pdf | PDF reader -

 by   rsc Go Version: v0.1.0 License: BSD-3-Clause

kandi X-RAY | pdf Summary

kandi X-RAY | pdf Summary

pdf is a Go library. pdf has no bugs, it has no vulnerabilities, it has a Permissive License and it has low support. You can download it from GitHub.

PDF reader
Support
    Quality
      Security
        License
          Reuse

            kandi-support Support

              pdf has a low active ecosystem.
              It has 454 star(s) with 193 fork(s). There are 23 watchers for this library.
              OutlinedDot
              It had no major release in the last 12 months.
              There are 10 open issues and 5 have been closed. On average issues are closed in 2 days. There are 14 open pull requests and 0 closed requests.
              It has a neutral sentiment in the developer community.
              The latest version of pdf is v0.1.0

            kandi-Quality Quality

              pdf has 0 bugs and 0 code smells.

            kandi-Security Security

              pdf has no vulnerabilities reported, and its dependent libraries have no vulnerabilities reported.
              pdf code analysis shows 0 unresolved vulnerabilities.
              There are 0 security hotspots that need review.

            kandi-License License

              pdf is licensed under the BSD-3-Clause License. This license is Permissive.
              Permissive licenses have the least restrictions, and you can use them in most projects.

            kandi-Reuse Reuse

              pdf releases are available to install and integrate.
              It has 6499 lines of code, 103 functions and 7 files.
              It has high code complexity. Code complexity directly impacts maintainability of the code.

            Top functions reviewed by kandi - BETA

            kandi's functional review helps you automatically verify the functionalities of the libraries and avoid rework.
            Currently covering the most popular Java, JavaScript and Python libraries. See a Sample of pdf
            Get all kandi verified functions for this library.

            pdf Key Features

            No Key Features are available at this moment for pdf.

            pdf Examples and Code Snippets

            No Code Snippets are available at this moment for pdf.

            Community Discussions

            QUESTION

            Indexed Initial algebras for GADTs
            Asked 2022-Mar-31 at 09:23

            In his paper Generics for the Masses Hinze reviews encoding of data type.

            Starting from Nat

            ...

            ANSWER

            Answered 2022-Mar-14 at 18:05

            The difference is the category. Nat is an initial algebra in the category of types. Rep is an initial algebra in the category of indexed types. The category of indexed types has as objects type constructors of kind * -> *, and as morphisms from f ~> g, functions of type forall t. f t -> g t.

            Then Rep is the initial algebra for the functor RepF defined as follows:

            Source https://stackoverflow.com/questions/71469359

            QUESTION

            Why does the type signature of linear array change compared to normal array?
            Asked 2022-Feb-28 at 10:13

            I'm going through an example in A Taste of Linear Logic.

            It first introduces the standard array with the usual operations defined (page 24):

            Then suggests that a linear equivalent (using a linear logic for type signatures to restrict array copying) would have a slightly different type signature:

            This is designed with the idea that array contains values that are cheap to copy but that the array itself is expensive to copy and thus should be passed along from use to use as a handle.

            Question: The signatures for lookup and update correspond well to the standard signatures, but how do I interpret the signature for new?

            In particular:

            • The function new does not seem to return an array. How can I get an array to use if one is not provided?
            • I think I do understand that Arr –o Arr x X is not derivable using linear logic and therefore a function to extract individual values without consuming the array is needed, but I don't understand why new doesn't provide that function directly
            ...

            ANSWER

            Answered 2022-Feb-28 at 10:13

            In practical terms, this is about garbage collection.

            Linear logic avoids making copies as well as leaving unused values lying around. So when you create an array with new, you also need to make sure it's eventually cleaned up again.

            How can you make sure it is cleaned up? Well, in this example they do it by not giving back the array as the result, but instead “lending” it to the caller. The function ArrArrX must give an array back in the end, in addition to the result you're actually interested in. It's assumed that this will be a modified form of the array you started out with. Only the X is passed back to the caller, the Arr is deallocated.

            Source https://stackoverflow.com/questions/71292714

            QUESTION

            AttributeError: Can't get attribute 'new_block' on
            Asked 2022-Feb-25 at 13:18

            I was using pyspark on AWS EMR (4 r5.xlarge as 4 workers, each has one executor and 4 cores), and I got AttributeError: Can't get attribute 'new_block' on . Below is a snippet of the code that threw this error:

            ...

            ANSWER

            Answered 2021-Aug-26 at 14:53

            I had the same error using pandas 1.3.2 in the server while 1.2 in my client. Downgrading pandas to 1.2 solved the problem.

            Source https://stackoverflow.com/questions/68625748

            QUESTION

            The list monad is not a free monad but …
            Asked 2022-Feb-22 at 19:58

            On page 12 of One Monad to Prove Them All, it is written that "a prominent example [of container] is the list data type. A list can be represented by the length of the list and a function mapping positions within the list".

            At first I thought that the free monad on this container would be isomorphic the list monad.

            But on page 12, it is written that "the list monad is not a free monad in the sense that the list monad is not isomorphic to an instance of the free monad".

            So what is the free monad on the above container? What is it isomorphic to? Why isn't it isomorphic to the list monad? Can it be made isomorphic by quotient?

            ...

            ANSWER

            Answered 2022-Feb-22 at 19:58

            I think one should be a bit careful.

            I don't think it's the case that if M is a free monad, then applying the free monad construction gets you back something isomorphic to M. So your question of "what is the free monad on X" is actually not related to "what functor is X the free monad of?". To show that monad M is not a free monad, the only thing we need to do is exhibit some equality that's true for M but not implied by the monad laws -- since the meaning of the free monad construction is that it guarantees the monad laws and nothing else.

            Here's one way to do that for lists:

            Source https://stackoverflow.com/questions/71227276

            QUESTION

            Why is is_trivially_copyable_v different in GCC and MSVC?
            Asked 2021-Dec-08 at 16:06

            When running this simple program, different behaviour is observed depending on the compiler.

            It prints true when compiled by GCC 11.2, and false when compiled by MSVC 19.29.30137 with the (both are the latest release as of today).

            ...

            ANSWER

            Answered 2021-Dec-08 at 16:06

            GCC and Clang report that S is trivially copyable in C++11 through C++23 standard modes. MSVC reports that S is not trivially copyable in C++14 through C++20 standard modes.

            N3337 (~ C++11) and N4140 (~ C++14) say:

            A trivially copyable class is a class that:

            • has no non-trivial copy constructors,
            • has no non-trivial move constructors,
            • has no non-trivial copy assignment operators,
            • has no non-trivial move assignment operators, and
            • has a trivial destructor.

            By this definition, S is trivially copyable.

            N4659 (~ C++17) says:

            A trivially copyable class is a class:

            • where each copy constructor, move constructor, copy assignment operator, and move assignment operator is either deleted or trivial,
            • that has at least one non-deleted copy constructor, move constructor, copy assignment operator, or move assignment operator, and
            • that has a trivial, non-deleted destructor

            By this definition, S is not trivially copyable.

            N4860 (~ C++20) says:

            A trivially copyable class is a class:

            • that has at least one eligible copy constructor, move constructor, copy assignment operator, or move assignment operator,
            • where each eligible copy constructor, move constructor, copy assignment operator, and move assignment operator is trivial, and
            • that has a trivial, non-deleted destructor.

            By this definition, S is not trivially copyable.

            Thus, as published, S was trivally copyable in C++11 and C++14, but not in C++17 and C++20.

            The change was adopted from DR 1734 in February 2016. Implementors generally treat DRs as though they apply to all prior language standards by convention. Thus, by the published standard for C++11 and C++14, S was trivially copyable, and by convention, newer compiler versions might choose to treat S as not trivially copyable in C++11 and C++14 modes. Thus, all compilers could be said to be correct for C++11 and C++14.

            For C++17 and beyond, S is unambiguously not trivially copyable so GCC and Clang are incorrect. This is GCC bug #96288 and LLVM bug #39050

            Source https://stackoverflow.com/questions/70267387

            QUESTION

            how to restrict drag elements in interact.js
            Asked 2021-Oct-04 at 09:29

            I'm trying to stop my elements from overlapping using interact.js, but I don't have any idea how to get the n elements to be able to do it. Does anyone have an idea? Or some other way I can validate it. Try the solution to this question, but I don't understand how to get the list of elements to go through it. enter link description here

            ...

            ANSWER

            Answered 2021-Oct-03 at 18:14

            What you are looking for is collision detection. When you move or resize your box you can check if the new dimensions/position does collide with other boxes. If that is the case then you can ignore the movement/resize.

            Because your code snippet contained a lot of invalid HTML I had to strip most of it to make it work. Please do spend some time making valid HTML when/if you ask your next question. Some errors that were present in your HTML code:

            • All content was made in the element
            • Usage of HTML tags. Only certain tags can exist out of one tag like
              is valid but is not and the proper way of writing some HTML tags like input is (without closing tag)
            • Closing tags without any starting tags
            • Closing parent tags before closing all the child tags

            Source https://stackoverflow.com/questions/69308783

            QUESTION

            Why does Haskell 9.0 not have Zero in its linear types, but Idris 2 does?
            Asked 2021-Aug-19 at 00:37

            From the Idris 2 publication about linear types "Idris 2: Quantitative Type Theory in Practice":

            For Idris 2, we make a concrete choice of semiring, where a multiplicity can be one of:

            • 0: the variable is not used at run time
            • 1: the variable is used exactly once at run time
            • ω: no restrictions on the variable’s usage at run time

            But for Haskell:

            In the fashion of levity polymorphism, the proposal introduces a data type Multiplicity which is treated specially by the type checker, to represent the multiplicities:

            ...

            ANSWER

            Answered 2021-Aug-19 at 00:37

            In Idris, the value of a function argument can appear in the return type. You might write a function with type

            Source https://stackoverflow.com/questions/68837100

            QUESTION

            How to fix function/symbol 'pango_context_set_round_glyph_positions' error
            Asked 2021-Aug-18 at 21:33

            I have deployed a Django project using Apache2, everything is working fine except for weazyprint which creates PDF file for forms. The pdf was working fine in testing and local host.

            Now everytime I access the pdf it is showing this error:

            ...

            ANSWER

            Answered 2021-Aug-15 at 12:07

            Probably Weasyprint was not downloaded properly:

            try:

            Source https://stackoverflow.com/questions/68720486

            QUESTION

            How exactly is a Decimal object encoded in python?
            Asked 2021-Aug-05 at 06:11

            I'm currently writing code using decimal.Decimal in python (v3.8.5).

            I was wondering if anyone knows how the Decimal object is actually encoded.

            I can't understand why the memory size is the same even if I change getcontext().prec, which is equal to change coefficients and exponent in decimal floating-points, as follows

            ...

            ANSWER

            Answered 2021-Aug-05 at 06:11

            For sys.getsizeof:

            Only the memory consumption directly attributed to the object is accounted for, not the memory consumption of objects it refers to.

            Since Decimal is a Python class with references to several other objects (EDIT: see below), you just get the total size of the references, which is constant — not including the referred values, which are not.

            Source https://stackoverflow.com/questions/68660700

            QUESTION

            Does the C11 memory model really conflict with common optimizations?
            Asked 2021-Aug-01 at 23:55

            The OP of a recent question added a comment to it linking a paper entitled Common Compiler Optimisations are Invalid in the C11 Memory Model and what we can do about it, which apparently was presented at POPL 2015. Among other things, it purports to show several unexpected and counterintuitive conclusions derived from the specifications for what it calls the "C11 memory model", which I take to consist largely of the provisions of section 5.1.2.4 of the C11 language specification.

            The paper is somewhat lengthy, but for the purposes of this question I focus on the discussion of scheme "SEQ" on the second page. This concerns a multithreaded program in which ...

            • a is non-atomic (for example, an int),
            • x and y are atomic (for example, _Atomic int), and
            • a, x, and y all initially have value 0,

            ... and the following occurs (transliterated from pseudocode):

            Thread 1

            ...

            ANSWER

            Answered 2021-Aug-01 at 23:55

            Apparently, no one is both interested enough and confident enough to write an answer, so I guess I'll go ahead.

            isn't that argument fatally flawed?

            To the extent that the proof quoted from the paper is intended to demonstrate that a conforming C implementation is not permitted to perform the source-to-source transformation described in the question, or an equivalent, yes, the proof is flawed. The refutation presented in the question is sound.

            There was some discussion in comments about how the refutation could be viewed as boiling down to anything being permissible in the event of undefined behavior. That is a valid perspective, and in no way does it undercut the argument. However, I think it's unnecessarily minimalistic.

            Again, the key problem with the paper's proof is here:

            the load of a can only return 0 (the initial value of a) because the store a=1 does not happen before it (because it is in a different thread that has not been synchronised with) and non-atomic loads must return the latest write that happens before them.

            The proof's error is that the language specification's requirement that a read of a must return the result of a write to a that "happened before" it is conditioned on the program being free of data races. This is an essential foundation for the whole model, not some kind of escape hatch. The program manifestly is not free of data races if in fact the read of a is performed, so the requirement is moot in that case. The read of a by thread 2 absolutely can observe the write by thread 1, and there is good reason to suppose that it might sometimes do so in practice.

            To look at it another way, the proof chooses to focus on the write not happening before the read, but ignores the fact that the read also does not happen before the write.

            Taking the relaxed atomic accesses into account does not change anything. It is plausible that in a real execution of the paper's three-threaded program, the implementation (for example) speculatively executes the relaxed load of x in thread 2 on the assumption that it will return 1, then reads from a the value written by thread 1, and as a result, executes the store to y. Because the atomic accesses are performed with relaxed semantics, the execution of thread 3 can read the value of y as 1 (or speculate that it will do so) and consequently perform the write to x. All speculations involved can then be confirmed correct, with the final result that a = x = y = 1. It is intentional that this seemingly paradoxical result is allowed by the "relaxed" memory order.

            isn't it indeed valid for a C11 implementation to treat the original three-threaded program as if it were the two-threaded program consisting of threads 2' and 3?

            At minimum, the paper's argument does not show otherwise, even if we -- with no basis in the specification -- construe the scope of the UB arising from the data race to be limited to whether the value read from a is its initial one or the one written by thread 1.

            Implementations are given broad license to behave as they choose, so long as they produce observable behavior that is consistent with the behavior required of the abstract machine. The creation and execution of multiple threads of execution is not itself part of the observable behavior of a program, as that is defined by the specification. Therefore, yes, a program that performed the proposed transformation and then behaved accordingly, or one that otherwise behaved as if there were a happens before edge between the write to a and the read from a, would not be acting inconsistently with the specification.

            Source https://stackoverflow.com/questions/68505026

            Community Discussions, Code Snippets contain sources that include Stack Exchange Network

            Vulnerabilities

            No vulnerabilities reported

            Install pdf

            You can download it from GitHub.

            Support

            For any new features, suggestions and bugs create an issue on GitHub. If you have any questions check and ask questions on community page Stack Overflow .
            Find more information at:

            Find, review, and download reusable Libraries, Code Snippets, Cloud APIs from over 650 million Knowledge Items

            Find more libraries
            CLONE
          • HTTPS

            https://github.com/rsc/pdf.git

          • CLI

            gh repo clone rsc/pdf

          • sshUrl

            git@github.com:rsc/pdf.git

          • Stay Updated

            Subscribe to our newsletter for trending solutions and developer bootcamps

            Agree to Sign up and Terms & Conditions

            Share this Page

            share link