search for: property1

.... But I got a more complex situation that I want to define the fields to be indexed for every instance of the same model. My requirements are something like this: Suppose we have a model "Product", in "Product" I''ve declared a polymorphic relationship with model "Property1" and "Property2", the following code will show this: class Product < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :property, :polymorphic => true @@ferret_fields = {...} acts_as_ferret({:fields => @@ferret_fields}) end class Property1 < ActiveRecord::Base has_one :product, :as...

...=15021&group_id=1917 Category: Interface Improvements (example) Group: None Status: Open Priority: 3 Submitted By: Jerry Vos (jerryvos) Assigned to: Nobody (None) Summary: without or not params matcher Initial Comment: Would be nice if you could do MyClass.expects(:create!).without(hasKey(:property1)) or something like MyClass.expects(:create!).with(not(hasKey(:property1))) MyClass.expects(:create!).with(not.hasKey(:property1))) But you can''t use not because not is a ruby keyword. The Not Matcher is just something like: class Not # :nodoc: def initialize(matcher...

...ry for uniquifying an instance via a hash will map nicely to the concept of "composite primary keys" which has a clean solution that I like[1], and could be used as inspiration. Or even something as simple as: template<typename Visitor> void visit(Visitor & v) { v.keys("Property1","Property2","Property3"); } I have never done this, but I expect we could also use constexpr to unroll many things at compile-time. That could be fun! Backward compatibility for serialization is also achievable using a method very similar to Boost serialization[2]: temp...

...tructions. Concerning Argument metadata, I am unsure of how to best represent this in LLVM IR. The following seems to be better than putting the metadata somewhere before the first block or anywhere else, but the space in the parameter list looks a bit crowded... declare void test(i32 %param1 !property1 !0, !property2 !1, float* %param2 readonly !property2 !1) Cheers, Ralf

Hi everybody, Is there a clean way to attach metadata nodes to Arguments and/or BasicBlocks? It looks to me like one can directly attach metadata only to instructions. My current workaround is to insert a call to a dummy function that holds metadata for its parent block - pretty ugly, but manageable. The same problem arises when I want to store specific information about the arguments of a

Hi Ralf, > Is there a clean way to attach metadata nodes to Arguments and/or > BasicBlocks? not at the moment. Feel free to work on adding this functionality! > It looks to me like one can directly attach metadata only to instructions. > My current workaround is to insert a call to a dummy function that holds > metadata for its parent block - pretty ugly, but manageable. The

...g Argument metadata, I am unsure of how to best represent this > in LLVM IR. The following seems to be better than putting the metadata > somewhere before the first block or anywhere else, but the space in the > parameter list looks a bit crowded... > > declare void test(i32 %param1 !property1 !0, !property2 !1, > float* %param2 readonly !property2 !1) > > Cheers, > Ralf > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/lis...

...an instance via a hash will map nicely to the concept of "composite primary keys" which has a clean solution that I like[1], and could be used as inspiration. Or even something as simple as: > > template<typename Visitor> > void visit(Visitor & v) { > v.keys("Property1","Property2","Property3"); > } > > I have never done this, but I expect we could also use constexpr to unroll many things at compile-time. That could be fun! > > Backward compatibility for serialization is also achievable using a method very similar to Boos...

> On May 29, 2018, at 12:55, Adrian Prantl <aprantl at apple.com> wrote: > > > >> On May 29, 2018, at 12:28 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com <mailto:dblaikie at gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> +some of the debug info cabal (& Duncan, as an emeritus member, and person who plumbed a lot of the current debug info syntax support in) >>

> On May 29, 2018, at 12:28 PM, David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail.com> wrote: > > +some of the debug info cabal (& Duncan, as an emeritus member, and person who plumbed a lot of the current debug info syntax support in) > > Visitor seems plausible though I haven't looked at the code in detail to see if it'd work perfectly. > > On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 7:56