I\'ve been thinking about doing my own language (practicality: it\'s a thought experiment). One of the ideas I came up with is in-language semantic variation. You\'d write essentially semantic regular
Have a look at these function signatures: class Number { public: Number& operator++ ();// pre开发者_开发知识库fix ++
I have开发者_如何学运维 been dealing a lot with Lua in the past few months, and I really like most of the features but I\'m still missing something among those:
In C++ it\'s OK to have a funcction that takes a function local type: int main() { struct S { static void M(const S& s) { } };
One of the basic data types in R is factors. In my experience factors are basically a pain and I never use them. I always convert to characters. I feel oddly like I开发者_StackOverflow\'m missing some
I\'m working on an experimental programming language that has global polymorphic type inference. I recently got the algorithm working sufficiently well to correctly type the bits of sample code I\'m
I\'ve seen Scala using both interchangeably, but I don\'t know when to use one or the other. Is there a convention?
It's difficult to tell what is being asked here. This question is ambiguous, vague, incomplete, overly broad, or rhetorical andcannot be reasonably answered in its current form. For help clari
I faced with a sample code in Java and it brought me a question. Java sample code is: ... public interface CLibrary extends Library {
Paul Graham writes: For example, types seem to be an inexhaustible source of research papers, despite the fact that static
加载中,请稍侯......