search for: baseclasses

Dear all, To explain my problem I am attaching a demonstration package "myclasspkg": I have the following two S4 classes with similar inheritance: SubSubClassA <- SubClassB <- BaseClass SubSubClassB <- SubClassB <- BaseClass In R I am calling the following functions: > library(myclasspkg) > subA <-

If a class is derived from a superclass using 'contains', then coercion of an object from the class to the superclass fails to preserve the 'package' attribute of class of the object. This occurs only when the derived class has no additional slots. This is a problem because the 'new' function relies on the exact identity of the class, including the package attribute.

Dear all, Maybe, I am doing something wrong, but using R-2.5.0 on my Intel-Mac, I have problems using function callNextMethod() in method initialize. I am loading the following code as file "testS4.R": setClass("baseClass", representation(myname = "character", mydir = "character", "VIRTUAL"),

I have a single table that two people enter data into. Person A creates the record and I need to specify certain required fields in his form. Person B has a separate form and she fills in additional fields and I need to specify that some of these are required. Since the data is all in one table and since the validations are in the model, won''t Rails complain when person A tries to

I am working on heavily optimising unusually static C++ code, and have encountered a situation where I basically want an optimiser that would speculatively unroll a loop to see if the first round of the loop could be optimised further. (I happen to know that it is possible.) The previous optimisations that produce the loop in the first place already do a magical job (relying heavily on constant

Hi, I am trying to write an LLVM project, using LLVM 2.9. My passes are defined as follows, where the Pass2 requires Pass1. namespace llvm { class BaseClass : public ModulePass { // Name for printing const char* printname; protected: BaseClass(char id, const char* name) : ModulePass(id),printname(name){ } }; class Pass1 : public BaseClass { public: static char ID; Pass1() :

I have this config: # BL00070 - Disable NFS service {["nfs","nfslock","netfs","portmap"]: ensure => stopped, enable => false, } user {"rpc": ensure => absent, provider => "useradd" } user {"rpcuser": ensure => absent, provider => "useradd" } file

Dear all, Recently, there was a question to use the same method for more than one class: https://stat.ethz.ch/pipermail/r-devel/2007-March/044809.html I have a variation of this question: Is it possible to use the same function name, e.g. "myfunction" in both, an S4 baseClass and derivedClass. The method "myfunction" in derivedCalss should extend the functionality defined

Am 30.06.2010 um 23:31 schrieb John Criswell: > > Stupid question: is making the getOperand() method of CallInst > going to work? For example, if I have the following code: > > void > method (Instruction * I) { > I->getOperand(2); > ... > } > > void method2 (CallInst * CI) { > method (CI); > ... > } > > Will method() still work

The current r-devel (aka R 1.7.0) now attaches the package "methods" by default at startup. A new option, "defaultPackages", is set to c("methods", "ctest") by default, causing the .First in package base to require those two packages at startup. There are two main known differences from having methods attached: - the definition of class() changes, in

I successfully built LLVM (r102824) with ./configure --enable-optimized --enable-targets=host --with-built-clang on Fedora 12 on an Athlon64 processor. (The clang is the 2.7 pre-built version.) However, running `make check' produced 6 unexpected failures (see below). If there's something you'd like me to do, just holler. --- Vladimir FAIL:

Hi I''ve spec''d a class and they pass. Now I''d like to assure that any subclass of this class also passes the same specs. Any suggestions for a clever way to handle this? I''d prefer to keep the existing specs as is (eg instead of moving everything into shared behaviors, or doing something to all the ''describe'' lines) thanks linoj

I cannot get this *&^%$ thing to work (on Mac OS X)! http://reductivelabs.com/trac/puppet/ticket/718 using cpan2.rb with some very minor modifications. Can anyone confess to having used it successfully or otherwise? The module (and it''s dependencies) I need to install are Net::LDAP I''ve tried these names "G/GB/GBARR/perl-ldap-0.36.tar.gz" "Net::LDAP"

Hi all, I am almost ready for the last step with landing my long-standing patch. I have converted (almost) all low-level interface users of CallInst to respective high-level interfaces. What remains is a handful of hunks to flip the switch. But before I do the final commit I'd like to coerce all external users to code against the high-level interface too. This will (almost, but see below)

Gabor Greif wrote: > Am 30.06.2010 um 23:31 schrieb John Criswell: > > >> Stupid question: is making the getOperand() method of CallInst >> going to work? For example, if I have the following code: >> >> void >> method (Instruction * I) { >> I->getOperand(2); >> ... >> } >> >> void method2 (CallInst * CI) {

whenever i run a test from client it finishes sucessfully but client is not getting any configuration changes from server [root@PROXY-02 tmp]# puppetd --noop --test notice: Ignoring --listen on onetime run info: Caching catalog for proxy-02.carnation.in info: Applying configuration version ''1327091881'' notice: Finished catalog run in 0.02 seconds [root@PROXY-03 modules]# puppet

Hi, I would like to use std::shared_ptr in my pass. However I'm facing a problem wrt RTTI. If I have a code like: std::shared_ptr<BaseClass> x(new DerivedClass()); ... std::shared_ptr<DerivedClass> p = std::dynamic_pointer_cast<DerivedClass>(x); It does not compile since the default RTTI infrastructure is not used by LLVM. Also, it's not clear to me if the

On May 9, 2012, at 4:27 AM, Anton Korobeynikov wrote: > Hello Jonas, > >> I wonder, what would be the best solution for instructions that require >> operands in a particular register, and even gives the result in a particular >> register? > You need to custom select such instruction. See e.g. div / idiv on x86 > as an example. That's often easiest, yes;

Gabor Greif wrote: > Hi all, > > I am almost ready for the last step with landing my long-standing patch. > I have converted (almost) all low-level interface users of CallInst to > respective high-level interfaces. What remains is a handful of hunks > to flip the switch. > > But before I do the final commit I'd like to coerce all external users > to code against the

Greeting, I''m attempting to solve a mystery we had with a puppet module we couldn''t get to auto load. The module named / folder was called "nfs" We notice when we ran ''puppetmasterd --no-daemonize --verbose'' that when the client connected that our ''nfs'' module was not being auto loaded. We reviewed and triple checked our syntax.