members

Note: This question is not a duplicate of How can I get all object vals and subobject vals using reflection in Scala? The answer provided in that question only works for final members. For example: scala> object Settings { | val Host = "host" | } defined module Settings deepMembers(Settings) res0: Map[String,String] = Map() It must be a duplicate, but I need a refresher: $ scala Welcome to Scala version 2.11.7 (Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM, Java 1.8.0_45). Type in expressions to have them evaluated. Type :help for more information. scala> object Settings { val Host = "host" ; val Guest =

This question already has an answer here: How do I test a private function or a class that has private methods, fields or inner classes? 51 answers Today I had a discussion with a colleague on whether to test or not to test private members or private state in the class. He almost convinced me why it makes sense. This question does not aim to duplicate already existing StackOverflow questions about the nature and reason of testing private members, like: What is wrong with making a unit test a friend of the class it is testing? Colleagues suggestion was in my opinion a bit fragile to introduce

I want to create a table of friends with personal information and log on details. What better to separate the members table to 2 tables , one contain minimal details , second with Other details. or remain in one table ? i have a lot of tables that contain the foreign key of the member. It depends a lot on what those "other" details are. This is a common and interesting question, and there is no "hard and fast" answer at first glance. But if we think of the issue more abstractly, about the actual relationship among the attributes ("details") of any particular thing you want to represent, we may

in a c++ class declaration, you can label a group of members as private or public, e.g. private: int x; double y; seems like there's no way to do this in c#. am I wrong? No, you can't not do this in C#. At best, you can use the default visibility for members, which is private, and not use private, but for public, you have to indicate it for all members. You're correct. Although, if you leave visibility keyword off altogether, a member defaults to private. No you're not wrong. If you don't write any modifiers it will be assumed as private. 来源： https://stackoverflow.com/questions/546869/labeling

I'm wondering why I am getting an warning about initialization in one case, but not the other. The code is in a C++ source file, and using GCC 4.7 with -std=c++11 . struct sigaction old_handler, new_handler; The above produces NO warnings with -Wall and -Wextra . struct sigaction old_handler={}, new_handler={}; struct sigaction old_handler={0}, new_handler={0}; The above produces warnings: warning: missing initializer for member ‘sigaction::__sigaction_handler’ [-Wmissing-field-initializers] warning: missing initializer for member ‘sigaction::sa_mask’ [-Wmissing-field-initializers] warning:

Do unions have a control structure to test which member is currently in use (or if it has any at all)? I'm asking this because undefined behavior is never a good thing to have in your program. No, no such mechanism exists off-the-shelf. You'll have to take care of that yourself. The usual approach is wrapping the union in a struct : struct MyUnion { int whichMember; union { //whatever } actualUnion; }; So you have MyUnion x; and x.whichMember tells you which field of x.actualUnion is in use (you have to implement the functionality though). 来源： https://stackoverflow.com/questions/11035534/union