equivalent

问题 According to What is the equivalent of MATLAB's repmat in NumPy, I tried to build 3x3x5 array from 3x3 array using python. In Matlab, this work as I expected. a = [1,1,1;1,2,1;1,1,1]; a_= repmat(a,[1,1,5]); size(a_) = 3 3 5 But for numpy.tile b = numpy.array([[1,1,1],[1,2,1],[1,1,1]]) b_ = numpy.tile(b, [1,1,5]) b_.shape = (1, 3, 15) If I want to generate the same array as in Matlab, what is the equivalent? Edit 1 The output I would expect to get is b_(:,:,1) = 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 b_(:,:,2) = 1

问题 cppreference states that: A constexpr specifier used in an object declaration or non-static member function (until C++14) implies const. Does "object declaration" mean "any variable declaration"? I.e. is constexpr const int someConstant = 3; equivalent to constexpr int someConstant = 3; in C++11, C++14 and C++17? 回答1: In declarations with primitives, such as the one in your example, const is indeed redundant. However, there may be odd situations where const would be required, for example

问题 cppreference states that: A constexpr specifier used in an object declaration or non-static member function (until C++14) implies const. Does "object declaration" mean "any variable declaration"? I.e. is constexpr const int someConstant = 3; equivalent to constexpr int someConstant = 3; in C++11, C++14 and C++17? 回答1: In declarations with primitives, such as the one in your example, const is indeed redundant. However, there may be odd situations where const would be required, for example

问题 Given an uninitialised abstract type member is =:= equal to an existential type implicitly[Undefined =:= x forSome { type x }] // ok then why there seems to be a difference between them in object O { type Undefined implicitly[Undefined =:= _] // ok def g[F[_]](fun: F[_] => F[_]) = ??? def h[F[_]](fun: F[Undefined] => F[Undefined]) = ??? g[List](l => List(42)) // ok h[List](l => List(42)) // error } Note how g compiles whilst h raises type mismatch error. Furthermore consider object O { type

问题 Given an uninitialised abstract type member is =:= equal to an existential type implicitly[Undefined =:= x forSome { type x }] // ok then why there seems to be a difference between them in object O { type Undefined implicitly[Undefined =:= _] // ok def g[F[_]](fun: F[_] => F[_]) = ??? def h[F[_]](fun: F[Undefined] => F[Undefined]) = ??? g[List](l => List(42)) // ok h[List](l => List(42)) // error } Note how g compiles whilst h raises type mismatch error. Furthermore consider object O { type

问题 I've a question (just like me)... but...if I've a choosen algorithm written in C or C++ or whatever code you want...fixed a compiler I can determine the number of instructions but these intructions are different each other: x ADD, y MUL, z MOV, f FADD, t FMUL (F stands for FLOATING)...Is there a methodology or equation or something else that permits to write the number of instructions in number of "Equivalent instruction" to compare different algorith? Is there somebody of you that use this

问题 Similar question to Linux equivalent of GetCommandLine and CommandLineToArgv Is it possible to get the raw command line in linux? The file /proc/self/cmdline is destroyd. ./a.out files="file 1","file 2" param="2" prints ./a.outfiles=file 1,file 2param=2 which is junk Escaping command line does work for all arguments but the first. ./a.out files=\"fil 1\",\"fil 2\"\ param=\"2\" prints ./a.outfiles="fil1","fil2" param="2" 回答1: You can't do that. The command line arguments are actually passed to

问题 Is there any equivalent to Response.End in PHP? 回答1: exit(); die(); flush(); 来源： https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2233057/response-end-in-php

问题 In Visual Basic, you can use a module as a place to store 'loose' code which can be methods and variables that are accessible from elsewhere in the application without having to first initialize something, and the variable states can be set or changed and will continue to keep that value throughout. The closest I have found, is static methods in C# as part of a public class, however this has the drawback of variables which are not globally accessible, or internally settable/gettable if the

问题 Most places I've consulted say to use SortedList, but the problem is that the program I'm porting actually uses duplicate keys (differentiated by order), which is permissible with TreeMap, but not SortedList. Any advice? 回答1: Does SortedDictionary class help? 回答2: Another great implementation of a Red Black Tree in .NET can be found here: http://www.itu.dk/research/c5/ 回答3: I don't think C# has one natively. However there are plenty of examples of Red-Black implementations out there. Here is