similar to: Module names - limitations / reserved words?

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 <-

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 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

On 12/15/2015 07:39 PM, John R Pierce wrote: > On 12/15/2015 4:21 PM, ken wrote: >> I don't think so. Go to >> http://mirror.teklinks.com/centos/7.1.1503/isos/x86_64/ and see what's >> at that URL. I did try it using in netinstall (just trying >> *everything* possible), it yielded the same error once again... and >> there aren't any Packages to be

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"),

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

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

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)

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

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

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;

It''s been a few days since I posted my last two emails (of which, no one replied to) so I''ve gone ahead and coded a working slider class as well as a ''resizeable'' class that allows a user to drag and resize the element. I also linked these two together as I want to have slider behavior that can resize the resizeable element. The end result is both the

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

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) {

On 12/15/2015 09:37 PM, Fred Smith wrote: > This one works: > > http://mirrors.mit.edu/centos/7/os/x86_64/ > > I know because I/ve used it for net installs twice in the last > week or two, most recently a Thursday of last week. > >> >Believe me, I wish it did work. I've been at this stupid >> >specification which should be easy and done over with

my base/default includes this ntp manifest # cat modules/ntp/manifests/ntp.pp # ntp.pp class ntp { case $operatingsystem { centos, redhat: { $service_name = ''ntpd'' $conf_file = ''ntp.conf.el'' } debian, ubuntu: { $service_name = ''ntp'' $conf_file = ''ntp.conf.debian'' } } package {

On Jun 12, 2007, at 10:53 AM, Chris Lattner wrote: > On Tue, 12 Jun 2007, Christopher Lamb wrote: >>>> What's the best way to get an SDNode through to DAG scheduling >>>> without getting mangled during Lowering/ISel? >>> >>> What do you mean by "mangled"? Please clarify. >> >> My mangled I mean the nodes shouldn't be

Hello Puppet users, I had talked with Luke about this scenario and was wondering how others would/are handling something like this. Imagine a scenario where all servers will have a specific postfix configuration except for a server or two or three. So, you want to define a file "/etc/postfix/main.cf" and specify the source from your dist tree. But for those exceptional servers,