I\'ve come acro开发者_StackOverflowss references to Haskell\'s Data.Typeable, but it\'s not clear to me why I would want to use it in my code.
I am writing a function to compare the contents of two lists. The order of the elements don\'t matter, so I sort them before I compare. The lists can be of normal types list<int>, but also be li
I tried to create a container for posible metadata that can be attached to my objects. I can guarantee that there will be at most one object af each kind attached to my class but there is no limit for
I have a class look like this: public class NamSetup: INameSetup { static List<Name> nbames= new List<Name>();
std::sort swaps elements by using std::swap, which in turn uses the copy constructor and assignment operators, guaranteeing that you get correct semantics when exchanging the values.
That is my question.I\'m just curious what the consensus is on limiting the types that can be passed in to a generic function or class.I thought I had read at some point, that if you\'re doing generic
I want to work with file streams generically. That is, i want to \'program to an interface and not the implementation\'. Something like this:
I am trying to develop a program which displays the available bandwidth between two peers. Later this module will be integrated in my application which facilitates various user interactions (chatting,
after install hugs and then install ghc6 then install generic-haskell has the following message, How to do?
One of the problems of C++ are horrible error messages that we are gettingfrom code which intensively uses templates and template metaprogramming. The concepts are designed to solve this problem, but
加载中,请稍侯......