I'm using the following CSS rules to do a transformation on a simple H2 element, only text inside it:
-moz-transform: matrix(0, -1, 1, 0, 130px, 118px);
-webkit-transform: matrix(0, -1, 1, 0, 130px, 118px);
It works as expected in Firefox; i doesn't work at all in Safari/Windows and Chrome/Windows: the H2 stays where it is. Am I doing something wrong or are CSS transforms not active in those two browsers under Windows?
There is some sort of implementation, but it's definitely broken.
If I remove the px's I can get it to render at least (it doesn't seem to render with them or see it as valid CSS), but it doesnt let the screen scroll down to it like Firefox does. Point it to an location in frame though (without the px's) and it does display. Removing the px's don't seem to make any difference to the position either, which is good.
The MDC docs are pretty clear:
Note: Gecko (Firefox) accepts a length value for tx and ty.
Safari (WebKit) and Opera currently support a unitless number for tx and ty.
After a lengthy post explaining the logic of the matrix, Brendan Kenny concludes that one must
"add units to e and f for
Firefox (which doesn’t really make any
sense, but for now: fine)."
Which is true - for the computer - as the linear translations are technically no different than the other entities of the matrix.
But it is unfair, as - for us humans - it makes logical sense for the linear translations to be in value amounts, and there is no other good way to get the browser to do percentage calculations.
Hopefully, the FF implementation will win.
As an aside, I have read, but not yet tested that the third and fourth values are input into Webkit in order, but in FF and IE in reverse. From the docs:
-moz-transform: matrix(a, c, b, d, tx, ty)
Where a, b, c, d build the transformation matrix and tx, ty are the translate values.
┌ ┐
│ a b │
│ c d │
└ ┘
Related
The constructor for wx.TextCtrl takes a wx.Size argument, which is in units of pixels. Usually, I don't want to specify the size of a multiline TextCtrl in pixels, but rather in how many characters it can show without scrolling. I find that multiline TextCtrls are often the dominant component in my windows, thus stretching by Sizer is not an option.
The wxPython Phoenix documentation contains a hint as to how to do this, however this is meant more for short text on single line control.
I have started using this utility method:
def _set_textctrl_size_by_chars(self, tc, w, h):
sz = tc.GetTextExtent('X')
sz = wx.Size(sz.x * w, sz.y * h)
tc.SetInitialSize(tc.GetSizeFromTextSize(sz))
along with code like this:
tc = wx.TextCtrl(self, style=wx.TE_MULTILINE)
self._set_textctrl_size_by_chars(tc, 80, 20)
This works, but I consider it a hack. I have looked over the documentation but have not found any other way to do it.
I understand that fonts are not usually monospaced, and using 'X' as a representative character width is inexact, however it's plenty good enough for my usage. Still, it seems there should be some way to do this directly using the wx library.
Using something like text.GetSizeFromTextSize(text.GetTextExtent("99999").x) is indeed the best way to size the text control to fit exactly 5 digits (e.g. a ZIP code in some localities). Notice that this is slightly better than your code because the width of 80 "X"s is not necessarily quite the same as 80 times the width of a single "X". And I'd also recommend using "M" or "W" which can be noticeably wider than "X" in some fonts, but this is not going to changes matters much.
We thought about adding a helper method doing this and it might indeed be useful, but, again, this still won't make things as simple as you'd like because you really need to specify the characters you want to use: "W" for letters, "9" for digits and maybe something like "x" if you want the control to be wide enough to fit the given number of characters on average instead of being wide enough to guarantee fitting the given number of the widest characters because the difference may be noticeable.
The main place where we could make life simpler would be at XRC level and this would be worth doing ("just" a question of time...), but for the code I really don't think we can make things much simpler than what they're now.
In[11]:= $Version
Out[11]= 9.0 for Linux x86 (32-bit) (November 20, 2012)
In[12]:= DSolve[{f[0] == d, f'[0] == v0, f''[t] == g*m2/f[t]^2}, f, t]
DSolve::bvimp: General solution contains implicit solutions. In the boundary
value problem these solutions will be ignored, so some of the solutions will
be lost.
Out[12]= {}
The code above pretty much says it all. I get the same error if I replace g*m2 with 1.
This seems like a really simple DFQ to solve. I'd like to tell DSolve to assume all variables are real and that d, g, and m2 are all greater than 0, but there's unfortunately no way to do that.
Thoughts?
You are trying for a symbolic solution. And unfortunately, symbolic integration is hard (while symbolic differentiation is easy).
The way this integration works is to obtain the energy functional by integrating once
E = 1/2*f'[t]^2 + C/f[t]
and then to isolate f'[t]. The resulting integral is not easy to solve and leads to the mentioned implicit solutions.
Did you really want to get the symbolic solution or only some function table to plot the solutions or compute other related quantities?
Since it was clarified that the requested quantity is the maximum of certain solutions: This can be computed by setting v=0 in the energy equation
C/x = E = 1/2*v0^2 + C/x0
or
x = C*x0/(C + 1/2*v0^2*x0 )
One would have to analyze the time aspect to make sure that this extremum is reached before passing again at the initial point x0.
I posted some time ago a CGAL question that was kindly answered by pointing to the Polyhedron demo and the corefinement plugin. The basic idea being that one open polyhedron A is cut by another open polyhedron B, and I need the list of intersection half edges owned by A, or better, A minus the part of A in B.
The co-refinement demo does this, but I want to select, as a result, all parts of A not in B. This does not match the available predicates in the demo (A - B (leaves parts of B inside A) , B - A (leaves parts of B outside A), A inter B, A union B). I tried combining/modifying them to get what I want but I must be missing something. The information on the 'darts' seem to be mutually exclusive.
The picture below illustrates this : A as been cut by B (I have a hole with the shape of B) but some parts of B are still in A (the facets on the hole border).
(edit : sorry : not enough reputation to post an image here :-()
Any advices on how to write a predicate that would select only A with a hole, and leave out any face coming from B?
Thank you!
I am working on fairly large Mathematica projects and the problem arises that I have to intermittently check numerical results but want to easily revert to having all my constructs in analytical form.
The code is fairly fluid I don't want to use scoping constructs everywhere as they add work overhead. Is there an easy way for identifying and clearing all assignments that are numerical?
EDIT: I really do know that scoping is the way to do this correctly ;-). However, for my workflow I am really just looking for a dirty trick to nix all numerical assignments after the fact instead of having the foresight to put down a Block.
If your assignments are on the top level, you can use something like this:
a = 1;
b = c;
d = 3;
e = d + b;
Cases[DownValues[In],
HoldPattern[lhs_ = rhs_?NumericQ] |
HoldPattern[(lhs_ = rhs_?NumericQ;)] :> Unset[lhs],
3]
This will work if you have a sufficient history length $HistoryLength (defaults to infinity). Note however that, in the above example, e was assigned 3+c, and 3 here was not undone. So, the problem is really ambiguous in formulation, because some numbers could make it into definitions. One way to avoid this is to use SetDelayed for assignments, rather than Set.
Another alternative would be to analyze the names in say Global' context (if that is the context where your symbols live), and then say OwnValues and DownValues of the symbols, in a fashion similar to the above, and remove definitions with purely numerical r.h.s.
But IMO neither of these approaches are robust. I'd still use scoping constructs and try to isolate numerics. One possibility is to wrap you final code in Block, and assign numerical values inside this Block. This seems a much cleaner approach. The work overhead is minimal - you just have to remember which symbols you want to assign the values to. Block will automatically ensure that outside it, the symbols will have no definitions.
EDIT
Yet another possibility is to use local rules. For example, one could define rule[a] = a->1; rule[d]=d->3 instead of the assignments above. You could then apply these rules, extracting them as say
DownValues[rule][[All, 2]], whenever you want to test with some numerical arguments.
Building on Andrew Moylan's solution, one can construct a Block like function that would takes rules:
SetAttributes[BlockRules, HoldRest]
BlockRules[rules_, expr_] :=
Block ## Append[Apply[Set, Hold#rules, {2}], Unevaluated[expr]]
You can then save your numeric rules in a variable, and use BlockRules[ savedrules, code ], or even define a function that would apply a fixed set of rules, kind of like so:
In[76]:= NumericCheck =
Function[body, BlockRules[{a -> 3, b -> 2`}, body], HoldAll];
In[78]:= a + b // NumericCheck
Out[78]= 5.
EDIT In response to Timo's comment, it might be possible to use NotebookEvaluate (new in 8) to achieve the requested effect.
SetAttributes[BlockRules, HoldRest]
BlockRules[rules_, expr_] :=
Block ## Append[Apply[Set, Hold#rules, {2}], Unevaluated[expr]]
nb = CreateDocument[{ExpressionCell[
Defer[Plot[Sin[a x], {x, 0, 2 Pi}]], "Input"],
ExpressionCell[Defer[Integrate[Sin[a x^2], {x, 0, 2 Pi}]],
"Input"]}];
BlockRules[{a -> 4}, NotebookEvaluate[nb, InsertResults -> "True"];]
As the result of this evaluation you get a notebook with your commands evaluated when a was locally set to 4. In order to take it further, you would have to take the notebook
with your code, open a new notebook, evaluate Notebooks[] to identify the notebook of interest and then do :
BlockRules[variablerules,
NotebookEvaluate[NotebookPut[NotebookGet[nbobj]],
InsertResults -> "True"]]
I hope you can make this idea work.
Does System C support tri-state logic? That is, bits that can get 0, 1 or X, where X means "unknown"?
If it does, does it also support vectors that can contain Xes, including logic and arithmetic operations?
Here is what you need:
http://www.asic-world.com/systemc/data_types2.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SystemC#Data_types
It does not have tri-state variables, but quad-state (is that correct? :P) variables (0,1,X,Z). More about it in the above links. It also supports vectors of those variables.
Hope I helped you a little bit :)
Yeah, you're looking for the sc_logic and sc_lv types which are 4 state variables: 0, 1, X, and Z. Pay attention to how they interact when you resolve them together. There's a nice tables on the asic-world.com site taken directly from the SystemC User Manual.
Note though that this doesn't work like in Verilog where X can also act as a wildcard. I had to build my own function to add that functionality.