search for: arity

..._all { |i| checked?(i) } end end The problem I had is that checked_items raises an exception. In fact, the find_all method uses the each method defined in ''wx_sugar/wx_classes/enumerable_controls.rb'' as following : def each(&block) last = get_count - 1 case block.arity when 1 0.upto(last) { | i | yield i } when 2 0.upto(last) { | i | yield i, get_string(i) } when 3 0.upto(last) { | i | yield i, get_string(i), get_item_data(i) } else raise ArgumentError, "Invalid number of block parameters" end end This meth...

...of the log. And in the log I get: ... PastPerfect4ImporterWorker started past_perfect4_importer_worker started Schedules for worker loaded do_work {:zoom_class=>"StillImage", ... :default_attribution=>"Some jerk wrote this.", :import_type=>"past_perfect4"} Arity of method is -1 That seems to be the end of the road for the worker. It just stalls there from what I can tell. What does Arity mean? Any clues? I suspect it''s something small I''m missing. Also, I replaced this on line 210 of server/meta_worker.rb: logger.info &quo...

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 inf...

...feedback via the Puppet Labs Redmine site, using an affected puppet version of 3.0.2-rc3: https://projects.puppetlabs.com/projects/puppet/ ============================ ## Puppet 3.0.2-rc3 Release Notes ## ============================ #10963 Collector overrides should work in Ruby 1.9 Increase arity of child_of? meta_def to 1 child_of? defined for Puppet::Resource::Type objects has an arity of 1, but the meta_def of the same function created by Puppet::Parser::Collector objects has an arity of 0. This throws errors when the meta_def method is called with arguments. This commit...

...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 ''arity of the ipset? Is it an artifact of the ipset type used here? Not tested this yet, but is it a more descriptive setup to do something like defining someipset:loc in zones and "somealias br0:+someipset[2]" in hosts? That way I *think* I can use "somealias" everywhere and avoid n...

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 solve the problem: - Implement a new calling convention that passes the number of arguments in a register, and all values in regist...

...s to the Use object in most cases: With exception of PHINode and SwitchInst, the getOperand() function (if called on a specialized "this" pointer) does a "this"-relative access instead of getting OperandList pointer first and going thru that. This was the case before for fixed-arity instructions, but now it applies to variadic ones too that cannot perform operand list resizing. Some things got faster, like 1) getOperand access on (say) CallInst is now fetching operands from relative to "this". Also, there is no "new Use[n]" allocations (and delete []) for...

...in most cases: > With exception of PHINode and SwitchInst, the getOperand() function > (if called on a specialized "this" pointer) does a "this"-relative > access instead of getting OperandList pointer first and going thru > that. This was the case before for fixed-arity instructions, but now > it applies to variadic ones too that cannot perform operand list > resizing. > > Some things got faster, like > 1) getOperand access on (say) CallInst is now fetching operands from > relative to "this". Also, there is no "new Use[n]" all...

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

...+ name = "#{column.name}_before_type_cast" + validates_length_of name, :maximum=>column.limit + end + end + } + end + def condition_block?(condition) condition.respond_to?("call") && (condition.arity == 1 || condition.arity == -1) end -- Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.

...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 value at a time, but and_yield is yielding both values once). Should I be using a lambda expression here? Tips are welcome...Thanks, Scott

...parameter for class methods. Then you could either use varargs or bitcast your functions to a reasonable type when used. > Incidentially, the same handling is necessary for return values (any > function can return any number of values, and the caller must check for > correct return value arity). A similar approach could work there, though targets aren't used to dealing with lots of return values so you may encounter more problems (i.e. LLVM bugs). > Varargs seem a bad match, as everything is passed on the stack, not in > registers, and no count is kept of the actual number of...

...atic function seems to be APPLY. It takes a function and a list of values as parameters, and applies the function to the values [as in (apply + '(1 2 3)) -> (+ 1 2 3)]. So if varargs adhere to the standard ABI, I could just cast the function to varargs parameters, then call it, and (with the arity checking you described above), things should work correctly? >> Varargs seem a bad match, as everything is passed on the stack, not in >> registers, and no count is kept of the actual number of arguments. > > Is that on x86-32 Windows? In almost all other cases varargs are > p...

...o complaint on input that does not consist of exactly 2 arguments? in scheme (which is claimed to have been an inspiration for r), < works on an arbitrary number of arguments: (<) ;; #t (< 1) ;; #t (< 1 2 3) ;; #t (< 1 2 0) ;; #f but there < is an arity-dispatched procedure, not a binary one, and it produces sensible output for any number of arguments (arguably for n=0, 1). vQ

...o complaint on input that does not consist of exactly 2 arguments? in scheme (which is claimed to have been an inspiration for r), < works on an arbitrary number of arguments: (<) ;; #t (< 1) ;; #t (< 1 2 3) ;; #t (< 1 2 0) ;; #f but there < is an arity-dispatched procedure, not a binary one, and it produces sensible output for any number of arguments (arguably for n=0, 1). vQ

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

...%f1, [float_literal]; ld.param.u64 %rl1, [result_loc]; add.f32 %f1, %f1, 123.0; st.f32 [%rl1], %f1; ret; } )"; // The number of arguments expected by the kernel described in // KERNEL_PTX_TEMPLATE. static constexpr int KERNEL_ARITY = 2; // The name of the kernel described in KERNEL_PTX. static constexpr const char *KERNEL_NAME = "add_mystery_value"; // The value added to the input in the kernel described in KERNEL_PTX. static constexpr float MYSTERY_VALUE = 123.0f; int main(int argc, char *arg...

...%rl1, [result_loc]; > add.f32 %f1, %f1, 123.0; > st.f32 [%rl1], %f1; > ret; > } > )"; > > // The number of arguments expected by the kernel described in > // KERNEL_PTX_TEMPLATE. > static constexpr int KERNEL_ARITY = 2; > > // The name of the kernel described in KERNEL_PTX. > static constexpr const char *KERNEL_NAME = "add_mystery_value"; > > // The value added to the input in the kernel described in KERNEL_PTX. > static constexpr float MYSTERY_VALUE = 123.0f; >...

...add.f32 %f1, %f1, 123.0; >> st.f32 [%rl1], %f1; >> ret; >> } >> )"; >> >> // The number of arguments expected by the kernel described in >> // KERNEL_PTX_TEMPLATE. >> static constexpr int KERNEL_ARITY = 2; >> >> // The name of the kernel described in KERNEL_PTX. >> static constexpr const char *KERNEL_NAME = "add_mystery_value"; >> >> // The value added to the input in the kernel described in KERNEL_PTX. >> static constexpr float MYSTE...