can_be | CanBe allows you to track the type of your ActiveRecord | Web Framework library
kandi X-RAY | can_be Summary
kandi X-RAY | can_be Summary
CanBe allows you to track the type of your ActiveRecord model in a consistent simple manner. With just a little configuration on your part, each type of record can contain different attributes that are specifc to that type of record.
Support
Quality
Security
License
Reuse
Top functions reviewed by kandi - BETA
Currently covering the most popular Java, JavaScript and Python libraries. See a Sample of can_be
can_be Key Features
can_be Examples and Code Snippets
Community Discussions
Trending Discussions on can_be
QUESTION
TL;DR: This question is about Prolog implementation details. Proceed at your own risk. You've been warned:)
According to ISO/IEC 13211-1995 "7.12 Errors":
7.12.2 Error classification
[...]
j) There may be a System Error at any stage of execution. The conditions in which there shall be a system error, and the action taken by a processor after a system error are implementation dependent. It has the form
system_error
.[...]
NOTES
[...]
4 A System Error may happen for example (a) in interactions with the operating system (for example, a disk crash or interrupt), or (b) when a goal
throw(T)
has been executed and there is no active goalcatch/3
.
OK, but somewhat vague... So here's my actual question:
Are the following uses of
system_error
legitimate?
Prolog system "L" does not offer modifiable character-conversion mappings. Instead, it behaves like this:
...
ANSWER
Answered 2020-May-04 at 22:25Not an answer to your question on compliance but...
throw(error(system_error, disallowed(P/N)))
A permission error would make more sense here. But the possible values for the operation and permission type from the standard are not ideal. Maybe extending them and using something like e.g.
permission_error(call, predicate, P/N)
A resource_error/1
would also not be farfetched here.
QUESTION
I am using C++11, and was trying to set up a generic Handle
class in my application, where it is sometimes possible to convert handles with different underlying types, but only if the underlying types are related as ancestor/descendant, otherwise attempts to convert should simply fail. I also need a function that will never fail that tells me if a conversion is even possible between the two types. In particular, I do not want the underlying type to try to do any conversion to types that are not within its own ancestry/descendant lines, so I was thinking if I defined a templated functor on a boolean that told me at compile time whether the types were related, and used template specialization to reject the conversion if they are not related, or to forward the conversion request to the underlying type if they are related. Each base class contains a templated conversion function that knows how to convert to each of the corresponding types in it hierarchy as well as a templated boolean function that indicates if such conversion is possible based on the internal states of the class instance.
What I put together looks like this:
...ANSWER
Answered 2017-Apr-08 at 08:43To specialize a template you have to add template
keyword before specialisation, like:
Community Discussions, Code Snippets contain sources that include Stack Exchange Network
Vulnerabilities
No vulnerabilities reported
Install can_be
Support
Reuse Trending Solutions
Find, review, and download reusable Libraries, Code Snippets, Cloud APIs from over 650 million Knowledge Items
Find more librariesStay Updated
Subscribe to our newsletter for trending solutions and developer bootcamps
Share this Page