semantic | Ruby Semantic Version class | Data Migration library

When in doubt, JLS will help:

If two methods of a class (whether both declared in the same class, or both inherited by a class, or one declared and one inherited) have the same name but signatures that are not override-equivalent, then the method name is said to be overloaded.

So it's not "changing the parameters", it is about not override-equivalent. To find out what that is, you go to another chapter, that says:

Two method signatures m1 and m2 are override-equivalent iff either m1 is a subsignature of m2 or m2 is a subsignature of m1.

And the same chapter explains what subsignature is:

The signature of a method m1 is a subsignature of the signature of a method m2 if either:

• m2 has the same signature as m1, or

• the signature of m1 is the same as the erasure (§4.6) of the signature of m2.

How you interpret your above methods is an exercise left to you.

Well, it's indeed not possible that declarative way since we don't have hook for injecting to the reactive type in the middle on that level.

Try to look into a TransactionalOperator and its usage from the Java DSL's fluxTransform():

We would like to help you, but there is too little code (especially missing redux part and how you're passing values/functions to react components). Please link your repository / show us more code.

It looks like your code binds relative the path "Master2Detail" on the detail side. BUT initially there should not be any existing binding in any parent view.

Your app should look more or less like this for binding path. UI5 is moving up the element to find data:

App-> Flexible ColumnLayout/SPlitView -> Master

App-> Flexible ColumnLayout/SPlitView -> Details

So adjust your bindings a described here OData error when bind to an element in a Master-Detail app

Second, you get this error because initially there is no relative binding in between your master bound element and the detail. Therefore, UI5 can only think this must be part of the master.

If you make up a relative binding in-between, you must inject the fragment by yourself. E.g. load the fragment, bind the loaded control(in aour case the VBox) and then use addItem etc. do attache it to the view.

Try the following:

If a variable is potentially read or written, it matters what order that happens in. The point of a "memory" clobber is to make sure the reads and/or writes in an asm statement happen at the right point in the program's execution.

Any read of a C variable's value that happens in the source after an asm statement must be after the memory-clobbering asm statement in the compiler-generated assembly output for the target machine, otherwise it might be reading a value before the asm statement would have changed it.

Any read of a C var in the source before an asm statement similarly must stay sequenced before, otherwise it might incorrectly read a modified value.

Similar reasoning applies to assignments to (writes of) C variables before/after any asm statement with a "memory" clobber. Just like a function call to an "opaque" function, one who's definition the compiler can't see.

No reads or writes can reorder with the barrier in either direction, therefore no operation before the barrier can reorder with any operation after the barrier, or vice versa.

Another way to look at it: the actual machine memory contents must match the C abstract machine at that point. The compiler-generated asm has to respect that, by storing any variable values from registers to memory before the start of an asm("":::"memory") statement, and afterwards it has to assume that any registers that had copies of variable values might not be up to date anymore. So they have to be reloaded if they're needed.

This reads-everything / writes-everything assumption for the "memory" clobber is what keeps the asm statement from reordering at all at compile time wrt. all accesses, even non-volatile ones. The volatile is already implicit from being an asm() statement with no "=..." output operands, and is what stops it from being optimized away entirely (and with it the memory clobber).

Note that only potentially "reachable" C variables are affected. For example, escape analysis can still let the compiler keep a local int i in a register across a "memory" clobber, as long as the asm statement itself doesn't have the address as an input.

Just like a function call: for (int i=0;i<10;i++) {foobar("%d\n", i);} can keep the loop counter in a register, and just copy it to the 2nd arg-passing register for foobar every iteration. There's no way foobar can have a reference to i because its address hasn't been stored anywhere or passed anywhere.

(This is fine for the memory barrier use-case; no other thread could have its address either.)

Related:

• How does a mutex lock and unlock functions prevents CPU reordering? - why opaque function calls work as compiler barriers.
• How can I indicate that the memory *pointed* to by an inline ASM argument may be used? - cases where a "memory" clobber is needed for a non-empty asm statement (or other dummy operands to tell the asm statement which memory is read / written.)

It's a big in peachpie compiler itself.

https://github.com/peachpiecompiler/peachpie/issues/957

You van either delete the failing code from the php script or wait for the next release of peachpie.

Assuming you've installed the irony-mode-server, try M-xirony-cdb-menu. If that shows no compilation database, there are a few options to tell irony where to look for includes (discussed in the documentation). Irony will provide completion based on sources found in the compilation database.

Of those options, I use a .clang_complete file in my project directory. To complete for vector in your example, assuming you are using g++ version 9 (replace the '9' with your major version), the following simple .clang_complete file may be sufficient (add -I entries for additional include paths as necessary)

.clang_complete

You do not need to take variance into account here. The reason why Record fails is simply due to the utility requiring its type parameter to have an index signature. For the same reason, the method cannot expect to get a type assignable to { [x:string]: unknown } as its only parameter.

In any case, I do not think you will be able to do that without generic type parameters. Then you simply need to check if a string-only keyed type like { [P in Extract : any } is assignable to the passed-in type (the other way around will obviously always pass as your interfaces are subtypes of the former).

Note that X extends T ? T : never in the parameter is needed for the compiler to be able to infer T from usage while still maintaining the constraint. The only caveat is that you will not be able to catch symbol properties (but will be if their type is unique symbol):