logic

Could you tell me can be some case when exception is throwing in constructor and object is not null. I mean some part of object is created and another is not.Like this public Test(){ name = "John"; // exception // init some other data. } I understand in this sitiation object Test will be null, but Can be situation that object test cannot be null (delete block of exception not answer :) ) ? A class instance creation expression always creates a new object if the evaluation of its qualifier and arguments complete normally, and if there is space enough to create the object. It doesn't matter if

I would like use a switch statement which takes several variables and looks like this: switch (intVal1, strVal2, boolVal3) { case 1, "hello", false: break; case 2, "world", false: break; case 2, "hello", false: etc .... } Is there any way to do something like this in C#? (I do not want to use nested switch statements for obvious reasons). There is no built-in functionality to do this in C#, and I don't know about any library to do this. Here is an alternative approach, using Tuple and extension methods: using System; static class CompareTuple { public static bool Compare<T1, T2, T3>(this Tuple

I'm looking for some advice on my school project. I am supposed to create a program that takes a logical expression and outputs a truth table for it. The actually creating of the truth table for me is not difficult at all and I've already wrote the methods in Java for it. I would like to know if there are any classes in java that I could use to parse the expression for me and put it into a stack. If not I'm looking for help on parsing the expression. It's the parentheses that get me whenever I try and think it through. Also if this would be easier in any other language I would be open to doing

I want to show certain parts of an ItemTemplate based according to whether a bound field is null. Take for example the following code: (Code such as LayoutTemplate have been removed for brevity) <asp:ListView ID="MusicList" runat="server"> <ItemTemplate> <tr> <% if (Eval("DownloadLink") != null) { %> <td> <a href="<%#Eval("DownloadLink") %>">Link</a> </td> <% } %> </tr> </ItemTemplate> </asp:ListView> The above gives the following run-time error: Databinding methods such as Eval(), XPath(), and Bind() can only be used in the context of a databound control. So how can put some conditional logic

because power(base, exponent) has no return value unless exponent is 0, initially, shouldn't power(base, exponent -1) return 'undefined', and therefore be unmultipliable, initially? So, I am having trouble following the logic of this code. Why/how does it work? function power(base, exponent) { if (exponent == 0) return 1; else return base * power(base, exponent - 1); } It could be more concise: function power(base, exponent) { return exponent == 0? 1 : base * power(base, --exponent); } Howerver an iterative solution is very much faster: function powerNR(base, exp) { var result = 1; while(exp--

my code for a rock paper scissors game (called toss) is as follows: var toss = function (one,two) { if(one = "rock" && two = "rock") { console.log("Tie! Try again!"); } // more similar conditions with `else if` }; When I enter in the parameters toss("rock","rock") I get this error code: "ReferenceError: Invalid left-hand side in assignment" How to fix it? What this error means and what other cases when this error can happen? You have to use == to compare (or even === , if you want to compare types). A single = is for assignment. if (one == 'rock' && two == 'rock') { console.log('Tie! Try again

I was browsing some C++ code, and found something like this: (a + (b & 255)) & 255 The double AND annoyed me, so I thought of: (a + b) & 255 ( a and b are 32-bit unsigned integers) I quickly wrote a test script (JS) to confirm my theory: for (var i = 0; i < 100; i++) { var a = Math.ceil(Math.random() * 0xFFFF), b = Math.ceil(Math.random() * 0xFFFF); var expr1 = (a + (b & 255)) & 255, expr2 = (a + b) & 255; if (expr1 != expr2) { console.log("Numbers " + a + " and " + b + " mismatch!"); break; } } While the script confirmed my hypothesis (both operations are equal), I still don't trust it,