB.NET template instance - passing a variable data type

    - by FerretallicA
    As the title suggests, I'm tyring to pass a variable data type to a template class. Something like this: frmExample = New LookupForm(Of Models.MyClass) 'Works fine Dim SelectedType As Type = InstanceOfMyClass.GetType() 'Works fine repoGeneric = New Repositories.Repository(Of SelectedType) 'Ba-bow! repoGeneric = New Repositories.Repository(Of InstanceOfMyClass.GetType()) 'Ba-bow! I'm assuming it's something to do with the template being processed at compile time but even if I'm off the mark there, it wouldn't solve my problem anyway. I can't find any relevant information on using Reflection to instance template classes either. (How) can I create an instance of a dynamically typed repository at runtime?

    Read the article

  • WPF DataGridRow Template - how to achieve Selected event

    - by user1809972
    I would like to override the DataGridRow template depending on the datatype of object bound to the grid. If the type is label, it just shows a Label. Otehrwise, it shows the cells. Follwing is the xaml. <DataTrigger Binding="{Binding Path=IsLabel, UpdateSourceTrigger=PropertyChanged}" Value="True"> <Setter Property="Template"> <Setter.Value> <ControlTemplate TargetType="{x:Type DataGridRow}"> <Grid> <Label HorizontalAlignment="Center" Padding="3,3,3,3" FontWeight="Bold" Content="{Binding Id}"/> </Grid> </ControlTemplate> </Setter.Value> </Setter> </DataTrigger> The grid looks ok. But, when the Label is clicked, it doesnt raise the Selection changed event for the DataGridRow. How do I achieve this behaviour? This label should just behave as any other DataGridRow(with the default template). Thanks

    Read the article

  • Using Page anchors on Google AppEngine?

    - by codingJoe
    I would like to have AppEngine render an html page that auto scrolls to an html anchor point. I'm not how and where to put the that type of instruction. template_values = { 'foo' : 'foo', 'bar': 'bar', 'anchor' : '#MyPageAnchor' # ?? Something like this... } path = os.path.join(os.path.dirname(__file__), fileName) self.response.out.write(template.render(path, template_values)) Is this possible? How do I accomplish this?

    Read the article

  • c++ class member functions instatiated by traits

    - by Jive Dadson
    I am reluctant to say I can't figure this out, but I can't figure this out. I've googled and searched stackoverflow, and come up empty. The abstract, and possibly overly vague form of the question is, how can I use the traits-pattern to instantiate non-virtual member functions? The question came up while modernizing a set of multivariate function optimizers that I wrote more than 10 years ago. The optimizers all operate by selecting a straight-line path through the parameter space away from the current best point (the "update"), then finding a better point on that line (the "line search"), then testing for the "done" condition, and if not done, iterating. There are different methods for doing the update, the line-search, and conceivably for the done test, and other things. Mix and match. Different update formulae require different state-variable data. For example, the LMQN update requires a vector, and the BFGS update requires a matrix. If evaluating gradients is cheap, the line-search should do so. If not, it should use function evaluations only. Some methods require more accurate line-searches than others. Those are just some examples. The original version instantiates several of the combinations by means of virtual functions. Some traits are selected by setting mode bits that are tested at runtime. Yuck. It would be trivial to define the traits with #define's and the member functions with #ifdef's and macros. But that's so twenty years ago. It bugs me that I cannot figure out a whiz-bang modern way. If there were only one trait that varied, I could use the curiously recurring template pattern. But I see no way to extend that to arbitrary combinations of traits. I tried doing it using boost::enable_if, etc.. The specialized state info was easy. I managed to get the functions done, but only by resorting to non-friend external functions that have the this-pointer as a parameter. I never even figured out how to make the functions friends, much less member functions. The compiler (vc++ 2008) always complained that things didn't match. I would yell, "SFINAE, you moron!" but the moron is probably me. Perhaps tag-dispatch is the key. I haven't gotten very deeply into that. Surely it's possible, right? If so, what is best practice?

    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

  • Inheritance inside a template - public members become invisible?

    - by Juliano
    I'm trying to use inheritance among classes defined inside a class template (inner classes). However, the compiler (GCC) is refusing to give me access to public members in the base class. Example code: template <int D> struct Space { struct Plane { Plane(Space& b); virtual int& at(int y, int z) = 0; Space& space; /* <= this member is public */ }; struct PlaneX: public Plane { /* using Plane::space; */ PlaneX(Space& b, int x); int& at(int y, int z); const int cx; }; int& at(int x, int y, int z); }; template <int D> int& Space<D>::PlaneX::at(int y, int z) { return space.at(cx, y, z); /* <= but it fails here */ }; Space<4> sp4; The compiler says: file.cpp: In member function ‘int& Space::PlaneX::at(int, int)’: file.cpp:21: error: ‘space’ was not declared in this scope If using Plane::space; is added to the definition of class PlaneX, or if the base class member is accessed through the this pointer, or if class Space is changed to a non-template class, then the compiler is fine with it. I don't know if this is either some obscure restriction of C++, or a bug in GCC (GCC versions 4.4.1 and 4.4.3 tested). Does anyone have an idea?

    Read the article

  • Vector of vectors of T in template<T> class

    - by topright
    Why this code does not compile (Cygwin)? #include <vector> template <class Ttile> class Tilemap { typedef std::vector< Ttile > TtileRow; typedef std::vector< TtileRow > TtileMap; typedef TtileMap::iterator TtileMapIterator; // error here }; error: type std::vector<std::vector<Ttile, std::allocator<_CharT> >, std::allocator<std::vector<Ttile, std::allocator<_CharT> > > >' is not derived from typeTilemap'

    Read the article

  • Odd C++ template behaviour with static member vars

    - by jon hanson
    This piece of code is supposed to calculate an approximation to e (i.e. the mathematical constant ~ 2.71828183) at compile-time, using the following approach; e1 = 2 / 1 e2 = (2 * 2 + 1) / (2 * 1) = 5 / 2 = 2.5 e3 = (3 * 5 + 1) / (3 * 2) = 16 / 6 ~ 2.67 e4 = (4 * 16 + 1) / (4 * 6) = 65 / 24 ~ 2.708 ... e(i) = (e(i-1).numer * i + 1) / (e(i-1).denom * i) The computation is returned via the result static member however, after 2 iterations it yields zero instead of the expected value. I've added a static member function f() to compute the same value and that doesn't exhibit the same problem. #include <iostream> #include <iomanip> // Recursive case. template<int ITERS, int NUMERATOR = 2, int DENOMINATOR = 1, int I = 2> struct CalcE { static const double result; static double f () {return CalcE<ITERS, NUMERATOR * I + 1, DENOMINATOR * I, I + 1>::f ();} }; template<int ITERS, int NUMERATOR, int DENOMINATOR, int I> const double CalcE<ITERS, NUMERATOR, DENOMINATOR, I>::result = CalcE<ITERS, NUMERATOR * I + 1, DENOMINATOR * I, I + 1>::result; // Base case. template<int ITERS, int NUMERATOR, int DENOMINATOR> struct CalcE<ITERS, NUMERATOR, DENOMINATOR, ITERS> { static const double result; static double f () {return result;} }; template<int ITERS, int NUMERATOR, int DENOMINATOR> const double CalcE<ITERS, NUMERATOR, DENOMINATOR, ITERS>::result = static_cast<double>(NUMERATOR) / DENOMINATOR; // Test it. int main (int argc, char* argv[]) { std::cout << std::setprecision (8); std::cout << "e2 ~ " << CalcE<2>::result << std::endl; std::cout << "e3 ~ " << CalcE<3>::result << std::endl; std::cout << "e4 ~ " << CalcE<4>::result << std::endl; std::cout << "e5 ~ " << CalcE<5>::result << std::endl; std::cout << std::endl; std::cout << "e2 ~ " << CalcE<2>::f () << std::endl; std::cout << "e3 ~ " << CalcE<3>::f () << std::endl; std::cout << "e4 ~ " << CalcE<4>::f () << std::endl; std::cout << "e5 ~ " << CalcE<5>::f () << std::endl; return 0; } I've tested this with VS 2008 and VS 2010, and get the same results in each case: e2 ~ 2 e3 ~ 2.5 e4 ~ 0 e5 ~ 0 e2 ~ 2 e3 ~ 2.5 e4 ~ 2.6666667 e5 ~ 2.7083333 Why does result not yield the expected values whereas f() does? According to Rotsor's comment below, this does work with GCC, so I guess the question is, am i relying on some type of undefined behaviour with regards to static initialisation order, or is this a bug with Visual Studio?

    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

  • 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

  • What is the proper way to declare a specialization of a template for another template type?

    - by Head Geek
    The usual definition for a specialization of a template function is something like this: class Foo { [...] }; namespace std { template<> void swap(Foo& left, Foo& right) { [...] } } // namespace std But how do you properly define the specialization when the type it's specialized on is itself a template? Here's what I've got: template <size_t Bits> class fixed { [...] }; namespace std { template<size_t Bits> void swap(fixed<Bits>& left, fixed<Bits>& right) { [...] } } // namespace std Is this the right way to declare swap? It's supposed to be a specialization of the template function std::swap, but I can't tell whether the compiler is seeing it as such, or whether it thinks that it's an overload of it or something.

    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

  • Django 1.1 template question

    - by Bovril
    Hi All, I'm a little stuck trying to get my head around a django template. I have 2 objects, a cluster and a node I would like a simple page that lists... [Cluster 1] [associated node 1] [associated node 2] [associated node 3] [Cluster 2] [associated node 4] [associated node 5] [associated node 6] I've been using Django for about 2 days so if i've missed the point, please be gentle :) Models - class Node(models.Model): name = models.CharField(max_length=30) description = models.TextField() cluster = models.ForeignKey(Cluster) def __unicode__(self): return self.name class Cluster(models.Model): name = models.CharField(max_length=30) description = models.TextField() def __unicode__(self): return self.name Views - def DSAList(request): clusterlist = Cluster.objects.all() nodelist = Node.objects.all() t = loader.get_template('dsalist.html') v = Context({ 'CLUSTERLIST' : clusterlist, 'NODELIST' : nodelist, }) return HttpResponse(t.render(v)) Template - <body> <TABLE> {% for cluster in CLUSTERLIST %} <tr> <TD>{{ cluster.name }}</TD> {% for node in NODELIST %} {% if node.cluster.id == cluster.id %} <tr> <TD>{{ node.name }}</TD> </tr> {% endif %} {% endfor %} </tr> {% endfor %} </TABLE> </body> Any ideas ?

    Read the article

  • Abstract base class puzzle

    - by 0x80
    In my class design I ran into the following problem: class MyData { int foo; }; class AbstraktA { public: virtual void A() = 0; }; class AbstraktB : public AbstraktA { public: virtual void B() = 0; }; template<class T> class ImplA : public AbstraktA { public: void A(){ cout << "ImplA A()"; } }; class ImplB : public ImplA<MyData>, public AbstraktB { public: void B(){ cout << "ImplB B()"; } }; void TestAbstrakt() { AbstraktB *b = (AbstraktB *) new ImplB; b->A(); b->B(); }; The problem with the code above is that the compiler will complain that AbstraktA::A() is not defined. Interface A is shared by multiple objects. But the implementation of A is dependent on the template argument. Interface B is the seen by the outside world, and needs to be abstrakt. The reason I would like this is that it would allow me to define object C like this: Define the interface C inheriting from abstrakt A. Define the implementation of C using a different datatype for template A. I hope I'm clear. Is there any way to do this, or do I need to rethink my design?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367  | Next Page >