indirection

This question already has an answer here: Calling dynamic variable in PowerShell 2 answers I am attempting to do something similar to the following ... New-Variable -Name "state_$name" -Value "True" if ("state_$name" -eq "True") { Write-Host "Pass" } else { Write-Host "Fail" } I have attempted this a number of different ways but it is not working exactly how I would like it to work. I need to write the if statement to account for a dynamic variable as these values will change inside of a foreach loop. I have provided a simple example above for proof of concept. Replace if ("state_$name" -eq

I've read this quote in a book: There is no problem in computer science that can't be solved using another level of indirection. Can someone explain that? What does "level of indirection" mean? From what I understood, indirection is a fancy name for using a pointer of a value instead of the value itself. Please clarify this for me. "Indirection" is using something that uses something else, in its broadest sense. So your example, using a pointer of a value instead of the value, fits this definition at one level. The pointer is the something and the value is the something else. Typically this is

I am trying to create an environment variable in bash script, user will input the name of environment variable to be created and will input its value as well. this is a hard coded way just to elaborate my question : #!/bin/bash echo Hello export varName="nameX" # echo $varName export "$varName"="val" #here I am trying to create an environment #variable whose name is nameX and assigning it value val echo $nameX it works fine it's output is : Hello nameX val But, I want a generic code. So I am trying to take input from user the name of variable and its value but I am having trouble in it. I don

What does the quote "Level of Indirection solves every Problem" mean in Computer Science? Generally it means that by increasing the level of abstraction one can make the problem easier to understand/resolve. Be careful with your abstractions though, the full quote at least as I heard it is, "You can solve every problem with another level of indirection, except for the problem of too many levels of indirection". From the book Beautiful Code : All problems in computer science can be solved by another level of indirection," is a famous quote attributed to Butler Lampson, the scientist who in 1972

TL;DR Given the following code: int* ptr; *ptr = 0; does *ptr require an lvalue-to-rvalue conversion of ptr before applying indirection? The standard covers the topic of lvalue-to-rvalue in many places but does not seem to specify enough information to determine whether the * operator require such a conversion. Details The lvalue-to-rvalue conversion is covered in N3485 in section 4.1 Lvalue-to-rvalue conversion paragraph 1 and says ( emphasis mine going forward ): A glvalue (3.10) of a non-function, non-array type T can be converted to a prvalue.53 If T is an incomplete type, a program that