caly | stencil calendar - 9k calendar with range selection | Datepicker library

Here's a sample that uses a little dplyr (not essential) and ggrepel (essential).

Sample data:

You have to do a box test in drawBoxes. The current mouse position can be get by the variables mouseX and mouseY.
Test if the mouse is in the box. If the mouse is in the box, then return a dictionary, containing the text and the mouse position. Else return null.. e.g: (I don't know which text you want to show, so you may have to adapt the text)

This problem was caused by repeatedly calling the function without waiting for its completion the fix was implementing a dispatch group and then calling the function on its completion like this Now the CIdetector runs comfortably at 200 MB memory

I can understand your confusion.

I'm having trouble understanding the purpose of the UML diagram myself (and I do that for a living).

• Usage of aggregation (open diamond at the end of the associations) for each association. The aggregation indicates a whole part relationship. I don't see that in any of the associations on the diagram. How is a Planet part of a Sun, or a Moon part of a Planet?

• The UML notations for «Orbit» and {Orbiting Body} are wrong. I'm guessing the Orbit is meant to be an Interface? In that case the correct notation would be to either use a lollipop notation, or a standard box with the keyword «interface» before the name. As for Orbiting Body, the braces are only used in UML to indicate constraints. I'm guessing again that your teacher meant to indicate an abstract class? In that case the correct would be to use italics for the name, so Orbiting Body

• The aggregation between 'Orbiting Body' and 'Orbit' does not make any sense. As it is written now an Orbit is part of an Orbiting Body. I could understand if there were a normal association between Orbiting Body and Orbit

• The direction of the association between 'Orbiting Bodyand 'Orbit is the reverse of the associations between Sun and and Planet and Planet and Moon. I would think the associations between the classes implementing Orbit and Orbiting Body would be some kind of redefinition of that association, but in that case the direction would need to be the same. (and the redefinition would need to be indicated as well).
  As it is designed now there should be two associations you would need to implement to associations between Sun and Planet and between Planet and Moon. One in each direction.

I would suggest you ignore the details of the actual UML diagram because of it's inconsistencies and use your own judgement. A programmer should be more then a mindless codemonkey translating UML in code. You should think for yourself and (if possible) challenge and/or improve the analysis.

• Think about how to implement the relation between Orbiting Bodies (Planet, Moon) and Orbits (Sun, Planet).
  • In which direction do you need that?
  • Do you need it at the general level or only at the concrete level
• Why do you have two attributes of type Moon on your Planet class?. Can't a Planet have more then 2 Moons? I would expect some kind of list of Moons
• Same comment for your Sun class with regards to Planet.

To use local labels in procedures with TASM you need to:

• Use the @@ prefix for your label name; and
• Place LOCALS @@ in the beginning of your file.

You can use a diferent prefix instead of @@, but @@ is the common one.

See http://www.ousob.com/ng/masm/ng54fa6.php.