contains

Situation Using Cake 3.2.4 I have a EventTicketSales table that $this->belongsToMany('Approvings', [ 'className' => 'Contacts', 'joinTable' => 'event_ticket_sales_approvings', 'targetForeignKey' => 'contact_id', 'saveStrategy' => 'replace', ]); When I do a pagination like this: $this->paginate['contain'] = [ 'Approvings' => function (\Cake\ORM\Query $query) { return $query->select([ 'Approvings.id', 'Approvings.name', 'Approvings.company', 'EventTicketSalesApprovings.event_ticket_sale_id' ]); } ]; $this->paginate['fields'] = [ 'EventTicketSales.id', 'EventTicketSales.event_id',

I have a list of car objects List<Car> cars = GetMyListOfCars(); and i want to see if a car is in the list if (cars.Contains(myCar)) { } what does Contains use to figure out if myCar is in the list. Does it do a "ToString()" on my car object. Does it use the Equals() method, the gethashcode()? I see i can pass in my own IEqualityComparer to force my own implementation but just wanted to understand what it does by default. Straight from MSDN - List<T>.Contains: This method determines equality by using the default equality comparer, as defined by the object's implementation of the IEquatable(Of

Is it to maintain backwards compatibility with older (un-genericized) versions of Collection ? Or is there a more subtle detail that I am missing? I see this pattern repeated in remove also ( remove(Object o) ), but add is genericized as add(E e) . contains() takes an Object because the object it matches does not have to be the same type as the object that you pass in to contains() ; it only requires that they be equal. From the specification of contains() , contains(o) returns true if there is an object e such that (o==null ? e==null : o.equals(e)) is true. Note that there is nothing

I hope you can help me, I already researched my case but didn't found a good answer. I want to compare the content of a variable with the names of all existing resources (if possible only with drawable resources). The question in short: How to compare the String content of an variable with a list of all resource names, preferential only with drawable resources? Or in other words: How to get a list (containing Strings) of all resource names, preferential only drawable resources? The Case: I want to display a symbol based on a given type. This type is retrieved from a SQLite Database. There are

If you look at the selectors list on the jQuery website, there are selectors for starts-with and ends-with on attributes. There's also a :contains selector for searching text: alert( $("div").find("span:contains(text)").html() ); Does jQuery have an implementation for searching strings using starts-with or ends-with? FYI: I need to search through an XML object. Not by default as far as I know, but you can add your own pseudo-selectors through $.expr[":"] : http://jsfiddle.net/h6KYk/ . $.extend($.expr[":"], { "starts-with": function(elem, i, data, set) { var text = $.trim($(elem).text()), term

List("a").contains(5) Because an Int can never be contained in a list of String , this should generate an error at compile-time , but it does not. It wastefully and silently tests every String contained in the list for equality to 5 , which can never be true ( "5" never equals 5 in Scala). This has been named " the 'contains' problem ". And some have implied that if a type system cannot correctly type such semantics, then why go through the extra effort for enforcing types. So I consider it is an important problem to solve. The type parametrization B >: A of List.contains inputs any type that

In Java we have HashSet<Integer> , I need similar structure in Python to use contains like below: A = [1, 2, 3] S = set() S.add(2) for x in A: if S.contains(x): print "Example" Could you please help? Just use a set: >>> l = set() >>> l.add(1) >>> l.add(2) >>> 1 in l True >>> 34 in l False The same works for lists: >>> ll = [1,2,3] >>> 2 in ll True >>> 23 in ll False Edit: Note @bholagabbar's comment below that the time complexity for in checks in lists and tuples is O(n) on average (see the python docs here ), whereas for sets it is on average O(1) (worst case also O(n), but is very uncommon