assignment-operator

问题 I'm confused about '=' operator, and tf.identity() , I thought '=' is to just make a reference of the tensor, and identity is to make a copy, e.g., with ref = x ref = ref*0 sess.run(x) I will get x all been set to 0 element-wise, and with copy = tf.identity(x) copy = ref*0 sess.run(x) x would not be changed, since identity make copy, not a reference, but with experiment, '=' also make a copy and x is not set to 0, so what's the difference? 回答1: The difference is only in tensorlfow graph

问题 When overloading assignment operator of a class in C++, must its parameter be reference? For example, class MyClass { public: ... MyClass & operator=(const MyClass &rhs); ... } Can it be class MyClass { public: ... MyClass & operator=(const MyClass rhs); ... } ? Thanks! 回答1: The parameter of an overloaded assignment operator can be any type and it can be passed by reference or by value (well, if the type is not copy constructible, then it can't be passed by value, obviously). So, for example,

问题 Prior to C++11, it has always been the case that copy assignment operator should always pass by const reference, like so: template <typename T> ArrayStack<T>& operator= (const ArrayStack& other); However, with the introduction of move assignment operators and constructors, it seems that some people are advocating using pass by value for copy assignment instead. A move assignment operator also needs to be added: template <typename T> ArrayStack<T>& operator= (ArrayStack other); ArrayStack<T>&

问题 Prior to C++11, it has always been the case that copy assignment operator should always pass by const reference, like so: template <typename T> ArrayStack<T>& operator= (const ArrayStack& other); However, with the introduction of move assignment operators and constructors, it seems that some people are advocating using pass by value for copy assignment instead. A move assignment operator also needs to be added: template <typename T> ArrayStack<T>& operator= (ArrayStack other); ArrayStack<T>&

问题 Prior to C++11, it has always been the case that copy assignment operator should always pass by const reference, like so: template <typename T> ArrayStack<T>& operator= (const ArrayStack& other); However, with the introduction of move assignment operators and constructors, it seems that some people are advocating using pass by value for copy assignment instead. A move assignment operator also needs to be added: template <typename T> ArrayStack<T>& operator= (ArrayStack other); ArrayStack<T>&

问题 Is there a way to allow a move constructor and disallow copy construction and assignment. I can think of several classes with file pointers and buffer pointers (resource handles etc) that would benefit from being copy constructed and assigned. I am using VC2010 & GCC 4.5.2. I know that I would have to declare empty private assignment and copy constructors in the VC2010 class headers and as far as I am aware GCC allows some sort of delete signature after the method to do the same thing. If

问题 Is there a way to allow a move constructor and disallow copy construction and assignment. I can think of several classes with file pointers and buffer pointers (resource handles etc) that would benefit from being copy constructed and assigned. I am using VC2010 & GCC 4.5.2. I know that I would have to declare empty private assignment and copy constructors in the VC2010 class headers and as far as I am aware GCC allows some sort of delete signature after the method to do the same thing. If

问题 I have face this weird behavior I can not find explications about. MWE: l = [1] l += {'a': 2} l [1, 'a'] l + {'B': 3} Traceback (most recent call last): File "<input>", line 1, in <module> TypeError: can only concatenate list (not "dict") to list Basically, when I += python does not raise an error and append the key to the list while when I only compute the + I get the expected TypeError . Note: this is Python 3.6.10 回答1: l += ... is actually calling object.__iadd__(self, other) and modifies

问题 I have face this weird behavior I can not find explications about. MWE: l = [1] l += {'a': 2} l [1, 'a'] l + {'B': 3} Traceback (most recent call last): File "<input>", line 1, in <module> TypeError: can only concatenate list (not "dict") to list Basically, when I += python does not raise an error and append the key to the list while when I only compute the + I get the expected TypeError . Note: this is Python 3.6.10 回答1: l += ... is actually calling object.__iadd__(self, other) and modifies

问题 I have face this weird behavior I can not find explications about. MWE: l = [1] l += {'a': 2} l [1, 'a'] l + {'B': 3} Traceback (most recent call last): File "<input>", line 1, in <module> TypeError: can only concatenate list (not "dict") to list Basically, when I += python does not raise an error and append the key to the list while when I only compute the + I get the expected TypeError . Note: this is Python 3.6.10 回答1: l += ... is actually calling object.__iadd__(self, other) and modifies