I've recently encountered these two variables in some Velocity code:
$!variable1
!$variable2
I was surprised by the similarity of these so I became suspicious about the correctness of the code and become interested in finding the difference between two.
Is it possible that velocity allows any order of these two symbols or do they have different purpose? Do you know the answer?
#Jr. Here is the guide I followed when doing VM R&D: http://velocity.apache.org/engine/1.7/user-guide.html
Velocity uses the !$ and $! annotations for different things. If you use !$ it will basically be the same as a normal "!" operator, but the $! is used as a basic check to see if the variable is blank and if so it prints it out as an empty string. If your variable is empty or null and you don't use the $! annotation it will print the actual variable name as a string.
I googled and stackoverflowed a lot before I finally found the answer at people.apache.org.
According to that:
It is very easy to confuse the quiet reference notation with the
boolean not-Operator. Using the not-Operator, you use !${foo}, while
the quiet reference notation is $!{foo}. And yes, you will end up
sometimes with !$!{foo}...
Easy after all, shame it didn't struck me immediately. Hope this helps someone.
Related
Is it legal to use variables in printf without supplying the formatting (such as %d, %f).
for example:
printf("value is ok\r\n",myvalue);
The command compiles without errors nor warning, though I am not absolutely sure if it is legal or dangerous.
This reference says
There should be at least as many of these arguments as the number of values specified in the format specifiers. Additional arguments are ignored by the function.
Base on this information, your statement is perfectly legal, however I don't thinks that this is a good idea, since you code could quickly become confusing, which might lead to bugs.
Edit: The original source does not explicitly mention the case of zero arguments. To add another source, the linux man pages states
The format string is composed of zero or more directives.
This source does not discuss what happens with additional arguments. However, combining these two sources gives a definitive answer.
I've implemented auto completion to a combobox like this article shows. Is it possible to make it search for substrings instead of just the beginning of the words?
http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/2371/IAutoComplete-and-custom-IEnumString-implementatio
I haven't found any way to customize how IEnumString/IAutoComplete compares the strings. Is it possible?
The built in search options help a bit but it is complete chaos. To find instring matches you need to set flag AcoWordFilter. But this will prevent from numbers being matched!! However, there is a trick to get the numbers to match: preced with a double-quote as in "3 to find a string containing or starting with "3". Some more chaos? In the AcoWordFilter you also need to prefix other characters not considered part of a "word", eg. you need to prefix parentheses with a " but then you will not find parentheses at the first position!
So the solution is either to create your own implementation of IAutoComplete or offer the user to switch between the modes (a bit awkward).
I dont think that the MS engineers are especially proud of such chaos. How about one more option: AcoSearchAnwhere?
After retrieving the Edit control's IAutoComplete interface, query it for an IAutoComplete2 interface. Calling its SetOptions member you can disable prefix filtering by specifying the ACO_NOPREFIXFILTERING AUTOCOMPLETEOPTIONS.
This is available on Windows Vista and later. If you need a solution that works with pre-Vista versions, you'll have to write your own.
I didn't touch Prolog since high-school, and even though I've tried to find the info, it didn't help. Below is the example that has to illustrate my problem:
%% everybody():- [dana, cody, bess, abby].
%% Everybody = [dana, cody, bess, abby].
likes(dana, cody).
hates(bess, dana).
hates(cody, abby).
hates(X, Y):- \+ likes(X, Y).
likes_somebody(_, []):- fail.
likes_somebody(X, [girl | others]):-
likes(X, girl) ; likes_somebody(X, others).
likes_everybody(_, []):- true.
likes_everybody(X, [girl | others]):-
likes(X, girl) , likes_everybody(X, others).
maplist(likes_somebody, [dana, cody, bess, abby], [dana, cody, bess, abby]).
How do I declare everybody to just be the list of girls? The commented lines are those which I've tried, but I've got bizarre error messages back.
This is the tutorial I followed more or less so far. I'm using GProlog, if it makes any difference. Sorry for such a basic question. GProlog's manual doesn't deal with language syntax, but I've certainly looked there. As an aside, I would be grateful for information on where to look for language documentation (as opposed to implementation documentation).
Every variable in Prolog must begin with an uppercase letter. So for starters, you want Everybody, not everybody.
Second problem, variables in Prolog are not assignables. So probably what you want to do is make a fact and use that instead:
everybody([dana, cody, bess, abby]).
Your bottom line of code is actually a fact definition and will attempt to overwrite maplist/3. What you probably want to do is put everything above that line into a file (say, called likes.pl) and then consult it ([likes].). Then you can run a query like this:
?- everybody(Everybody), maplist(likes_somebody, Everybody, Everybody).
This won't work, because likes_somebody/2 processes a list in the second argument. The predicate you have for likes_somebody/2 could be written:
likes_somebody(_, []).
but still won't mean much. It simply unifies anything with the empty list:
?- likes_somebody(chicken_tacos, []).
true.
You really need a predicate to tell you if someone is a girl, like this:
girl(dana).
girl(cody).
girl(bess).
girl(abby).
Then you could do what I think you're trying to do, which is something closer to this:
likes_somebody(X) :- girl(X).
Then the maplist construction would work like this:
everybody(Everybody), maplist(likes_somebody, Everybody).
Which would simply return true. You could simplify and eliminate everybody/1 by instead using findall(Girl, girl(X), Everybody) but it's getting weird.
You're trying to do list processing with likes_everybody/2, but it's broken because girl is literally girl, not a variable, and others is literally others, not a list of some kind that could be the tail of another list.
I think you still have some old ideas you need to cleanse. Read some more, write some more, and your code will start to make a lot more sense.
This should be an easy one for folks. Google's got nothing except content farms linking to one blurb, and that's written in broken English. So let's get this cleared up here where it'll be entombed for all time.
What's the trailing ampersand on VB hexadecimal numbers for? I've read it forces conversion to an Int32 on the chance VB wants to try and store as an Int16. That makes sense to me. But the part I didn't get from the blurb was to always use the trailing ampersand for bitmasks, flags, enums, etc. Apparantly, it has something to do with overriding VB's fetish for using signed numbers for things internally, which can lead to weird results in comparisons.
So to get easy points, what are the rules for VB.Net hexadecimal numbers, with and without the trailing ampersand? Please include the specific usage in the case of bitmasks/flags and such, and how one would also use it to force signed vs. unsigned.
No C# please :)
Vb.net will regard "&h"-notation hex constants in the range from 0x80000000-0xFFFFFFFF as negative numbers unless the type is explicitly specified as UInt32, Int64, or UInt64. Such behavior might be understandable if the numbers were written with precisely eight digits following the "&", but for some reason I cannot fathom, vb.net will behave that way even if the numbers are written with leading zeroes. In present versions of VB, one may force the number to be evaluated correctly by using a suffix of "&" suffix (Int64), "L" (Int64), "UL" (UInt64), or "UI" (UInt32). In earlier versions of VB, the "problem range" was 0x8000-0xFFFF, and the only way to force numbers in that range to be evaluated correctly (as a 32-bit integer, which was then called a "Long") was a trailing ampersand.
Visual Basic has the concept of Type Characters. These can be used to modify variable declarations and literals, although I'd not recommend using them in variable declarations - most developers are more familiar these days with As. E.g. the following declarations are equivalent:
Dim X&
Dim X As Long
But personally, I find the second more readable. If I saw the first, I'd actually have to go visit the link above, or use Intellisense, to work out what the variable is (not good if looking at the code on paper).
In this question, a user commented to never use the With block in VB. Why?
"Never" is a strong word.
I think it fine as long as you don't abuse it (like nesting)
IMHO - this is better:
With MyCommand.Parameters
.Count = 1
.Item(0).ParameterName = "#baz"
.Item(0).Value = fuz
End With
Than:
MyCommand.Parameters.Count = 1
MyCommand.Parameters.Item(0).ParameterName = "#baz"
MyCommand.Parameters.Item(0).Value = fuz
There is nothing wrong about the With keyword. It's true that it may reduce readibility when nested but the solution is simply don't use nested With.
There may be namespace problems in Delphi, which doesn't enforce a leading dot but that issue simply doesn't exist in VB.NET so the people that are posting rants about Delphi are losing their time in this question.
I think the real reason many people don't like the With keyword is that is not included in C* languages and many programmers automatically think that every feature not included in his/her favourite language is bad.
It's just not helpful compared to other options.
If you really miss it you can create a one or two character alias for your object instead. The alias only takes one line to setup, rather than two for the With block (With + End With lines).
The alias also gives you a quick mouse-over reference for the type of the variable. It provides a hook for the IDE to help you jump back to the top of the block if you want (though if the block is that large you have other problems). It can be passed as an argument to functions. And you can use it to reference an index property.
So we have an alternative that gives more function with less code.
Also see this question:
Why is the with() construct not included in C#, when it is really cool in VB.NET?
The with keyword is only sideswiped in a passing reference here in an hilarious article by the wonderful Verity Stob, but it's worth it for the vitriol: See the paragraph that starts
While we are on identifier confusion. The with keyword...
Worth reading the entire article!
The With keyword also provides another benefit - the object(s) in the With statement only need to be "qualified" once, which can improve performance. Check out the information on MSDN here:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/wc500chb(VS.80).aspx
So by all means, use it.