method-signature

I'm trying to parse a method signature that is in this format: 'function_name(foo=<str>, bar=<array>)' From this, I want the name of the method, and each argument and it's type. Obviously I don't want the < , > characters, etc. The number of parameters will be variable. My question is: How is it possible to get all the parameters when using this regex? I'm using Python, but I'm just looking for a general idea. Do I need named groups and, if so, how can I use them to capture multiple parameters, each with it's type, all in one regex? marcog You can't match a variable number of groups with

I would like to call a method from an dll, but i don't have the source neither the header file. I tried to use the dumpbin /exports to see the name of the method, but i can found the methods signature? Is there any way to call this method? Thanks, It is possible to figure out a C function signature by analysing beginnig of its disassembly. The function arguments will be on the stack and the function will do some "pops" to read them in reverse order. You will not find the argument names, but you should be able to find out their number and the types. Things may get more difficult with return

A common pattern within jQuery is a method that takes a callback which is passed an element of an array and its index within that array. However, it seems completely random which argument comes first. For example, from the jQuery docs at http://api.jquery.com : jQuery.each( collection, callback(indexInArray, valueOfElement) ) .each( function(index, Element) ) jQuery.map( array, callback(elementOfArray, indexInArray) ) .map( callback(index, domElement) ) jQuery.grep( array, function(elementOfArray, indexInArray), [ invert ] ) .filter( function(index) ) In three cases ( jQuery.each , .each ,

I am getting an error when trying to compile my code in g++ using the current signature: cannot declare member function static void Foo::Bar(std::ostream&, const Foo::Node*) to have static linkage My question is twofold: Why does it not Compile this way? What is the correct signature, and why? Signatures have always been the death of me when using C++ Edit: Here is the class header file, as well: class Foo { public: Foo(); ~Foo(); bool insert(const Foo2 &v); Foo * find(const Foo2 &v); const Foo * find(const Foo2 &v) const; void output(ostream &s) const; private: //Foo(const Foo &v); //Foo&

I would love to be able to something like the following: macro_rules! impl_a_method( ($obj:ident, $body:block) => ( fn a_method(foo: Foo, bar: Bar, baz: Baz) -> $obj $body ) ) // Implementation would look like: impl_a_method!(MyType, { MyType { foo: foo.blah(), bar: bar.bloo(), baz: baz.floozy(), } }) My real-world example features methods with much larger signatures which I have to implement in unique ways for 30+ different types. I have tried something similar to the above macro, however I run into errors where rustc considers foo , bar and baz unresolved names at the expansion site (even

What is the correct definition of a method signature (or a signature of a method)? On google, I find various definitions: It is the combination of the method name and the parameter list Does that mean method signature = method name + argument list ? Then I do not see difference between " method " and " method signature ". If I have a method: public void Foo(int x, int y) { ... } Would my method signature be one of the following, or neither? Foo Foo(int, int) Foo(int x, int y) Foo(34, 78) How am I suppose to answer if someone ask me what is the method signature of the method? There are a number

Suppose I am designing something like the following interface: public interface MyInterface{ public MyInterface method1(); public void method2(MyInterface mi); } However, there is the caveat that the return type for method1 and the parameter for method2 match the concrete implementation and not just MyInterface . That is, if I have MyInterfaceImpl that implements MyInterface , it needs to have the following: public class MyInterfaceImpl implements MyInterface{ @Override public MyInterfaceImpl method1(){...} @Override public void method2(MyInterfaceImpl mi){...} } As written above, method1 won