search for: ariti

Hi, I wanted to use wxSugar enumerable features to add a method for returning checked items'' index to the CheckListBox class : require ''wx_sugar/version'' require ''wx_sugar/wx_classes/control_with_items'' require ''wx_sugar/wx_classes/listctrl'' class Wx::CheckListBox def checked_items # use of find_all method from Enumerable

Hello, First off, nice improvements hemant! Thanks for all the hard work. I just whipped up a new worker for a scheduled job that sends digest emails. Very smooth. However, moving some of my old backgroundrb into new backgroundrb isn''t going quite as smoothly. I have a import worker that takes a number of parameters and then is started dynamically. Here''s the a

Hi, In my backend I need to know the arity of the callee at each safe point and export it in the .s file. This is needed for properly creating stack descriptors for the calls. I could easily implement that in the frontend for direct function calls but not for indirect calls (through register). Is there a way to do that with the current infrastructure? For example, I tried adding some metadata to

Puppet 3.0.2-rc3 is a bugfix release candidate for the 3.x series of Puppet. This release candidate fixes bug #10963. To see a list of the issues addressed by this release, check out the 3.0.2 version in our issue tracter at: https://projects.puppetlabs.com/versions/337 Downloads are available at: * Source https://downloads.puppetlabs.com/puppet/puppet-3.0.2-rc3.tar.gz RPMs are available at

I haven''t debugged this enough to understand what is happening, but I observe the following: someipset = bitmap:ip,mac 1) br0:+someipset 2) br0:+someipset[2] The first 1) doesn''t match anything in rules or tcrules, the second 2) matches fine. (Also using +someipset[1] doesn''t match anything) Is it possible/sensible/feasible to have shorewall figure out the

I''ve just been tying my brain in knots looking at bug #8687 ( http://rubyforge.org/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=8687&group_id=1917&atid=7477 ). I''ve been (1) trying to work out whether there is anything logically wrong with Mocha''s existing behaviour and (2) whether Mocha should support the requested functionality. It all centres around the use of the

Hello! I've been trying to implement a simple compiler from Scheme to LLVM IR, and have run into the following problem: In Scheme, any function can be called on any number of arguments, but it should check at runtime for arity errors. I haven't been able to find a way in LLVM IR to access the actual number of parameters a function was called with. I think the following approach might

On Apr 16, 2:13 am, Dan Gohman <goh... at apple.com> wrote: > Hi Gabor, > > Can you provide performance data for this? I'd > like to know what affect these changes have on > compile time. Hi Dan, Unfortunately, no. I can feed you with some speculation, though, see below. The reason why I cannot do measurements (at the moment) is that - I have no experience with

On Apr 16, 2008, at 2:50 AM, heisenbug wrote: > > And now here is my educated speculation: > There are 2 things that became slower > 1) Use::getUser() > 2) Use::get/set due to tagging. > > The former is seldom called: > > $ find lib -name "*.cpp" | xargs grep "getUser(" | wc -l > 41 The majority of those aren't actually Use::getUser, but

Hello again ruby community! I just learned how to add two arrays(I know, i know). My program looked like this array1=[1,2,3] array2=[4,5,6] array_sum=array1+array2 I thought pretty simple stuff, they are combined. However, now i am looking to define that code as a method and I do not understand how to create the correct number of arguments, so when the method is called back it gives me my

I started working on this in response to Dave Thomas'' keynote as RailsConf 2006. This little patch will validate that your text fields will fit into the database. Obviously this is just a start, and many more validations could be added. Also, this code could probably be extracted into a plugin instead of patch to ActiveRecord. Index: test/validations_test.rb

I have a mock of an instance of a class which descends from Array: class ArrayDescendent < Array; end #... in the specs... @descendent = mock ArrayDescendent How would I stub out ArrayDescendent#each, which is inherited from Array, to return multiple values successively? I could use and_yield, but that is raising an arity error (the anonymous function/ block should expect only *one

Hi Peter, > Are there any better ways to solve this? Does any of the existing > calling conventions support this? Can't you handle this entirely in the front-end? Just decide by fiat that all of your scheme functions will take an extra (hidden to the Scheme users) parameter saying how many args they were given. That's how C++ deals with the implicit "this" parameter for

> Can't you handle this entirely in the front-end? Just decide by fiat > that all of your scheme functions will take an extra (hidden to the > Scheme users) parameter saying how many args they were given. That's > how C++ deals with the implicit "this" parameter for class methods. > Then you could either use varargs or bitcast your functions to a > reasonable

the man page for relational operators (see, e.g., ?'<') says: " Binary operators which allow the comparison of values in atomic vectors. Arguments: x, y: atomic vectors, symbols, calls, or other objects for which methods have been written. " it is somewhat surprizing that the following works: '<'(1) # logical(0) '<'() #

the man page for relational operators (see, e.g., ?'<') says: " Binary operators which allow the comparison of values in atomic vectors. Arguments: x, y: atomic vectors, symbols, calls, or other objects for which methods have been written. " it is somewhat surprizing that the following works: '<'(1) # logical(0) '<'() #

Hi Gabor, Can you provide performance data for this? I'd like to know what affect these changes have on compile time. Thanks, Dan On Apr 15, 2008, at 3:32 PM, Gabor Greif wrote: > Hi All, > > here comes the patch for the second wave of Use class size reduction. > > I have included all the machinery that is needed, and it is > *active*. The User* inside of Use is even

At Google we're doing a lot of work on parallel programming models for CPUs, GPUs and other platforms. One place where we're investing a lot are parallel libraries, especially those closely tied to compiler technology like runtime and math libraries. We would like to develop these in the open, and the natural place seems to be as a subproject in LLVM if others in the community are

Hi Hal, Thanks for taking a look at the proposal. The current version of StreamExecutor has partial support for a "host" platform which performs work on the CPU. It's interface is the same as the that of the CUDA platform discussed in the design documentation, but right now it does not support launching user-defined kernels, so it is very limited. The host platform does manage a

Thanks for your input, Hal. I think that having support for running host-side tasks makes this library much more useful, not only for acceleratorless systems, but even for those with accelerators (especially if you can place dependency edges between the host tasks and the accelerator tasks). Based on your comments, I think that supporting host-side tasks sounds like something that should be