wrapper

Is it possible to create a wrapper around a function that has the exact same name as the original function? This would be very useful in circumstances where the user wants to do some additional checks on input variables before they are passed on to the built in function How to interrupt MATLAB IDE when it hangs on displaying very large array? Actually alternatively to slayton's answer you don't need to use openvar . If you define a function with the same name as a matlab function, it will shadow that function (i.e. be called instead). To then avoid recursively calling your own function, you

I have a function which works with a std::ostream . I need to support using a C file handle ( FILE* ). Should I be creating my own subclass of std::ostream which delegates to a FILE* ? As Ben Voigt points out, you want to subclass streambuf . There are pages on the University of Southern California's website which have the documentation , header , and source for a GNU implementation of a streambuf subclass ( stdiobuf ) that wraps a FILE* . It has some dependencies on the library it is a part of (GroovX), but those should be easily to remove (I would begin by removing all references to GVX

as stated in the title, I want to have my old C++ library working in managed .NET. I think of two possibilities: 1) I might try to compile the library with /clr and try "It Just Works" approach. 2) I might write a managed wrapper to the unmanaged library. First of all, I want to have my library working FAST, as it was in unmanaged environment. Thus, I am not sure if the first approach will not cause a large decrease in performance. However, it seems to be faster to implement (not a right word :-)) (assuming it will work for me). On the other hand, I think of some problems that might appear

Reference: http://java.sun.com/j2se/1.5.0/docs/guide/language/autoboxing.html "If your program tries to autounbox null, it will throw a NullPointerException." javac will give you a compile-time error if you try to assign null to a boolean. makes sense. assigning null to a Boolean is a-ok though. also makes sense, i guess. but let's think about the fact that you'll get a NPE when trying to autounbox null. what this means is that you can't safely perform boolean operations on Booleans without null-checking or exception handling. same goes for doing math operations on an Integer. for a long time,

Many libraries I have seen/used have typedefs to provide portable, fixed size variables, eg int8, uint8, int16, uint16, etc which will be the correct size regardless of platform (and c++11 does it itself with the header stdint.h) After recently using binary file i/o in a small library I'm writing I can see the benefit of using typedefs in this way to ensure the code is portable. However, if I'm going to the trouble of typing "namespace::uint32" rather than using built in fundamental types, I may as well make the replacement as useful as possible. Therefore I am considering using classes

If I have a.com, a.cmd, a.bat, and a.exe files %PATH%, which one would Windows pick if I invoke just the command "a"? Is this officially spec-ed somewhere by M$? I just wanted to wrap my gvim.exe executable with -n, but my gvim.bat doesn't appear to get run neither from the command line, nor from the Run dialog. See the command search sequence on Microsoft Technet The PATH and PATHEXT environmental variables each provide an element of the search sequence: PATH is the ordered list of directories " where " to look, and PATHEXT is the ordered list of file extensions (" what ") to look for (in

if i write below code(in java): Integer a =new Integer(5); Integer b=new Integer(5); if(a==b){ System.out.println("In =="); } if(a.equals(b)){ System.out.println("In equals"); } My output is: "In equals" But if i change first and second line to -> Integer a =5; Integer b=5; then my o/p is: In == In equals So what is difference in creating a Integer object? How it gets created when we do Integer a =5 ? Does it mean that a and b object refer to same object, if i create Integer a=5 and creates another object Integer b=5 ? Evgeniy Dorofeev Integer a = 5 ; is called autoboxing, compiler converts

Is there a fancy way to cast an Integer array to an int array? (I don't want to iterate over each element; I'm looking for an elegant and quick way to write it) The other way around I'm using scaleTests.add(Arrays.stream(data).boxed().toArray(Double[]::new)); I'm looking for an one-liner but wasn't able to find something. The goal is to: int[] valuesPrimitives = <somehow cast> Integer[] valuesWrapper You can use Stream APIs of Java 8 int[] intArray = Arrays.stream(array).mapToInt(Integer::intValue).toArray(); If you can consider using Apache commons ArrayUtils then there is a simple