conditional-statements

i have some code that looks like this and creates a list from an existing collection var items = items.ConvertAll(r => new { description = FormatDescription(r), start = r.Milestone.HasValue ? r.Milestone.Value.ToString("yyyy-MM-ddTHH:mm:ssZ") : DateTime.Today.ToString("yyyy-MM-ddTHH:mm:ssZ"), classname = "significance" + r.SignificanceLevel, As you can see, right now if i dont have a start date (r.Milestone) then i put in today's date. What i really want to do if say: if i have a r.Milestone.Hasvalue show that date, if i dont have a value DONT HAVE THE START DATE field in the anonymous type at

I am working on the following Python list exercise from codingbat.com: Given an array of ints, return the sum of the first 2 elements in the array. If the array length is less than 2, just sum up the elements that exist, returning 0 if the array is length 0. Examples: sum2([1, 2, 3]) → 3 sum2([1, 1]) → 2 sum2([1, 1, 1, 1]) → 2 My solution below works: def sum2(nums): if len(nums)>=2: return nums[0] + nums[1] elif len(nums)==1: return nums[0] return 0 But I wonder if there's any way to solve the problem with fewer conditional statements. There is. Two elements of the solution - builtin function

In Swift, why does var x: Int? = nil if let y: Int? = x { ... } behave differently from if let y: Int? = nil { ... } My understanding of why the first case succeeds suggests that the second should as well, so I must not really be understanding. The latter is not failing because of an invalid assignment, nor because of optional chaining; and otherwise it seems the same as the former. Why does the latter fail, and how is it different from the former. Exactly at what point, and for what reason, is the second optional binding abandoned? rintaro if let y: Int? = nil { ... } is equivalent to if let

I am reading about Condition in java.util.concurrent.locks.Condition . Condition factors out the Object monitor methods (wait, notify and notifyAll) >into distinct objects to give the effect of having multiple wait-sets per object, by combining them with the use of arbitrary Lock implementations. Can somebody explain me this? How this is a benefit over normal synchronization blocks or method? One Lock can be associated with many Conditions. Lock is an "object", each condition is a "waiting set". This allows for independent conditions sharing critical section. For example, consider bounded

I have some rows with a price and quantity and I'm looking to sum only the prices where the quantity > 5 itemname price Qty ---------------------------------- apple 20 2 watermelon 10 3 bango 22 6 hashesh 3 9 Given the above data, the sum I'd like to get is 22+3=25. How do I write a formula to do this? Siva create a formula field named calculation to the side of quantity and enter the following text: // {@calculation} If quantity>5 then price else 0 now take the sum of {@calculation} . suppress both detail in the report. Take the sum and place in the footer of the required column. 来源： https:/

Here is the _header.html.erb of our Rails 4 app, made with Bootstrap 3 components: <header class="navbar navbar-fixed-top navbar-inverse"> <div class="container"> <nav> <div class="col-xs-4"> <%= link_to "APP NAME", root_path, id: "logo" %> </div> <div class="col-xs-4 text-center"> <ul class="nav navbar-nav navbar-center"> <li><%= link_to "Features", features_path %></li> <li><%= link_to "Pricing", pricing_path %></li> <li><%= link_to "Blog", '#' %></li> </ul> </div> <div class="col-xs-4"> <ul class="nav navbar-nav navbar-right"> <% if current_user.try(:admin?) %> <li><%= link_to "Users",

In the simplified code below, if(city == "New York City") { var MyObject = from x in MyEFTable where x.CostOfLiving == "VERY HIGH" select x.*; } else { var MyObject = from x in MyEFTable where x.CostOfLiving == "MODERATE" select x.*; } foreach (var item in MyObject) { Console.WriteLine("<item's details>"); } The variable MyObject is not accessible outside conditional block. How can I iterate outside the if..else ? Let's clarify your confusing question. The problem is that you have two local variables, each of which has the same "unspeakable" type -- a sequence of anonymous type. I would change