semantics

I've generally used the KeyValuePair<TKey,TValue> type whenever I have data that is pair-related in the sense that one is a key to the other. If the data is unrelated then the Tuple<T1,T2> type makes more sense and I'd go with that. Now I just read this article about why to generally avoid KeyValuePair<TKey,TValue> and prefer Tuple<T1,T2> . The primary argument being the performance benefit of Tuple<T1,T2> . Outside performance, is there any reason a KVP would be a better choice than a Tuple<T1,T2> ? vcsjones Well, the type could be considered poorly named, for one. A KeyValuePair as named

I recently embarrassed myself while explaining to a colleague why char a[100]; scanf("%s", &a); // notice a & in front of 'a' is very bad and that the slightly better way to do it is: char a[100]; scanf("%s", a); // notice no & in front of 'a' Ok. For everybody getting ready to tell me why scanf should not be used anyway for security reasons: ease up. This question is actually about the meaning of "&a" vs "a". The thing is, after I explained why it shouldn't work, we tried it (with gcc) and it works =)). I ran a quick printf("%p %p", a, &a); and it prints the same address twice. Can anybody

Given a few words of input, I want to have a utility that will return a diverse set of relevant terms, phrases, or concepts. A caveat is that it would need to have a large graph of terms to begin with, or else the feature would not be very useful. For example, submitting "baseball" would return ["shortstop", "Babe Ruth", "foul ball", "steroids", ... ] Google Sets is the best example I can find of this kind of feature, but I can't use it since they have no public API (and I wont go against their TOS). Also, single-word input doesn't garner a very diverse set of results. I'm looking for a

Object-oriented design (OOD) combines data and its methods. This, as far as I can see, achieves two great things: it provides encapsulation (so I don't care what data there is, only how I get values I want) and semantics (it relates the data together with names, and its methods consistently use the data as originally intended). So where does OOD's strength lie? In constrast, functional programming attributes the richness to the verbs rather than the nouns, and so both encapsulation and semantics are provided by the methods rather than the data structures. I work with a system that is on the

What is the difference between a framework and an SDK? Take, for example, the MS platform SDK and the .NET framework. Both have API's, both hide their inner workings, and both provide functionality that may not be quickly/easily accessible otherwise (in other words, they serve a real-world purpose). So what's the difference? Is it primarily a marketing game of semantics, or are there actual differences in how developers are expected to interact with the software (and conversely, how the developers can expect the software to behave)? Is one expected to be higher- or lower-level than the other,

When using the button tag, does the type attribute have to be defined, or is it semantic to just have? <button>Click Me</button> No, you don't have to specify it, it defaults to the value submit . See the HTML 4.x specification : type (button|submit|reset) submit -- for use as form button -- ^^^^^^ default value Compare with the action attribute for forms where it says #REQUIRED instead of giving a default value. action %URI; #REQUIRED -- server-side form handler -- As @Quentin’s answer explains, the type attribute is not required and it defaults to submit . There is no change to this in HTML5

I am trying to understand the Modelica semantics for a discrete signal. Given a step signal that instantaneously transitions from 0.0 to 1.0 with infinite slope at t = 0.5. Then let's say you also have a when statement as in the following code: model test_discrete Modelica.Blocks.Interfaces.RealOutput q(start = -1.0); Modelica.Blocks.Sources.Step step( height=1, offset=0, startTime=0.5) algorithm when time >= 0.5 and time <= 0.5 then q := step.y; end when; equation end test_discrete; My question is whether q will be 0.0 or 1.0? Lets assume q is initialized to -1. When I implement the code, it

This question already has an answer here: Why is it legal to borrow a temporary? 3 answers Why isn't this rvalue promoted to an lvalue as specified in the reference? 1 answer I found that this is able to compile: let x = &mut 10; *x = 20; This is very confusing. What are the semantics of mutably borrowing an literal? I come from C++, where the compiler will definitely not allow me to refer to a rvalue like this: int *x = &10; int &y = 10; Like C++, Rust has the concept of rvalues and lvalue. The reference calls them value expressions (rvalue) and place expressions (lvalue). Additionally, there