Search Results

Search found 39473 results on 1579 pages for 'johny why'.

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 56/1579 | < Previous Page | 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63  | Next Page >

  • Why DataTable not showing the NULL values?

    - by thevan
    I have one DataTable Which I gets from the BackEnd. But When I fix the BreakPoint and Visualize the DataTable, It does not show the NULL values. Why is it so? In the BackEnd, My Table looks like below: CustID JobID Qty ---------- -------- ------ 1 NULL 100 2 1 200 But in the FrontEnd, My DataTable looks like below: CustID JobID Qty ---------- -------- ------ 1 100 2 1 200 Why it is not showing the NULL Values? Is there any specific reason? How to show the DataTable as it is like in the BackEnd?

    Read the article

  • Why is Window.open()'s return type void ?

    - by Salvin Francis
    Doing something like this is perfectly permissible in javascript: var newWindow = window.open(...) However, this does not work in the senario of GWT (I am using 1.5 I dont know about later versions), Window window = Window.open("", "", ""); Throws me a compile time error that the open is a method with a return type as void. Why should it be void ? What if i want to close my popup from the main Window ? how do I get its handle ? I will have to resort to native javascript no doubt but i was just curious so as to why this is so...

    Read the article

  • Why do I need to explicitly specify all columns in a SQL "GROUP BY" clause - why not "GROUP BY *"?

    - by rwmnau
    This has always bothered me - why does the GROUP BY clause in a SQL statement require that I include all non-aggregate columns? These columns should be included by default - a kind of "GROUP BY *" - since I can't even run the query unless they're all included. Every column has to either be an aggregate or be specified in the "GROUP BY", but it seems like anything not aggregated should be automatically grouped. Maybe it's part of the ANSI-SQL standard, but even so, I don't understand why. Can somebody help me understand the need for this convention?

    Read the article

  • Why increase pointer by two while finding loop in linked list, why not 3,4,5?

    - by GG
    I had a look at question already which talk about algorithm to find loop in a linked list. I have read Floyd's cycle-finding algorithm solution, mentioned at lot of places that we have to take two pointers. One pointer( slower/tortoise ) is increased by one and other pointer( faster/hare ) is increased by 2. When they are equal we find the loop and if faster pointer reaches null there is no loop in the linked list. Now my question is why we increase faster pointer by 2. Why not something else? Increasing by 2 is necessary or we can increase it by X to get the result. Is it necessary that we will find a loop if we increment faster pointer by 2 or there can be the case where we need to increment by 3 or 5 or x.

    Read the article

  • Why does a delegate with no parameters compile?

    - by Ryan
    I'm confused why this compiles: private delegate int MyDelegate(int p1, int p2); private void testDelegate() { MyDelegate imp = delegate { return 1; }; } MyDelegate should be a pointer to a method that takes two int parameters and returns another int, right? Why am I allowed to assign a method that takes no parameters? Interestingly, these doesn't compile (it complains about the signature mismatches, as I'd expect) private void testDelegate() { // Missing param MyDelegate imp = delegate(int p1) { return 1; }; // Wrong return type MyDelegate imp2 = delegate(int p1, int p2) { return "String"; }; } Thanks for any help! Ryan

    Read the article

  • Why people do not like OOP? [closed]

    - by Gabriel Šcerbák
    I do not understand why people choose C++ over Smalltalk in past and why Java over Python or Ruby. What is it that ties people so much to the procedural programming and makes it so difficult to go "all the way" to object oriented programming? What makes OOP hard? Should not objects be an abstraction which is easier to grasp for people, i.e. a more natural one than procedures? Is education the problem (because people tend to learn procedural programming before object oriented)?

    Read the article

  • Why must I rewind IteratorIterator

    - by chris
    $arrayIter = new ArrayIterator( array(1, 2) ); $iterIter = new IteratorIterator($arrayIter); var_dump($iterIter->valid()); //false var_dump($arrayIter->valid()); //true If I first call $iterIter-rewind(), then $iterIter-valid() is true. I'm curious why it requires that rewind() be called. I imagine there's good reason for it, but I would have expected it to simply start iteration at whatever state it's inner iterator is in, and leave it as an option to rewind before beginning iteration. calling next() also seems to put it in a "valid" state(although it advances to the next position, suggesting it was previously at the first position). $arrayIter = new ArrayIterator(array(1,2)); $iterIter = new IteratorIterator($arrayIter); $iterIter->next(); var_dump($iterIter->valid()); Again, I'm curious why I need to call rewind(), despite the inner iterator being in a valid state.

    Read the article

  • Why hasn't functional programming taken over yet?

    - by pankrax
    I've read some texts about declarative/functional programming (languages), tried out Haskell as well as written one myself. From what I've seen, functional programming has several advantages over the classical imperative style: Stateless programs; No side effects Concurrency; Plays extremely nice with the rising multi-core technology Programs are usually shorter and in some cases easier to read Productivity goes up (example: Erlang) Imperative programming is a very old paradigm (as far as I know) and possibly not suitable for the 21st century Why are companies using or programs written in functional languages still so "rare"? Why, when looking at the advantages of functional programming, are we still using imperative programming languages? Maybe it was too early for it in 1990, but today?

    Read the article

  • why Observable snapshot observer vector

    - by han14466
    In Observable's notifyObservers method, why does the coder use arrLocal = obs.toArray();? Why does not coder iterate vector directly? Thanks public void notifyObservers(Object arg) { Object[] arrLocal; synchronized (this) { /* We don't want the Observer doing callbacks into * arbitrary code while holding its own Monitor. * The code where we extract each Observable from * the Vector and store the state of the Observer * needs synchronization, but notifying observers * does not (should not). The worst result of any * potential race-condition here is that: * 1) a newly-added Observer will miss a * notification in progress * 2) a recently unregistered Observer will be * wrongly notified when it doesn't care */ if (!changed) return; arrLocal = obs.toArray(); clearChanged(); } for (int i = arrLocal.length-1; i>=0; i--) ((Observer)arrLocal[i]).update(this, arg); }

    Read the article

  • Why does UITableViewCell have a contentView property?

    - by mystify
    What's the point of this contentView property? I mean: Why aren't all the subviews just added to self? Let me get that right: Every cell is a view (UITabvleViewCell is a UIView subclass). And this fat view has another fat view with same bounds sitting on top of it, called contentView. That contentView then carries all those other subviews. Now why didn't they save that extra chunk of memory? Is there any genius logic behind this decision? Would love to understand the reason for this.

    Read the article

  • Why is the 'this' keyword not a reference type in C++ [closed]

    - by Dave Tapley
    Possible Duplicates: Why ‘this’ is a pointer and not a reference? SAFE Pointer to a pointer (well reference to a reference) in C# The this keyword in C++ gets a pointer to the object I currently am. My question is why is the type of this a pointer type and not a reference type. Are there any conditions under which the this keyword would be NULL? My immediate thought would be in a static function, but Visual C++ at least is smart enough to spot this and report static member functions do not have 'this' pointers. Is this in the standard?

    Read the article

  • Why is unit testing needed in iPhone / iPad ?

    - by Madhup
    Hi, I am developing an application for iPad application. I need to perform unit testing in the application. But I am not sure why I should do unit testing in this application. The applications in these environments are rather small for unit testing to be written. And since the iPhone sentestingkit is not well documented the implementation and wriiting test cases is so time consuming. So why should we waste time in this? And if we have to what should be the best approach to write test cases? Thanks, Madhup

    Read the article

  • MEF Why is ComposePart an extension method?

    - by ILovePaperTowels
    CompositionContainer.ComposePart is an extension method. why is that? Looking into the System.Componentmodel.Composition assembly, it looks like it's because it is ONLY meant to work with the attributed programming model while the .Compose() method is able to take in exports as long as it is a composablepart. ComposePart is even hosted in the 'AttributedModelServices' class which makes me think I'm correct. Am I correct on this? If not, why is it an extension method and not a method in the container class?

    Read the article

  • Why this works (Templates, SFINAE). C++

    - by atch
    Hi guys, reffering to yesterday's post, this woke me up this morning. Why this actually works? As long as the fnc test is concerned this fnc has no body so how can perform anything? Why and how this works? I'm REALLY interested to see your answers. template<typename T> class IsClassT { private: typedef char One; typedef struct { char a[2]; } Two; template<typename C> static One test(int C::*); //NO BODY HERE template<typename C> static Two test(…); //NOR HERE public: enum { Yes = sizeof(IsClassT<T>::test<T>(0)) == 1 }; enum { No = !Yes }; }; Thanks in advance with help to understand this very interesting fenomena.

    Read the article

  • Why does this C program compile?

    - by AdmiralJonB
    I've just come across someone's C code that I'm confused as to why it is compiling. There are two points I don't understand. First, the function prototype has no parameters compared to the actual function definition. Secondly, the parameter in the function definition doesn't have an type. #include <stdio.h> int func(); int func(param) { return param; } int main() { int bla = func(10); printf("%d",bla); } Could someone please explain to me why this works? I've tested it in a couple of compilers and it works fine.

    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 | 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63  | Next Page >