shorthand

Short hand assignment operator, +=, True Meaning?

由 眉间皱痕 提交于 2019-12-10 14:04:24
问题 I learnt that i+=2 is the short-hand of i=i+2 . But now am doubting it. For the following code, the above knowledge holds no good: byte b=0; b=b+2; //Error:Required byte, Found int The above code is justifiable, as 2 is int type and the expression returns int value. But, the following code runs fine: byte b=0; b+=2; //b stores 2 after += operation This is forcing me to doubt that the += short-hand operator is somewhat more than I know. Please enlighten me. 回答1: When in doubt, you can always

Anonymous function with no curly braces and no argument labels?

由 只愿长相守 提交于 2019-12-08 02:56:24
问题 I saw some code on another question that seems to create an anonymous function (closure expression) with some unusual syntax: let plus: (Int, Int) -> Int = (+) I understand the left side—that it's declaring a constant of type (Int, Int) -> Int (a function that takes two Integers and returns an Integer). But what is (+) ? How can it declare a function without curly brackets, and how does it refer to the two arguments when there are no argument labels of any kind? The function takes two

Will a shorthand IF provide an efficiency boost compared to the default IF?

由 折月煮酒 提交于 2019-12-07 19:32:53
问题 If i have a large data file containing integers of an arbitrary length needing to be sorted by it's second field: 1 3 4 5 1 4 5 7 -1 34 56 7 124 58394 1384 -1938 1948 3848089 -14850 0 1048 01840 1039 888 //consider this is a LARGE file, the data goes on for quite some time and i call upon qsort to be my weapon of choice, inside my sort function, will using the shorthand IF provide a significant performance boost to overall time it takes the data to be sorted? Or is the shorthand IF only used

C# Comparison shorthand

由 只谈情不闲聊 提交于 2019-12-07 16:21:35
问题 I have this code: if (y == a && y == b && y == c && y == d ...) { ... } Is there some form of shorthand so that I can rewrite it as something like this? if(y == (a && b && c && d ...)) { ... } The functionality should be exactly the same. I'm just looking for something that looks less confusing. EDIT Sorry for not clarifying, all the variables are integers. I'm looking for a shorter way to ensure that a , b , c , d , ... all equal y . 回答1: The closest you're going to get (without implementing

Try/catch oneliner available?

由 橙三吉。 提交于 2019-12-06 17:14:02
问题 Just as you can convert the following: var t; if(foo == "bar") { t = "a"; } else { t = "b"; } into: t = foo == "bar" ? "a" : "b"; , I was wondering if there is a shorthand / oneline way to convert this: var t; try { t = someFunc(); } catch(e) { t = somethingElse; } Is there a method of doing this in a shorthand way, preferably an oneliner? I could, of course, just remove the newlines, but I rather mean something like the ? : thing for if . Thanks. 回答1: You could use the following function and

Anonymous function with no curly braces and no argument labels?

由 丶灬走出姿态 提交于 2019-12-06 08:06:56
I saw some code on another question that seems to create an anonymous function (closure expression) with some unusual syntax: let plus: (Int, Int) -> Int = (+) I understand the left side—that it's declaring a constant of type (Int, Int) -> Int (a function that takes two Integers and returns an Integer). But what is (+) ? How can it declare a function without curly brackets, and how does it refer to the two arguments when there are no argument labels of any kind? The function takes two arguments, adds them together, and returns the result. If I replace the + operator with a different one (say a

C# Comparison shorthand

由 梦想与她 提交于 2019-12-05 18:55:25
I have this code: if (y == a && y == b && y == c && y == d ...) { ... } Is there some form of shorthand so that I can rewrite it as something like this? if(y == (a && b && c && d ...)) { ... } The functionality should be exactly the same. I'm just looking for something that looks less confusing. EDIT Sorry for not clarifying, all the variables are integers. I'm looking for a shorter way to ensure that a , b , c , d , ... all equal y . The closest you're going to get (without implementing your own kind of mechanism): if (new[] { a, b, c, d }.All(value => y == value)) // ... No , there isn't

C++/CLI shorthand properties

由 你离开我真会死。 提交于 2019-12-05 09:28:09
问题 How does a developer do the equivalent of this in managed c++? : c# code public String SomeValue { get; set; } I've scoured the net and found some solutions, however it is hard to distinguish which is the correct (latest, .NET 3.5) way, given the colourful history of getters/setters and managed c++. Thanks! 回答1: Managed C++ does not support automatic properties. You should manually declare a backing field and the accessors: private: String* _internalSomeValue; public: __property String* get

C# getter and setter shorthand

由 谁说我不能喝 提交于 2019-12-04 16:37:44
问题 If my understanding of the internal workings of this line is correct: public int MyInt { get; set; } Then it behind the scenes does this: private int _MyInt { get; set; } Public int MyInt { get{return _MyInt;} set{_MyInt = value;} } What I really need is: private bool IsDirty { get; set; } private int _MyInt { get; set; } Public int MyInt { get{return _MyInt;} set{_MyInt = value; IsDirty = true;} } But I would like to write it something like: private bool IsDirty { get; set; } public int

Ruby hash equivalent of JavaScript's object initializer ES6 shorthand

由 纵饮孤独 提交于 2019-12-04 00:16:06
问题 In JavaScript ES6 we can create objects where variable names become keys like this: > let a = 'aaa' 'aaa' > let b = 'bbb' 'bbb' > { a, b } { a:"aaa", b:"bbb" } Does Ruby have something equivalent for hashes? Clarification: Obviously this question regards the shorthand notation. I'm looking for {a,b} not {a:a,b:b} . 回答1: No, there is no such shorthand notation. 回答2: Short answer no. Longer answer Shugo Maeda proposed a patch for this in 2015 (you can read the details about this here: https:/
订阅 shorthand