definition

问题 As I always understood it, any change to the programs state (or anything to do with IO) is a side effect. It does not matter, whether the change occurs in a global variable or in a private field of the object the method is called on. It follows that all methods which do not return anything either do nothing at all or have a side effect. My confusion comes from one of our university's instructors (who is still a student and thus not omniscient yet;) ) telling me setters don't have side effects

问题 I'm trying to build these files but it's giving me a multiple definition error. main.cpp: #include "SDL/SDL.h" #include "Core.h" #include "GameStates.h" #include "globals.h" int main(int argc, char** args) { if(core.Initilization(640, 480, 32, SDL_SWSURFACE) == -1) { SDL_Quit(); } while(core.desiredstate != core.quit) { ::currentstate->EventHandling(); ::currentstate->Logic(); core.ChangeState(); ::currentstate->Render(); ::currentstate->Update(); } SDL_FreeSurface(core.screen); SDL_Quit(); }

问题 How can i declare and set a custom type in one line. Option Explicit Type Stackoverflow stack As String overflow As String End Type Sub WorkingExample() Dim example As Stackoverflow example.stack = "stack" example.overflow = "overflow" MsgBox (example.stack + example.overflow) End Sub Sub NotCompiling() Dim example As Stackoverflow = {.stack = "stack", .overflow = "overflow"} MsgBox (example.stack + example.overflow) End Sub In this mini example the WorkingExample shows the behavior i want

问题 I'm developing a new set of web services at my company. My manager asked me to provide a greater level of security for this, as the web services will handle sensitive informations. I've searched the net for resources about how to secure an web service and the two runner ups are WSE3.0 and WCF. But I have no idea which one is the best option to choose from. My requirement stipulate that some of the web service must be called by non-.NET environment, so how to proceed? Which one is the best in

问题 I am looking for a formal axiomatic definition of an example Kripke model in terms of ∀, ∃ assuming knowledge of simple predicate logic, boolean logic,... All descriptions of Kripke models I encounter simply introduce new notations through paraphrasing to english linguistic concepts (i.e. ☐ = "necessity"). While certainly both helpfull and motivating, it does not assure that I will have the same interpretation of what a Kripke model is as someone else. (this question is the result from good

问题 What does RFC 4880 sec 5.1 mean by " this "? The value "m" in the above formulas is derived from the session key as follows. First, the session key is prefixed with a one-octet algorithm identifier that specifies the symmetric encryption algorithm used to encrypt the following Symmetrically Encrypted Data Packet. Then a two-octet checksum is appended, which is equal to the sum of the preceding session key octets, not including the algorithm identifier, modulo 65536. This value is then encoded

问题 Wikipedia claims that the [] operator precedes the * operator in evaluation. Then, why does the following statement: char *a[3]; declare an array of 3 character pointers, rather than a pointer to an array of 3 characters as per the operator precedence? 回答1: Because, as Wikipedia says, [] has higher precedence than * ? Processing the declaration, the a[3] is processed as 'array of 3' before you process the * . To declare a pointer to an array of three characters, you have to use parentheses to

问题 Just to be sure, has Dart removed explicitly defining an interface now in favor of implicitly defining it via abstract ? I see it mentioned in Dart and Interface Segregation Principle, however I'm also finding a lot of content still referencing the explicit definition, such as When to use interfaces in Dart? 回答1: Yes. The interface keyword was removed from Dart. Instead all classes have implicit interfaces. So if you want to define an interface you can use an abstract class instead. See this

问题 I've got a bit of a problem here. I'm trying to define several classes, of which some are Players and some are Pawns belonging to the players. Coming from Python, I'm used to being able to conveniently access a Pawn's owning Player through the Pawn, as well as accessing a Player's Pawns through the Player. Correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems impossible in C++. I currently define Player first, and one of its data members m_Pawns is supposed to be a vector<Pawn> . I declare the data member,

问题 I'm a Java programmer,I learnt a little C++ and now I'm studying a little C for my job. I can't understand C behaviour about function declaration/definition and related function calls. From K&R I know that in C (very different from C++) I can call a function that has not been previously declared,and the compiler assumes an implicit declaration of the type: int main() { function(10); // implicit function declaration ( int function() ) } and I know that such a declaration implies a function