params

I have this form below which contains two checkboxes to sort some products: <form id="FiltreExtraForm" action="" method="post" name="FiltreExtraForm"> <input id="ProductsDeliveryPrice" type="checkbox" value="1" name="data[Products][delivery_price]"/> <input id="ProductsPicture" type="checkbox" value="1" name="data[Products][picture]"/> </form> After POST I do the filtering but I also want to add received parameters to URL E.g: /products/index/delivery_price:1/picture:0 . Is this possible. How can I do that? Note: I don't want to use GET to send form info. deizel Sounds like you are looking to

public void Foo(params string[] values) { } Is it possible that values can ever be null , or will it always be set with 0 or more items? Absolutely - you can call it with an argument of type string[] with a value of null: string[] array = null; Foo(array); I decided to write some code up to test this for myself. Using the following program: using System; namespace TestParams { class Program { static void TestParamsStrings(params string[] strings) { if(strings == null) { Console.WriteLine("strings is null."); } else { Console.WriteLine("strings is not null."); } } static void TestParamsInts

i have ExpandableListview inside ScrollView and i know that's not good but i had too, the only solution to show the whole list is by set its height by code using layoutParams RelativeLayout.LayoutParams params = new RelativeLayout.LayoutParams(LayoutParams.MATCH_PARENT, ListViewData.length()); this solution is good but i can't figure the right height that i should give in the Params , SO is there a way to know the actual size from the size of the array Edit: i came up with a solution that everytime i expand a group of the list am gonna change the height to fit with new geight try this, Use

Is it possible to have a C# lambda/delegate that can take a variable number of parameters that can be invoked with a Dynamic-invoke? All my attempts to use the 'params' keyword in this context have failed. UPDATE WITH WORKING CODE FROM ANSWER : delegate void Foo(params string[] strings); static void Main(string[] args) { Foo x = strings => { foreach(string s in strings) Console.WriteLine(s); }; //Added to make it clear how this eventually is used :) Delegate d = x; d.DynamicInvoke(new[]{new string[]{"1", "2", "3"}}); } The reason that it doesn't work when passing the arguments directly to

as a tcl developer starting with groovy, I am a little bit surprised about the list and map support in groovy. Maybe I am missing something here. I am used to convert between strings, lists and arrays/maps in tcl on the fly. In tcl, something like "['a':2,'b':4]".each {key, value -> println key + " " + value} would be possible, where as in groovy, the each command steps through each character of the string. This would be much of a problem is I could easily use something like the split or tokenize command, but because a serialized list or map isn't just "a:2,b:4", it is a little bit harder to

I'm aware that a params modifier (which turns in one parameter of array type into a so-called "parameter array") is specifically not a part of the method signature. Now consider this example: class Giraffid { public virtual void Eat(int[] leaves) { Console.WriteLine("G"); } } class Okapi : Giraffid { public override void Eat(params int[] leaves) { Console.WriteLine("O"); } } This compiles with no warnings. Then saying: var okapi = new Okapi(); okapi.Eat(2, 4, 6); // will not compile! gives an error( No overload for method 'Eat' takes 3 arguments ). Now, I know that the compiler translates the

We just found these in our code: public static class ObjectContextExtensions { public static T Find<T>(this ObjectSet<T> set, int id, params Expression<Func<T, object>>[] includes) where T : class { ... } public static T Find<T>(this ObjectSet<T> set, int id, params string[] includes) where T : class { ... } } As you can see, these have the same signature except for the params . And they're being used in several ways, one of them: DBContext.Users.Find(userid.Value); //userid being an int? (Nullable<int>) which, strangely enough to me, resolves to the first overload. Q1: Why doesn't this