search for: nameclashes

Hi! I am trying to match a string in an ERB template but for what ever reason it does not work. <% if has_variable?("apache2_phpmyadmin_url") && apache2_phpmyadmin_url != "" then %> ProxyPass /<%= apache2_phpmyadmin_url %>/ ! <% end %> The conditional works on has_variable? but the != "" is not getting evaluated. When the

Making third-party plugins for Dovecot is really hard and frustrating. Using dovecot 2.2.33.2 and the following sources, the compile errors keep coming. The use of g++ is mandated as the underlying backend this plugin will access only has a C++ interface. == Source 1 /* g++-7 -c a.cpp */ #include <byteswap.h> #include <dovecot/lib.h> #include <dovecot/auth-request.h> #include

Dear Sir or Madam, I am in 2nd year of my PhD in bioinformatics, after taking my Master?s in computer science, and have been using R heavily during my PhD. As such, I have put together a list of certain features in R that, in my opinion, would be beneficial to add, or could be improved. The first two are already implemented in packages, but given that it is implemented as user-defined operators,

Ok, here's another best practices question - let's say I'm writing a package and I want to use a function name that is already claimed by a function in the base R packages. For the sake of argument, let's pretend this function is for profiling the performance of a function (like Rprof for example), and so an obvious name that comes to mind is profile. This, of course, clashes

Regarding the anonymous-function-in-a-pipeline point one can already do this which does use brackets but even so it involves fewer characters than the example shown. Here { . * 2 } is basically a lambda whose argument is dot. Would this be sufficient? library(magrittr) 1.5 %>% { . * 2 } ## [1] 3 Regarding currying note that with magrittr Ista's code could be written as: 1:5

Thanks for the answers, I?m aware of the ?.? option, just wanted to give a very simple example. But the lapply ??' parameter use has eluded me and thanks for enlightening me. What do you mean by messing up the call stack. As far as I understand it, piping should translate into same code as deep nesting. So then I only see a tiny downside for debugging here. No loss of time/space efficiency

On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 8:08 AM, Antonin Klima <antonink at idi.ntnu.no> wrote: > Thanks for the answers, > > I?m aware of the ?.? option, just wanted to give a very simple example. > > But the lapply ??' parameter use has eluded me and thanks for enlightening me. > > What do you mean by messing up the call stack. As far as I understand it, piping should translate

Folks, A new release candidate for 3.2.0 has just been checked into the xen-unstable tree. It''s available from staging and will be in the main tree when it has passed internal regression tests. Meanwhile, in preparation for 3.1.3, please let me know if there are any further patches from xen-unstable that should be backported into the 3.1 branch. You can pull the xen-3.1-testing.hg