similar to: [LLVMdev] RFC: Introduce a section to the programmers manual about type hierarchies, polymorphism, and virtual dispatch.

Hi, I'm having trouble seeing the added value over functions defined by setGeneric vis-a-vis methods defined by inheritance and polymorphism. setGeneric offers a 'clean' call to a generic function, ie. no need to call new(), so less typing to do for the user. But such explicit calls can also be avoided by functions like f <- function(x, y) new(Class = SomeClass, x=x, y=y). Then

Hi, I'm trying to set up two shared folder hierarchies on my Dovecot installation for two groups of employees, all of whom should only have access to their own hierarchy. Any employee should be able to create sub-folders and generally have full access to the hierarchy. My initial setup was to create two public namespaces, Shared-One and Shared-Two. Each is a Maildir under /var/mail. The

On Wednesday 18 February 2009 23:36:27 DeLesley Hutchins wrote: > > Why do you say that people who compile, e.g., functional languages > > would benefit from type variables in LLVM? > > I like the level the LLVM is at, and would prefer to deal with > > instantiating parametric polymorphism at a higher level. > > I'm surprised you're happy with a

> Why do you say that people who compile, e.g., functional languages > would benefit from type variables in LLVM? > I like the level the LLVM is at, and would prefer to deal with > instantiating parametric polymorphism at a higher level. I'm surprised you're happy with a non-polymorphic llvm. Does Cayenne target llvm? Dependent types take polymorphism to new heights -- but

On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 12:32, DeLesley SpamBox <delesley.spambox at googlemail.com> wrote: >> I think the problem is deeper than that, in that LLVM has no official >> concept of a subtype, so I don't see how the idea of polymorphism >> could be defined in it. > > Parametric polymorphism is different from subtype polymorphism; you > can have one without the

I love the query interface (ActiveMethod::QueryMethods), but one thing has bugged me: why doesn''t it generate calls for polymorphic associations? For example: class MyModel < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :parent, :polymorphic => true end I would expect: MyModel.where(:parent => a) to be equivalent to: MyModel.where("my_models.parent_id = ? AND

> I think the problem is deeper than that, in that LLVM has no official > concept of a subtype, so I don't see how the idea of polymorphism > could be defined in it. Parametric polymorphism is different from subtype polymorphism; you can have one without the other. Parametric polymorphism just means that you can use type variables (like T) in the IR, which are later instantiated to

Hi all, I need to model simple typed polymorphic relations: ''John'' [''works_for''] ''Bill'' ''John'' [''speaks_for''] ''Microsoft'' ''Microsoft'' [''hold_shares_of''] ''Apple'' I''m having a hard time combining : - S.T.I.

On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 13:33, Jon Derrick <jonathan.derrick at intel.com> wrote: > > Hi Ben, Hey John, > > I've been working with an mmio-constrained pci hierarchy intended almost > solely for nvme devices and switches. Binding nouveau to an NV50-based > gpu results in a kernel panic as the device cannot be fully mapped. > > I've made modifications in nv50

Ticket 4052 (http://dev.rubyonrails.org/ticket/4052) just came through trac, which introduces the need for a better way to access fixtures. I believe the basic problem is the same as 3935 (http://dev.rubyonrails.org/ticket/3935) in that the accessor method which is constructed by the fixture call can''t infer the class name from the table name. The band-aid in 3935 was to allow you to

Why do you say that people who compile, e.g., functional languages would benefit from type variables in LLVM? I like the level the LLVM is at, and would prefer to deal with instantiating parametric polymorphism at a higher level. On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 10:43 PM, DeLesley Hutchins <delesley.spambox at googlemail.com> wrote: >> I think many people were confused by this at first but an

Hi all, I have a calendar. The calendar has different kinds of events. Each event type has additional information so i think i need a new model for each new event type. eg: a game event has additional oponent and oponents colors info. Is this best solved via polymorphism where I create an eventable interface? Thanks Stijn --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this

>> How difficult would it be to add such a capability to llvm? I was thinking >> of marking type variables like T as opaque types for the initial codegen, >> and then writing a custom pass that instantiates them to real types. >> However, I don't know if that would confuse or break other parts of the >> compiler infrastructure; parametric polymorphism is not

I am running Rmpi and MPICH2 to do parallelization in a Windows 7 machine. I am only using my PC's cores. Parallelization for standard R code works fine. For S4 code I am having the following problem: Let us say I have a class A and a subclasses B and C (both B and C "contains" A). I declared a method setGeneric( name = "superClassMethod", def = function(object)

Hi, I was wondering what happens, if I use polymorphism in combination with created_at and modified_at? Lets say I have 3 models, which all have the attributes created_at and modified_at, then how will they updated? Will changes in the child affect the "modified_at" of the parent? Will a "child.attribute_at()" yields the value of the child or the parent? Given the child,

Hi, I finally migrated my IMAP server from cyrus to dovecot2. I have been using cyrus since many years and have not much experience with dovecot yet though. I've converted my imap server using cyrus2dovecot (several times until I thought it was correct) but there is one thing left which confuses me and I'm not sure what I can or need to do to change it. With Cyrus I used

I can fit a line to a set of given points, e.g., > sm.fit <- smooth.spline(1:4,1:4) > lm.fit <- lm(y~x, data=list(x=1:4,y=1:4)) Now I have two objects representing the straight line y(x)=x, of class "smooth.spline" and "lm", respectively. And as could be expected in object orientation, both have a method "predict", which I could use for interpolating

Thanks for the detailed response! :-) > This is by design. LLVM's type system is very low-level... Yes, and it should remain low-level. :-) > Expecting it to directly support generics seems a third-order-of- > magnitude leap of faith. :) But there is good news for the faithful? Let us distinguish between generics as found in java or .Net, and parametric polymorphism in general.

> I was thinking of the "T extends Comparable" part, which does involve > subtype polymorphism. Apologies if I'm getting terms mixed up. It was a bad example -- not close enough to actual LLVM. :-) > What do the parametrized types give you that you don't get from using > opaque instead of T? Possibly nothing. I don't really understand the limitations of

I'm a newcomer to llvm, but what you've done so far is very impressive. Llvm is a godsend to anybody who is attempting to implement their own their own language. :-) My company is considering using llvm as the backend for a small matlab-like language for scientific computation; our other option is MSIL. After reading through the documentation, I noticed that llvm seems to have one major