syntax

问题 This question already has answers here : Is this casting in golang? (1 answer) What is the meaning of “dot parenthesis” syntax in Golang? (1 answer) Closed 2 years ago . I recently started looking for functional go examples and I found this function: mapper := func (i interface{}) interface{} { return strings.ToUpper(i.(string)) } Map(mapper, New(“milu”, “rantanplan”)) //[“MILU”, “RANTANPLAN”] Now in this function, as you can see the return value of mapper is: strings.ToUpper(i.(string)) .

问题 This question already has answers here : Is this casting in golang? (1 answer) What is the meaning of “dot parenthesis” syntax in Golang? (1 answer) Closed 2 years ago . I recently started looking for functional go examples and I found this function: mapper := func (i interface{}) interface{} { return strings.ToUpper(i.(string)) } Map(mapper, New(“milu”, “rantanplan”)) //[“MILU”, “RANTANPLAN”] Now in this function, as you can see the return value of mapper is: strings.ToUpper(i.(string)) .

问题 This question already has answers here : Is this casting in golang? (1 answer) What is the meaning of “dot parenthesis” syntax in Golang? (1 answer) Closed 2 years ago . I recently started looking for functional go examples and I found this function: mapper := func (i interface{}) interface{} { return strings.ToUpper(i.(string)) } Map(mapper, New(“milu”, “rantanplan”)) //[“MILU”, “RANTANPLAN”] Now in this function, as you can see the return value of mapper is: strings.ToUpper(i.(string)) .

问题 Why would I want to add anything to a class using class << Class syntax? class Fun def much_fun # some code here end end class << Fun # the difference is here! def much_more_fun # some code here end end instead of using the monkey patching/duck punching method: class Fun def much_fun # some code here end end class Fun # the difference is here! def much_more_fun # some code here end end While reading Why's Poignant Guide to Ruby I came across: Why defines a class LotteryDraw : class

问题 Why would I want to add anything to a class using class << Class syntax? class Fun def much_fun # some code here end end class << Fun # the difference is here! def much_more_fun # some code here end end instead of using the monkey patching/duck punching method: class Fun def much_fun # some code here end end class Fun # the difference is here! def much_more_fun # some code here end end While reading Why's Poignant Guide to Ruby I came across: Why defines a class LotteryDraw : class

问题 I do not understand the difference between the three syntaxes: where a = f (b) do a <- f (b) do let a = f (b) I do understand somehow though that a <- f(b) is different from the other two, in most cases where I tried all three worked. Also I read somewhere on the net that per block you should try to get along with one let binding only in order to be "idiomatic". But I never seem to manage. How do I decide what to use? 回答1: let foo = bar in ... simply defines foo to be the exact same thing as

问题 I have an applescript function which processes each item of an array. I'm looking for a way to drop a list like the following into my applescript file: arrayitem1 arrayitem2 arrayitem3 and to use applescript to automatically format it into the proper applescript array syntax so I end up with this: set array1 to {"arrayitem1", "arrayitem2", "arrayitem3"} As you can imagine, for longer arrays it would be a hassle to manually add all the commas and quotations. Thanks! 回答1: set stringofitems to "

问题 Example code： fn main() { let a = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]; reset(a); } fn reset(mut b: [u32; 5]) { b[0] = 5; } The variable a is an immutable array, and the reset function's parameter b is a mutable array; intuitively I need to modify a to a mutable array before I can call the reset method, but the compiler tells me that I don't need to do this, why is this? fn main() { let mut a = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]; reset(a); } fn reset(mut b: [u32; 5]) { b[0] = 5; } warning: variable does not need to be mutable -->

问题 Given a function in C++ with arguments that are only types and have no identifiers, void foo1(int, int, int){cout << "called foo1";} I can call it as such: int main() { foo1(10, 10, 10); } Why is this a valid construct in C++? Is this just an idiosyncrasy of C++, or does this kind of declaration actually have some purpose? Can we actually access the arguments that have been passed in somehow? (This kind of method declaration will not work in Java.) 回答1: Consider a case where you are required

问题 Given a function in C++ with arguments that are only types and have no identifiers, void foo1(int, int, int){cout << "called foo1";} I can call it as such: int main() { foo1(10, 10, 10); } Why is this a valid construct in C++? Is this just an idiosyncrasy of C++, or does this kind of declaration actually have some purpose? Can we actually access the arguments that have been passed in somehow? (This kind of method declaration will not work in Java.) 回答1: Consider a case where you are required