It is on a test review and there is no definition in the book.
An array subscript is another way to say an array index. The term is derived from the mathematical notation for accessing elements of a list.
Related
https://neo4j.com/docs/developer-manual/current/get-started/cypher/#cypher-intro-patterns-relationship-syntax
The Neo4j Developer Manual section 2.2.1.2 describes the syntax for Relationships. I have a question regarding the 4th example as copied below.
-[role:ACTED_IN {roles: ["Neo"]}]->
What do the square brackets surrounding ["Neo"] denote? Is this the syntax for an array? If so, how do we identify the elements of this array?
Basically, I'm trying to understand the difference between the above relationship and the one below.
-[role:ACTED_IN {roles: "Neo"}]->
It is an array, you're matching an ACTED_IN relationship which has a property called roles whose value is an array with one String element equal to "Neo"
If you want to match any element in the array you would change this to
WHERE "Neo" IN role.roles
In the second example, you're matching a property called roles whose value is simply a String equalling "Neo"
I have a to-many relationship, where a List can have many Items.
I then have a List variable, whith the list Entity that I need. No problems there.
The list is a tableview and the user can add rows, so when they add a row it adds it as an Item relationship to the List.
I can then use List.valueForKey("item") to get the Items. But the return type is AnyObject. Is there a better way than casting it to an NSSet and then having to go through and grt the values and putting them into an array?
In other words, how can I get the value of all the Item entities and put them into an array ?
Pd: the Relationship is Ordered.
You cannot successfully cast something to something it is not. Casting is merely a way of revealing the truth to the compiler. The implication is that you know more than the compiler does. But you must tell the compiler the truth! If you lie to the compiler, you will crash at runtime.
So, if casting to an array causes a crash at runtime, that's because this is not an array. You can only cast to what it really is.
Is there any way to add parameters in tuple after initialisation?
Like :
var tupleX = ("Hi", "Rachit")
Now I want to add a parameter to tuple after which tupleX will have 3 or more parameters
Is it possible?
No. A tuple has a set number of elements. You may want to use an Array or some other class instead.
The difference between a tuple and a list (or other collections) is precisely the fixed amount of elements it contains.
From a type system perspective (1, 2) and (1, 2, 3) are of two distinct types, so of course you cannot alter the number of elements since you would be changing the type.
It's probably also important to notice that, as explained here,
Tuples are useful for temporary groups of related values. They are not suited to the creation of complex data structures. If your data structure is likely to persist beyond a temporary scope, model it as a class or structure, rather than as a tuple.
So if you need to alter a tuple overtime, you probably don't want to use a tuple, but rather a class, a struct or even a dictionary.
Assuming I have a hash value of some NSObject during runtime.
Is there a way to find a pointer to that object using just hash value?
I don't want to store pointers to objects and their hashes as keys. I imagine that iOS already doas that.
There is no way, not even an unreliable way, to do this.
Many objects have hashes in ways that makes it impossible to reference it. You will have duplicates because of this. One example, as #Martin said, is NSArrays. NSArrays' hashes are just the number of elements in the array.
Is there a way to compare two objects that are generic? I'm supposed to find the largest object in a linked list. My first guess was to use the Object's class compareTo method, but I couldn't get that to work. Thanks
I assume that the language is Java. (since you mentioned Object and compareTo)
I suggest you to have a have a look into Comparator and Comparable interfaces.