typed | type system in userland : generics , typed lists | SDK library

You can use simply intent.putExtra instead of worrying about which variant like put_____Extra to use.

When extracting the value, you can use intent.extras to get the Bundle and then you can use get() on the Bundle and cast to the appropriate type. This is easier than trying to figure out which intent.get____Extra function to use to extract it, since you will have to cast it anyway.

The below code works whether your data class is Serializeable or Parcelable. You don't need to use arrays, because ArrayLists themselves are Serializeable, but you do need to convert from MutableList to ArrayList.

The little lighter colored "ct" prompt is just a visual aid and it does not always show up. When you provide a raw value as an argument, it will show the prompt (like this, 1, or "foo"). When you provide a variable for the argument like ctx, foo, etc, it does not show up. This goes for all functions that take arguments.

The moral of the story is, it is not important and can be ignored.

See microsoft/TypeScript#43667 for a canonical answer. This is a design limitation of TypeScript.

As you might be aware: in TypeScript's structural type system, Child is a subtype of Base even though it is not explicitly declared as such. So every value of type Child is also a value of type Base (although not vice-versa). That means Child | Base is equivalent to Base... although the compiler is not always aggressive about reducing the former to the latter. (Compare this to the behavior with something like "foo" | string, which is always immediately reduced to string by the compiler.)

Subtype reduction is often desirable, but there are some places where Child | Base's behavior is observably different from Base's, such as excess property checks, IntelliSense hinting, or the sort of unsound type guarding that happens with the in operator. You haven't shown why it matters to you that you are getting a Base as opposed to a Child | Base, but presumably it's one of these observable differences or something like it.

My advice here is first to think carefully about whether or not you really need this distinction. If so, then you might consider preventing Base from being a subtype of Child, possibly by adding an optional property to it:

To get the content as shown in your example TEXT.txt, you could just use a For /F loop and use the = character as the delimiters:

You can make use of the as const TypeScript syntax (See doc).

I'm assuming you have missing dependencies on your code generation class path. Once you update your question, I'll update my answer.

jOOQ won't support your generated composite types in generated code out of the box, you'll still have to add forced type configurations for that, possibly embeddable type configurations:

• https://www.jooq.org/doc/latest/manual/code-generation/codegen-advanced/codegen-config-database/codegen-database-forced-types/
• https://www.jooq.org/doc/latest/manual/code-generation/codegen-embeddable-types/

Note that the JPADatabase offers a quick win by integrating with simple JPA defined schemas very quickly. It has its caveats. For best results, I recommend going DDL first (and generate both jOOQ code and JPA model from that), because it will be much easier to put your schema change management under version control, e.g. via Flyway or Liquibase.

I guess this is what you're looking for.

Don't do it; go the route suggested of using a date range instead

Always seek to avoid creating queries that manipulate table data before a comparison is done. Suppose you have a table with ten million datetimes in, and they're all indexed

The database will probably use the index for this:

The value type of your unordered_map is std::variant, but in your brace init list, you're passing float instead of a double. This conversion from float to a variant is not allowed.

Either change your value type to std::variant, or pass literals of float type, e.g. 1.5f instead of 1.5.

The minimized issue in code is