The Periplus also describes the route from China to India, where silk was shipped by land via Bactria to Barygaza and then via the Ganges River to Limyrike. This passage provides evidence of connections between China and Rome during the first century of the Common Era. The trade links were significant, with many travelers focusing on trade, particularly silk, which formed an important part of the economies of several societies.

pas une instance disciplinaire

Les parents peuvent se faire accompagner ou remplacer par un représentant d'une association de parents d'élèves de l'école ou par un autre parent d'élève de l'école

Instance methods Instances of Models are documents. Documents have many of their own built-in instance methods. We may also define our own custom document instance methods. // define a schema const animalSchema = new Schema({ name: String, type: String }, { // Assign a function to the "methods" object of our animalSchema through schema options. // By following this approach, there is no need to create a separate TS type to define the type of the instance functions. methods: { findSimilarTypes(cb) { return mongoose.model('Animal').find({ type: this.type }, cb); } } }); // Or, assign a function to the "methods" object of our animalSchema animalSchema.methods.findSimilarTypes = function(cb) { return mongoose.model('Animal').find({ type: this.type }, cb); }; Now all of our animal instances have a findSimilarTypes method available to them. const Animal = mongoose.model('Animal', animalSchema); const dog = new Animal({ type: 'dog' }); dog.findSimilarTypes((err, dogs) => { console.log(dogs); // woof }); Overwriting a default mongoose document method may lead to unpredictable results. See this for more details. The example above uses the Schema.methods object directly to save an instance method. You can also use the Schema.method() helper as described here. Do not declare methods using ES6 arrow functions (=>). Arrow functions explicitly prevent binding this, so your method will not have access to the document and the above examples will not work.

`.call` is a shortcut for `.new(args).call`

Use a single project to hold all platform instances of your app (Android, iOS, web, etc.), each with a different Client ID.

Are protected members/fields really that bad? No. They are way, way worse. As soon as a member is more accessible than private, you are making guarantees to other classes about how that member will behave. Since a field is totally uncontrolled, putting it "out in the wild" opens your class and classes that inherit from or interact with your class to higher bug risk. There is no way to know when a field changes, no way to control who or what changes it. If now, or at some point in the future, any of your code ever depends on a field some certain value, you now have to add validity checks and fallback logic in case it's not the expected value - every place you use it. That's a huge amount of wasted effort when you could've just made it a damn property instead ;) The best way to share information with deriving classes is the read-only property: protected object MyProperty { get; } If you absolutely have to make it read/write, don't. If you really, really have to make it read-write, rethink your design. If you still need it to be read-write, apologize to your colleagues and don't do it again :) A lot of developers believe - and will tell you - that this is overly strict. And it's true that you can get by just fine without being this strict. But taking this approach will help you go from just getting by to remarkably robust software. You'll spend far less time fixing bugs.

Public and/or protected fields are bad because they can be manipulated from outside the declaring class without validation; thus they can be said to break the encapsulation principle of object oriented programming.

Using a property or a method to access the field enables you to maintain encapsulation, and fulfill the contract of the declaring class.

Exposing properties gives you a way to hide the implementation. It also allows you to change the implementation without changing the code that uses it (e.g. if you decide to change the way data are stored in the class)

TypeScript offers special syntax for turning a constructor parameter into a class property with the same name and value. These are called parameter properties

II.-La commission est composée :a) Lorsqu'il s'agit d'une région, de la collectivité territoriale de Corse, d'un département, d'une commune de 3 500 habitants et plus et d'un établissement public, par l'autorité habilitée à signer la convention de délégation de service public ou son représentant, président, et par cinq membres de l'assemblée délibérante élus en son sein à la représentation proportionnelle au plus fort reste ;

Same feature in TypeScript¶ It's worth mentioning that other languages have a shortcut for assignment var assignment directly from constructor parameters. So it seems especially painful that Ruby, despite being so beautifully elegant and succinct in other areas, still has no such shortcut for this. One of those other languages (CoffeeScript) is dead now, but TypeScript remains very much alive and allows you to write this (REPL): class Foo { constructor(public a:number, public b:number, private c:number) { } } instead of this boilerplate: class Foo { constructor(a, b, c) { this.a = a; this.b = b; this.c = c; } } (The public/private access modifiers actually disappear in the transpiled JavaScript code because it's only the TypeScript compiler that enforces those access modifiers, and it does so at compile time rather than at run time.) Further reading: https://www.typescriptlang.org/docs/handbook/2/classes.html#parameter-properties https://basarat.gitbook.io/typescript/future-javascript/classes#define-using-constructor https://kendaleiv.com/typescript-constructor-assignment-public-and-private-keywords/ I actually wouldn't mind being able to use public/private modifiers on instance var parameters in Ruby, too, but if we did, I would suggest making that be an additional optional shortcut (for defining accessor methods for those instance vars) that builds on top of the instance var assignment parameter syntax described here. (See more detailed proposal in #__.) Accessors are more of a secondary concern to me: we can already define accessors pretty succinctly with attr_accessor and friends. The bigger pain point that I'm much more interested in having a succinct shortcut for is instance var assignment in constructors. initialize(@a, @b, @c) syntax¶ jsc (Justin Collins) wrote in #note-12: jjyr (Jinyang Jiang) wrote: I am surprised this syntax has been repeatedly requested and rejected since 7 years ago. ... As someone who has been writing Ruby for over 10 years, this syntax is exactly that I would like. I grow really tired of writing def initialize(a, b, c) @a = a @b = b @c = c end This would be perfect: def initialize(@a, @b, @c) end I'm a little bit sad Matz is against this syntax, as it seems so natural to me. Me too!! I've been writing Ruby for over 15 years, and this syntax seems like the most obvious, simple, natural, clear, unsurprising, and Ruby-like. I believe it would be readily understood by any Rubyist without any explanation required. Even if you saw it for the first time, I can't think of any way you could miss or misinterpret its meaning: since @a is in the same position as a local variable a would normally be, it seems abundantly clear that instead of assigning to a local variable, we're just assigning to the variable @a instead and of course you can reference the @a variable in the constructor body, too, exactly the same as you could with a local variable a passed as an argument. A workaround pattern¶ In the meantime, I've taken to defining my constructor and list of public accessors (if any) like this: attr_reader \ :a, :b def new( a, b) @a, @b = a, b end ... which is still horrendously boilerplatey and ugly, and probably most of you will hate — but by lining up the duplicated symbols into a table of columns, I like that I can at least more easily see the ugly duplication and cross-check that I've spelled them all correctly and handled them all consistently. :shrug: Please??¶ Almost every time I write a new class in Ruby, I wish for this feature and wonder if we'll ever get it. Can we please?

The encapsulation is enforced by the language. It is a syntax error to refer to # names from out of scope.

I've seen (and fixed) Ruby code that needed to be refactored for the client objects to use the accessor rather than the underlying mechanism, even though instance variables aren't directly visible. The underlying mechanism isn't always an instance variable - it can be delegations to or manipulations of a class you're hiding behind a facade, or a session store with a particular format, or all kinds. And it can change. 'Self-encapsulation' can help if you need to swap a technology, a library, an object specification, etc.

a principle I use is: If you have an accessor, use the accessor rather than the raw variable or mechanism it's hiding. The raw variable is the implementation, the accessor is the interface. Should I ignore the interface because I'm internal to the instance? I wouldn't if it was an attr_accessor.

I have been wrapping instance variables in accessor methods whenever I can though.

Also, Sandi Metz mentions this in POODR. As I recall, she also advocates wrapping bare instance variables in methods, even when they're only used internally. It helps avoid mad refactoring later.

in languages (like JavaScript and Java) where external objects do have direct access to instance vars

Note: there’s no way to define private methods, getters and setters. but a proposal is there https://github.com/tc39/proposal-private-methods

Having a member in a class and initializing it like below:class Foo { x: number; constructor(x:number) { this.x = x; }}is such a common pattern that TypeScript provides a shorthand where you can prefix the member with an access modifier and it is automatically declared on the class and copied from the constructor. So the previous example can be re-written as (notice public x:number):class Foo { constructor(public x:number) { }}

Private instance accessors (getters and setters)

class Person { #firstname = "Babel"; #lastname = "JS"; get #name() { return this.#firstname + " " + this.#lastname; } sayHi() { alert(`Hi, ${this.#name}!`); } }

The answer is no, we use a pattern where we do this, and have a `static` method for manufacturing the constructor.e.g.static from({prop1, prop2}) => new this(public prop1, public prop2)

TypeScript includes a concise way to create and assign a class instance property from a constructor parameter.

The is-a relationship may also be contrasted with the instance-of relationship between objects (instances) and types (classes): see Type–token distinction.

prototype-based,

api-version A query string parameter, indicating the API version for the IMDS endpoint. Please use API version 2018-02-01 or greater.

arcana

where any 10 of 30 segments can fully recover a user's files

For instance, why are there relatively more tweets referencing zombies in Germany than in France? Is it simply language differences? Or is there a German cultural meme that is conducive to zombies? Or is it population differences such as the presence of US military personnel in Germany who are doing all the zombie tweets? Or perhaps there are simply more zombies in Germany? (Graham, Shelton, and Zook. 2013).