Can one change templates arguments?












1















I have written the following Matrix class:



template <typename T, size_t r, size_t c> //r=rows,c=cols of the Matrix
class Matrix {
public:
size_t row = 0;
size_t col = 0;
T *data;

template <size_t L>
Matrix<T, r, L> operator*(const Matrix<T, c, L> &other) const;

template <size_t r, size_t c>
Matrix &operator=(const Matrix<T, r, c> &other)

// ...
};


I overrode some operators to do some basic arithmetic and everything seems to work properly - however there is an issue which I don't know how to address properly: Given the following lines of code:



  Matrix<double, 1, 4> m1(1.2);
Matrix<double, 4, 1> m2(1.2);
Matrix<double, 2, 2> m3; // problematic line
m3 = m1 * m2;


m3 is of type Matrix<double, 2, 2>, is correctly computed, has one row and one col and carries the 5.76, but stays as Matrix<double, 2, 2>. The change of its number of rows and cols is not reflected in its template parameters. Naturally however I would expect the type to be also informative regarding its content.



I don't suppose one cannot turn a Matrix<double, 2, 2> suddenly into a Matrix<double, 1, 1> Matrix, but maybe there is a good solution I just cannot think of now.



And replace:



 template <size_t r, size_t c> void replace(const Matrix<T, r, c> &other) {
delete data;
row = other.row; //number of rows of a matrix
col = other.col; //number of cols of a matrix
data = new T[col * row]; // data contains all the elements of my matrix
for (size_t i = 0; i < row * col; i++)
data[i] = other.data[i];
}









share|improve this question




















  • 1





    This is pretty confusing. What exactly did you expect m3 to do? Also is Matrix self written or from Eigen?

    – Fantastic Mr Fox
    Nov 14 '18 at 12:51








  • 2





    what does the operator * look like?

    – UKMonkey
    Nov 14 '18 at 12:52






  • 2





    There is no way in normal matrix operations for a 1x4 matrix multiplied by a 4x1 matrix to give a 2x2 matrix. It will (depending on order of operations) give either a 4x4 or a 1x1. Given a 4x4 matrix, I guess you could specify a transformation to a 2x2.

    – Peter
    Nov 14 '18 at 12:55






  • 2





    Storing size information in the type is a very good idea. You just have to adopt initialization and auto instead of pre-declaring your variables. Alternatively, you can use decltype(m1 * m2).

    – Quentin
    Nov 14 '18 at 12:57






  • 1





    Okay not quite so ludicrous on second read. You could basically create a function to reshape the matrix (you may want two varieties: row-major and column-major). That can be templated and would return an appropriate type to match the assignment.

    – paddy
    Nov 14 '18 at 13:03


















1















I have written the following Matrix class:



template <typename T, size_t r, size_t c> //r=rows,c=cols of the Matrix
class Matrix {
public:
size_t row = 0;
size_t col = 0;
T *data;

template <size_t L>
Matrix<T, r, L> operator*(const Matrix<T, c, L> &other) const;

template <size_t r, size_t c>
Matrix &operator=(const Matrix<T, r, c> &other)

// ...
};


I overrode some operators to do some basic arithmetic and everything seems to work properly - however there is an issue which I don't know how to address properly: Given the following lines of code:



  Matrix<double, 1, 4> m1(1.2);
Matrix<double, 4, 1> m2(1.2);
Matrix<double, 2, 2> m3; // problematic line
m3 = m1 * m2;


m3 is of type Matrix<double, 2, 2>, is correctly computed, has one row and one col and carries the 5.76, but stays as Matrix<double, 2, 2>. The change of its number of rows and cols is not reflected in its template parameters. Naturally however I would expect the type to be also informative regarding its content.



I don't suppose one cannot turn a Matrix<double, 2, 2> suddenly into a Matrix<double, 1, 1> Matrix, but maybe there is a good solution I just cannot think of now.



And replace:



 template <size_t r, size_t c> void replace(const Matrix<T, r, c> &other) {
delete data;
row = other.row; //number of rows of a matrix
col = other.col; //number of cols of a matrix
data = new T[col * row]; // data contains all the elements of my matrix
for (size_t i = 0; i < row * col; i++)
data[i] = other.data[i];
}









share|improve this question




















  • 1





    This is pretty confusing. What exactly did you expect m3 to do? Also is Matrix self written or from Eigen?

    – Fantastic Mr Fox
    Nov 14 '18 at 12:51








  • 2





    what does the operator * look like?

    – UKMonkey
    Nov 14 '18 at 12:52






  • 2





    There is no way in normal matrix operations for a 1x4 matrix multiplied by a 4x1 matrix to give a 2x2 matrix. It will (depending on order of operations) give either a 4x4 or a 1x1. Given a 4x4 matrix, I guess you could specify a transformation to a 2x2.

    – Peter
    Nov 14 '18 at 12:55






  • 2





    Storing size information in the type is a very good idea. You just have to adopt initialization and auto instead of pre-declaring your variables. Alternatively, you can use decltype(m1 * m2).

    – Quentin
    Nov 14 '18 at 12:57






  • 1





    Okay not quite so ludicrous on second read. You could basically create a function to reshape the matrix (you may want two varieties: row-major and column-major). That can be templated and would return an appropriate type to match the assignment.

    – paddy
    Nov 14 '18 at 13:03
















1












1








1








I have written the following Matrix class:



template <typename T, size_t r, size_t c> //r=rows,c=cols of the Matrix
class Matrix {
public:
size_t row = 0;
size_t col = 0;
T *data;

template <size_t L>
Matrix<T, r, L> operator*(const Matrix<T, c, L> &other) const;

template <size_t r, size_t c>
Matrix &operator=(const Matrix<T, r, c> &other)

// ...
};


I overrode some operators to do some basic arithmetic and everything seems to work properly - however there is an issue which I don't know how to address properly: Given the following lines of code:



  Matrix<double, 1, 4> m1(1.2);
Matrix<double, 4, 1> m2(1.2);
Matrix<double, 2, 2> m3; // problematic line
m3 = m1 * m2;


m3 is of type Matrix<double, 2, 2>, is correctly computed, has one row and one col and carries the 5.76, but stays as Matrix<double, 2, 2>. The change of its number of rows and cols is not reflected in its template parameters. Naturally however I would expect the type to be also informative regarding its content.



I don't suppose one cannot turn a Matrix<double, 2, 2> suddenly into a Matrix<double, 1, 1> Matrix, but maybe there is a good solution I just cannot think of now.



And replace:



 template <size_t r, size_t c> void replace(const Matrix<T, r, c> &other) {
delete data;
row = other.row; //number of rows of a matrix
col = other.col; //number of cols of a matrix
data = new T[col * row]; // data contains all the elements of my matrix
for (size_t i = 0; i < row * col; i++)
data[i] = other.data[i];
}









share|improve this question
















I have written the following Matrix class:



template <typename T, size_t r, size_t c> //r=rows,c=cols of the Matrix
class Matrix {
public:
size_t row = 0;
size_t col = 0;
T *data;

template <size_t L>
Matrix<T, r, L> operator*(const Matrix<T, c, L> &other) const;

template <size_t r, size_t c>
Matrix &operator=(const Matrix<T, r, c> &other)

// ...
};


I overrode some operators to do some basic arithmetic and everything seems to work properly - however there is an issue which I don't know how to address properly: Given the following lines of code:



  Matrix<double, 1, 4> m1(1.2);
Matrix<double, 4, 1> m2(1.2);
Matrix<double, 2, 2> m3; // problematic line
m3 = m1 * m2;


m3 is of type Matrix<double, 2, 2>, is correctly computed, has one row and one col and carries the 5.76, but stays as Matrix<double, 2, 2>. The change of its number of rows and cols is not reflected in its template parameters. Naturally however I would expect the type to be also informative regarding its content.



I don't suppose one cannot turn a Matrix<double, 2, 2> suddenly into a Matrix<double, 1, 1> Matrix, but maybe there is a good solution I just cannot think of now.



And replace:



 template <size_t r, size_t c> void replace(const Matrix<T, r, c> &other) {
delete data;
row = other.row; //number of rows of a matrix
col = other.col; //number of cols of a matrix
data = new T[col * row]; // data contains all the elements of my matrix
for (size_t i = 0; i < row * col; i++)
data[i] = other.data[i];
}






c++ templates






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Nov 14 '18 at 13:07







Imago

















asked Nov 14 '18 at 12:49









ImagoImago

264315




264315








  • 1





    This is pretty confusing. What exactly did you expect m3 to do? Also is Matrix self written or from Eigen?

    – Fantastic Mr Fox
    Nov 14 '18 at 12:51








  • 2





    what does the operator * look like?

    – UKMonkey
    Nov 14 '18 at 12:52






  • 2





    There is no way in normal matrix operations for a 1x4 matrix multiplied by a 4x1 matrix to give a 2x2 matrix. It will (depending on order of operations) give either a 4x4 or a 1x1. Given a 4x4 matrix, I guess you could specify a transformation to a 2x2.

    – Peter
    Nov 14 '18 at 12:55






  • 2





    Storing size information in the type is a very good idea. You just have to adopt initialization and auto instead of pre-declaring your variables. Alternatively, you can use decltype(m1 * m2).

    – Quentin
    Nov 14 '18 at 12:57






  • 1





    Okay not quite so ludicrous on second read. You could basically create a function to reshape the matrix (you may want two varieties: row-major and column-major). That can be templated and would return an appropriate type to match the assignment.

    – paddy
    Nov 14 '18 at 13:03
















  • 1





    This is pretty confusing. What exactly did you expect m3 to do? Also is Matrix self written or from Eigen?

    – Fantastic Mr Fox
    Nov 14 '18 at 12:51








  • 2





    what does the operator * look like?

    – UKMonkey
    Nov 14 '18 at 12:52






  • 2





    There is no way in normal matrix operations for a 1x4 matrix multiplied by a 4x1 matrix to give a 2x2 matrix. It will (depending on order of operations) give either a 4x4 or a 1x1. Given a 4x4 matrix, I guess you could specify a transformation to a 2x2.

    – Peter
    Nov 14 '18 at 12:55






  • 2





    Storing size information in the type is a very good idea. You just have to adopt initialization and auto instead of pre-declaring your variables. Alternatively, you can use decltype(m1 * m2).

    – Quentin
    Nov 14 '18 at 12:57






  • 1





    Okay not quite so ludicrous on second read. You could basically create a function to reshape the matrix (you may want two varieties: row-major and column-major). That can be templated and would return an appropriate type to match the assignment.

    – paddy
    Nov 14 '18 at 13:03










1




1





This is pretty confusing. What exactly did you expect m3 to do? Also is Matrix self written or from Eigen?

– Fantastic Mr Fox
Nov 14 '18 at 12:51







This is pretty confusing. What exactly did you expect m3 to do? Also is Matrix self written or from Eigen?

– Fantastic Mr Fox
Nov 14 '18 at 12:51






2




2





what does the operator * look like?

– UKMonkey
Nov 14 '18 at 12:52





what does the operator * look like?

– UKMonkey
Nov 14 '18 at 12:52




2




2





There is no way in normal matrix operations for a 1x4 matrix multiplied by a 4x1 matrix to give a 2x2 matrix. It will (depending on order of operations) give either a 4x4 or a 1x1. Given a 4x4 matrix, I guess you could specify a transformation to a 2x2.

– Peter
Nov 14 '18 at 12:55





There is no way in normal matrix operations for a 1x4 matrix multiplied by a 4x1 matrix to give a 2x2 matrix. It will (depending on order of operations) give either a 4x4 or a 1x1. Given a 4x4 matrix, I guess you could specify a transformation to a 2x2.

– Peter
Nov 14 '18 at 12:55




2




2





Storing size information in the type is a very good idea. You just have to adopt initialization and auto instead of pre-declaring your variables. Alternatively, you can use decltype(m1 * m2).

– Quentin
Nov 14 '18 at 12:57





Storing size information in the type is a very good idea. You just have to adopt initialization and auto instead of pre-declaring your variables. Alternatively, you can use decltype(m1 * m2).

– Quentin
Nov 14 '18 at 12:57




1




1





Okay not quite so ludicrous on second read. You could basically create a function to reshape the matrix (you may want two varieties: row-major and column-major). That can be templated and would return an appropriate type to match the assignment.

– paddy
Nov 14 '18 at 13:03







Okay not quite so ludicrous on second read. You could basically create a function to reshape the matrix (you may want two varieties: row-major and column-major). That can be templated and would return an appropriate type to match the assignment.

– paddy
Nov 14 '18 at 13:03














1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















3














From your declaration



template <typename T, size_t r, size_t c> //r=rows,c=cols of the Matrix
class Matrix {
public:
template <size_t L>
Matrix<T, r, L> operator*(const Matrix<T, c, L> &other) const;

template <size_t r, size_t c> // BEWARE: shadowing
Matrix &operator=(const Matrix<T, r, c> &other);

// ...
};


we can guess what happens.



Matrix<double, 1, 4> m1(1.2);
Matrix<double, 4, 1> m2(1.2);
m1 * m2; // (1)


(1) calls Matrix<double, 1, 4>::operator*<1>(Matrix<double, 4, 1> const&). It result has then type Matrix<double, 1, 1>.



Matrix<double, 2, 2> m3;
m3 = /* (2) */ m1 * m2;


(2) calls Matrix<double, 2, 2>::operator=<1, 1>(Matrix<double, 1, 1> const&). This is a problem.



A solution would be to ensure operator= can only be called with another matrix of the right size:



template <typename T, size_t r, size_t c> //r=rows,c=cols of the Matrix
class Matrix {
public:
template <size_t L>
Matrix<T, r, L> operator*(Matrix<T, c, L> const& other) const;

Matrix &operator=(Matrix const& other);

// ...
};


You could even allow type conversions:



template<class U>
Matrix &operator=(Matrix<U, r, c> const& other);




Finally, you might want to use auto:



Matrix<double, 1, 4> m1(1.2);
Matrix<double, 4, 1> m2(1.2);
auto m3 = m1 * m2; // m3 is Matrix<double, 1, 1>





share|improve this answer
























  • That is basically spot on. I like your suggestion to change the =operator and check, if the assignment is valid. Maybe I did view the problem from the wrong angle: If I create a Matrix like m3, then I already have to know, what it has to look like and what it's going to do. To me it looks now, I cannot work around the auto OR specific in advance what I expect that is going to happen - how the matrix looks like.

    – Imago
    Nov 14 '18 at 13:23











Your Answer






StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53300651%2fcan-one-change-templates-arguments%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









3














From your declaration



template <typename T, size_t r, size_t c> //r=rows,c=cols of the Matrix
class Matrix {
public:
template <size_t L>
Matrix<T, r, L> operator*(const Matrix<T, c, L> &other) const;

template <size_t r, size_t c> // BEWARE: shadowing
Matrix &operator=(const Matrix<T, r, c> &other);

// ...
};


we can guess what happens.



Matrix<double, 1, 4> m1(1.2);
Matrix<double, 4, 1> m2(1.2);
m1 * m2; // (1)


(1) calls Matrix<double, 1, 4>::operator*<1>(Matrix<double, 4, 1> const&). It result has then type Matrix<double, 1, 1>.



Matrix<double, 2, 2> m3;
m3 = /* (2) */ m1 * m2;


(2) calls Matrix<double, 2, 2>::operator=<1, 1>(Matrix<double, 1, 1> const&). This is a problem.



A solution would be to ensure operator= can only be called with another matrix of the right size:



template <typename T, size_t r, size_t c> //r=rows,c=cols of the Matrix
class Matrix {
public:
template <size_t L>
Matrix<T, r, L> operator*(Matrix<T, c, L> const& other) const;

Matrix &operator=(Matrix const& other);

// ...
};


You could even allow type conversions:



template<class U>
Matrix &operator=(Matrix<U, r, c> const& other);




Finally, you might want to use auto:



Matrix<double, 1, 4> m1(1.2);
Matrix<double, 4, 1> m2(1.2);
auto m3 = m1 * m2; // m3 is Matrix<double, 1, 1>





share|improve this answer
























  • That is basically spot on. I like your suggestion to change the =operator and check, if the assignment is valid. Maybe I did view the problem from the wrong angle: If I create a Matrix like m3, then I already have to know, what it has to look like and what it's going to do. To me it looks now, I cannot work around the auto OR specific in advance what I expect that is going to happen - how the matrix looks like.

    – Imago
    Nov 14 '18 at 13:23
















3














From your declaration



template <typename T, size_t r, size_t c> //r=rows,c=cols of the Matrix
class Matrix {
public:
template <size_t L>
Matrix<T, r, L> operator*(const Matrix<T, c, L> &other) const;

template <size_t r, size_t c> // BEWARE: shadowing
Matrix &operator=(const Matrix<T, r, c> &other);

// ...
};


we can guess what happens.



Matrix<double, 1, 4> m1(1.2);
Matrix<double, 4, 1> m2(1.2);
m1 * m2; // (1)


(1) calls Matrix<double, 1, 4>::operator*<1>(Matrix<double, 4, 1> const&). It result has then type Matrix<double, 1, 1>.



Matrix<double, 2, 2> m3;
m3 = /* (2) */ m1 * m2;


(2) calls Matrix<double, 2, 2>::operator=<1, 1>(Matrix<double, 1, 1> const&). This is a problem.



A solution would be to ensure operator= can only be called with another matrix of the right size:



template <typename T, size_t r, size_t c> //r=rows,c=cols of the Matrix
class Matrix {
public:
template <size_t L>
Matrix<T, r, L> operator*(Matrix<T, c, L> const& other) const;

Matrix &operator=(Matrix const& other);

// ...
};


You could even allow type conversions:



template<class U>
Matrix &operator=(Matrix<U, r, c> const& other);




Finally, you might want to use auto:



Matrix<double, 1, 4> m1(1.2);
Matrix<double, 4, 1> m2(1.2);
auto m3 = m1 * m2; // m3 is Matrix<double, 1, 1>





share|improve this answer
























  • That is basically spot on. I like your suggestion to change the =operator and check, if the assignment is valid. Maybe I did view the problem from the wrong angle: If I create a Matrix like m3, then I already have to know, what it has to look like and what it's going to do. To me it looks now, I cannot work around the auto OR specific in advance what I expect that is going to happen - how the matrix looks like.

    – Imago
    Nov 14 '18 at 13:23














3












3








3







From your declaration



template <typename T, size_t r, size_t c> //r=rows,c=cols of the Matrix
class Matrix {
public:
template <size_t L>
Matrix<T, r, L> operator*(const Matrix<T, c, L> &other) const;

template <size_t r, size_t c> // BEWARE: shadowing
Matrix &operator=(const Matrix<T, r, c> &other);

// ...
};


we can guess what happens.



Matrix<double, 1, 4> m1(1.2);
Matrix<double, 4, 1> m2(1.2);
m1 * m2; // (1)


(1) calls Matrix<double, 1, 4>::operator*<1>(Matrix<double, 4, 1> const&). It result has then type Matrix<double, 1, 1>.



Matrix<double, 2, 2> m3;
m3 = /* (2) */ m1 * m2;


(2) calls Matrix<double, 2, 2>::operator=<1, 1>(Matrix<double, 1, 1> const&). This is a problem.



A solution would be to ensure operator= can only be called with another matrix of the right size:



template <typename T, size_t r, size_t c> //r=rows,c=cols of the Matrix
class Matrix {
public:
template <size_t L>
Matrix<T, r, L> operator*(Matrix<T, c, L> const& other) const;

Matrix &operator=(Matrix const& other);

// ...
};


You could even allow type conversions:



template<class U>
Matrix &operator=(Matrix<U, r, c> const& other);




Finally, you might want to use auto:



Matrix<double, 1, 4> m1(1.2);
Matrix<double, 4, 1> m2(1.2);
auto m3 = m1 * m2; // m3 is Matrix<double, 1, 1>





share|improve this answer













From your declaration



template <typename T, size_t r, size_t c> //r=rows,c=cols of the Matrix
class Matrix {
public:
template <size_t L>
Matrix<T, r, L> operator*(const Matrix<T, c, L> &other) const;

template <size_t r, size_t c> // BEWARE: shadowing
Matrix &operator=(const Matrix<T, r, c> &other);

// ...
};


we can guess what happens.



Matrix<double, 1, 4> m1(1.2);
Matrix<double, 4, 1> m2(1.2);
m1 * m2; // (1)


(1) calls Matrix<double, 1, 4>::operator*<1>(Matrix<double, 4, 1> const&). It result has then type Matrix<double, 1, 1>.



Matrix<double, 2, 2> m3;
m3 = /* (2) */ m1 * m2;


(2) calls Matrix<double, 2, 2>::operator=<1, 1>(Matrix<double, 1, 1> const&). This is a problem.



A solution would be to ensure operator= can only be called with another matrix of the right size:



template <typename T, size_t r, size_t c> //r=rows,c=cols of the Matrix
class Matrix {
public:
template <size_t L>
Matrix<T, r, L> operator*(Matrix<T, c, L> const& other) const;

Matrix &operator=(Matrix const& other);

// ...
};


You could even allow type conversions:



template<class U>
Matrix &operator=(Matrix<U, r, c> const& other);




Finally, you might want to use auto:



Matrix<double, 1, 4> m1(1.2);
Matrix<double, 4, 1> m2(1.2);
auto m3 = m1 * m2; // m3 is Matrix<double, 1, 1>






share|improve this answer












share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer










answered Nov 14 '18 at 13:12









YSCYSC

23.2k352106




23.2k352106













  • That is basically spot on. I like your suggestion to change the =operator and check, if the assignment is valid. Maybe I did view the problem from the wrong angle: If I create a Matrix like m3, then I already have to know, what it has to look like and what it's going to do. To me it looks now, I cannot work around the auto OR specific in advance what I expect that is going to happen - how the matrix looks like.

    – Imago
    Nov 14 '18 at 13:23



















  • That is basically spot on. I like your suggestion to change the =operator and check, if the assignment is valid. Maybe I did view the problem from the wrong angle: If I create a Matrix like m3, then I already have to know, what it has to look like and what it's going to do. To me it looks now, I cannot work around the auto OR specific in advance what I expect that is going to happen - how the matrix looks like.

    – Imago
    Nov 14 '18 at 13:23

















That is basically spot on. I like your suggestion to change the =operator and check, if the assignment is valid. Maybe I did view the problem from the wrong angle: If I create a Matrix like m3, then I already have to know, what it has to look like and what it's going to do. To me it looks now, I cannot work around the auto OR specific in advance what I expect that is going to happen - how the matrix looks like.

– Imago
Nov 14 '18 at 13:23





That is basically spot on. I like your suggestion to change the =operator and check, if the assignment is valid. Maybe I did view the problem from the wrong angle: If I create a Matrix like m3, then I already have to know, what it has to look like and what it's going to do. To me it looks now, I cannot work around the auto OR specific in advance what I expect that is going to happen - how the matrix looks like.

– Imago
Nov 14 '18 at 13:23




















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53300651%2fcan-one-change-templates-arguments%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

Bressuire

Vorschmack

Quarantine