| Interface | Description |
|---|---|
| Snippet |
Identical to
Runnable but the run method can throw stuff. |
| Class | Description |
|---|---|
| ArrayAssertion |
Used for assertion calls against arrays.
|
| Assertion |
Base class for all assertion objects.
|
| Assertions |
Main class for creation of assertions for testing.
|
| BooleanAssertion |
Used for assertion calls against booleans.
|
| ByteArrayAssertion |
Used for assertion calls against byte arrays.
|
| CollectionAssertion |
Used for assertion calls against collections objects.
|
| ComparableAssertion |
Used for assertion calls against comparable objects.
|
| DateAssertion |
Used for assertion calls against
Date objects. |
| FluentArrayAssertion<R> |
Used for fluent assertion calls against array objects.
|
| FluentAssertion<R> |
Parent class of all fluent assertion calls.
|
| FluentBooleanAssertion<R> |
Used for fluent assertion calls against booleans.
|
| FluentByteArrayAssertion<R> |
Used for fluent assertion calls against byte arrays.
|
| FluentCollectionAssertion<R> |
Used for fluent assertion calls against collections objects.
|
| FluentComparableAssertion<R> |
Used for fluent assertion calls against comparable objects.
|
| FluentDateAssertion<R> |
Used for fluent assertion calls against dates.
|
| FluentIntegerAssertion<R> |
Used for fluent assertion calls against integers.
|
| FluentListAssertion<R> |
Used for fluent assertion calls against lists.
|
| FluentLongAssertion<R> |
Used for fluent assertion calls against longs.
|
| FluentObjectAssertion<R> |
Used for fluent assertion calls against POJOs.
|
| FluentStringAssertion<R> |
Used for fluent assertion calls against strings.
|
| FluentThrowableAssertion<R> |
Used for fluent assertion calls against throwables.
|
| FluentZonedDateTimeAssertion<R> |
Used for fluent assertion calls against
ZonedDateTime objects. |
| IntegerAssertion |
Used for assertion calls against integers.
|
| ListAssertion |
Used for assertion calls against lists.
|
| LongAssertion |
Used for assertion calls against longs.
|
| ObjectAssertion |
Used for assertion calls against arbitrary POJOs.
|
| StringAssertion |
Used for assertion calls against string objects.
|
| ThrowableAssertion |
Used for assertion calls against throwable objects.
|
| Verify |
Utility class for performing simple validations on objects.
|
| ZonedDateTimeAssertion |
Used for assertion calls against
ZonedDateTime objects. |
Copyright © 2016–2020 The Apache Software Foundation. All rights reserved.


Syllabus
HOWSAM,
individually and as trustee for the
E. RICHARD HOWSAM, JR., IRREVOCABLE LIFE
INSURANCE TRUST DATED MAY 14, 1982
<font i="1">v.
DEAN WITTER REYNOLDS, INC.
Per respondent Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc.s standard client agreement, petitioner Howsam chose to arbitrate her dispute with the company before the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD). NASDs Code of Arbitration Procedure §10304 states that no dispute shall be eligible for submission … where six (6) years have elapsed from the occurrence or event giving rise to the dispute. Dean Witter filed this suit, asking the Federal District Court to declare the dispute ineligible for arbitration because it was more than six years old and seeking an injunction to prohibit Howsam from proceeding in arbitration. The court dismissed the action, stating that the NASD arbitrator should interpret and apply the NASD rule. In reversing, the Tenth Circuit found that the rules application presented a question of the underlying disputes arbitrability; and the presumption is that a court will ordinarily decide an arbitrability question.
Held: An NASD arbitrator should apply the time limit rule to the underlying dispute. Pp. 37.
(a) [A]rbitration is a matter of contract and a party cannot be required to submit to arbitration any dispute which he has not agreed so to submit. Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Nav. Co ., 363 U. S. 574. The question whether parties have submitted a particular dispute to arbitration, i.e., the question of arbitrability , is an issue for judicial determination [u]nless the parties clearly and unmistakably provide otherwise. AT&T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers, 475 U. S. 643. The phrase question of arbitrability has a limited scope, applicable in the kind of narrow circumstance where contracting parties would likely have expected a court to have decided the gateway matter. But the phrase is not applicable in other kinds of general circumstance where parties would likely expect that an arbitrator would decide the questionprocedural questions which grow out of the dispute and bear on its final disposition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Livingston, 376 U. S. 543, and allegation[s] of waiver, delay, or a like defense to arbitrability, Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U. S. 1. Following this precedent, the application of the NASD rule is not a question of arbitrability but an aspec[t] of the [controversy] which called the grievance procedures into play. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., supra, at 559. NASD arbitrators, comparatively more expert about their own rules meaning, are comparatively better able to interpret and to apply it. In the absence of any statement to the contrary in the arbitration agreement, it is reasonable to infer that the parties intended the agreement to reflect that understanding. And for the law to assume an expectation that aligns (1) decisionmaker with (2) comparative expertise will help better to secure the underlying controversys fair and expeditious resolution. Pp. 36.
(b) Dean Witters argument that, even without an antiarbitration presumption, the contracts call for judicial determination is unpersuasive. The word eligible in the NASD Codes time limit rule does not, as Dean Witter claims, indicate the parties intent for the rule to be resolved by the court prior to arbitration. Parties to an arbitration contract would normally expect a forum-based decisionmaker to decide forum-specific procedural gateway matters, and any temptation here to place special antiarbitration weight on the word eligible in §10304 is counterbalanced by the NASD rule that arbitrators shall be empowered to interpret and determine the applicability of all code provisions, §10324. Pp. 67.
261 F. 3d 956, reversed.
Breyer, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and Stevens, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, and Ginsburg, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. OConnor, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Opinion
KAREN HOWSAM,
etc.
, PETITIONER
v.
DEAN
WITTER REYNOLDS, INC.
Justice Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case focuses upon an arbitration rule of the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD). The rule states that no dispute shall be eligible for submission to arbitration … where six (6) years have elapsed from the occurrence or event giving rise to the . . . dispute. NASD Code of Arbitration Procedure §10304 (1984) (NASD Code or Code). We must decide whether a court or an NASD arbitrator should apply the rule to the underlying controversy. We conclude that the matter is for the arbitrator.
I
The underlying controversy arises out of investment advice that Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. (Dean Witter), provided its client, Karen Howsam, when, some time between 1986 and 1994, it recommended that she buy and hold interests in four limited partnerships. Howsam says that Dean Witter misrepresented the virtues of the partnerships. The resulting controversy falls within their standard Client Service Agreements arbitration clause, which provides:
all controversies … concerning or arising from … any account … , any transaction … , or … the construction, performance or breach of … any … agreement between us … shall be determined by arbitration before any self-regulatory organization or exchange of which Dean Witter is a member. App. 67.
The agreement also provides that Howsam can select the arbitration forum. And Howsam chose arbitration before the NASD.
To obtain NASD arbitration, Howsam signed the NASDs Uniform Submission Agreement. That agreement specified that the present matter in controversy was submitted for arbitration in accordance with the NASDs Code of Arbitration Procedure. Id ., at 24. And that Code contains the provision at issue here, a provision stating that no dispute shall be eligible for submission … where six (6) years have elapsed from the occurrence or event giving rise to the … dispute. NASD Code §10304.
After the Uniform Submission Agreement was executed, Dean Witter filed this lawsuit in Federal District Court. It asked the court to declare that the dispute was ineligible for arbitration because it was more than six years old. App. 45. And it sought an injunction that would prohibit Howsam from proceeding in arbitration. The District Court dismissed the action on the ground that the NASD arbitrator, not the court, should interpret and apply the NASD rule. The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, however, reversed. 261 F. 3d 956 (2001). In its view, application of the NASD rule presented a question of the underlying disputes arbitrability; and the presumption is that a court, not an arbitrator, will ordinarily decide an arbitrability question. See , e.g., First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan , 514 U. S. 938 (1995) .
The Courts of Appeals have reached different conclusions about whether a court or an arbitrator primarily should interpret and apply this particular NASD rule. Compare, e.g. , 261 F. 3d 956 (CA10 2001) (case below) (holding that the question is for the court); J. E. Liss & Co. v. Levin, 201 F. 3d 848, 851 (CA7 2000) (same), with PaineWebber Inc. v. Elahi , 87 F. 3d 589 (CA1 1996) (holding that NASD §15, currently §10304, is presumptively for the arbitrator); Smith Barney Shearson, Inc. v. Boone , 47 F. 3d 750 (CA5 1995) (same). We granted Howsams petition for certiorari to resolve this disagreement. And we now hold that the matter is for the arbitrator.
II
This Court has determined that arbitration is a matter of contract and a party cannot be required to submit to arbitration any dispute which he has not agreed so to submit. Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Nav. Co ., 363 U. S. 574, 582 (1960) ; see also First Options, supra, at 942943. Although the Court has also long recognized and enforced a liberal federal policy favoring arbitration agreements, Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Constr. Corp. , 460 U. S. 1, 2425 (1983) , it has made clear that there is an exception to this policy: The question whether the parties have submitted a particular dispute to arbitration, i.e. , the question of arbitrability , is an issue for judicial determination [u]nless the parties clearly and unmistakably provide otherwise. AT&T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers , 475 U. S. 643, 649 (1986) (emphasis added); First Options , supra , at 944. We must decide here whether application of the NASD time limit provision falls into the scope of this last-mentioned interpretive rule.
Linguistically speaking, one might call any potentially dispositive gateway question a question of arbitrability, for its answer will determine whether the underlying controversy will proceed to arbitration on the merits. The Courts case law, however, makes clear that, for purposes of applying the interpretive rule, the phrase question of arbitrability has a far more limited scope. See 514 U. S., at 942. The Court has found the phrase applicable in the kind of narrow circumstance where contracting parties would likely have expected a court to have decided the gateway matter, where they are not likely to have thought that they had agreed that an arbitrator would do so, and, consequently, where reference of the gateway dispute to the court avoids the risk of forcing parties to arbitrate a matter that they may well not have agreed to arbitrate.
Thus, a gateway dispute about whether the parties are bound by a given arbitration clause raises a question of arbitrability for a court to decide. See id. , at 943946 (holding that a court should decide whether the arbitration contract bound parties who did not sign the agreement); John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Livingston , 376 U. S. 543, 546547 (1964) (holding that a court should decide whether an arbitration agreement survived a corporate merger and bound the resulting corporation). Similarly, a disagreement about whether an arbitration clause in a concededly binding contract applies to a particular type of controversy is for the court. See , e.g., AT&T Technologies , supra , at 651652 (holding that a court should decide whether a labor-management layoff controversy falls within the arbitration clause of a collective-bargaining agreement); Atkinson v. Sinclair Refining Co., 370 U. S. 238, 241243 (1962) (holding that a court should decide whether a clause providing for arbitration of various grievances covers claims for damages for breach of a no-strike agreement).
At the same time the Court has found the phrase question of arbitrability not applicable in other kinds of general circumstance where parties would likely expect that an arbitrator would decide the gateway matter. Thus procedural questions which grow out of the dispute and bear on its final disposition are presumptively not for the judge, but for an arbitrator, to decide. John Wiley , supra , at 557 (holding that an arbitrator should decide whether the first two steps of a grievance procedure were completed, where these steps are prerequisites to arbitration). So, too, the presumption is that the arbitrator should decide allegation[s] of waiver, delay, or a like defense to arbitrability. Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital, supra , at 2425. Indeed, the Revised Uniform Arbitration Act of 2000 (RUAA), seeking to incorporate the holdings of the vast majority of state courts and the law that has developed under the [Federal Arbitration Act], states that an arbitrator shall decide whether a condition precedent to arbitrability has been fulfilled. RUAA §6(c) and comment 2, 7 U. L. A. 1213 (Supp. 2002). And the comments add that in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, issues of substantive arbitrability … are for a court to decide and issues of procedural arbitrability, i.e., whether prerequisites such as time limits , notice, laches, estoppel, and other conditions precedent to an obligation to arbitrate have been met, are for the arbitrators to decide. Id ., §6, comment 2, 7 U. L. A., at 13 (emphasis added).
Following this precedent, we find that the applicability of the NASD time limit rule is a matter presumptively for the arbitrator, not for the judge. The time limit rule closely resembles the gateway questions that this Court has found not to be questions of arbitrability. E.g., Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital , supra , at 2425 (referring to waiver, delay, or a like defense). Such a dispute seems an aspec[t] of the [controversy] which called the grievance procedures into play. John Wiley , supra , at 559.
Moreover, the NASD arbitrators, comparatively more expert about the meaning of their own rule, are comparatively better able to interpret and to apply it. In the absence of any statement to the contrary in the arbitration agreement, it is reasonable to infer that the parties intended the agreement to reflect that understanding. Cf. First Options , supra , at 944945. And for the law to assume an expectation that aligns (1) decisionmaker with (2) comparative expertise will help better to secure a fair and expeditious resolution of the underlying controversya goal of arbitration systems and judicial systems alike.
We consequently conclude that the NASDs time limit rule falls within the class of gateway procedural disputes that do not present what our cases have called questions of arbitrability. And the strong pro-court presumption as to the parties likely intent does not apply.
III
Dean Witter argues that, in any event, i.e., even without an antiarbitration presumption, we should interpret the contracts between the parties here as calling for judicial determination of the time limit matter. Howsams execution of a Uniform Submission Agreement with the NASD in 1997 effectively incorporated the NASD Code into the parties agreement. Dean Witter notes the Codes time limit rule uses the word eligible. That word, in Dean Witters view, indicates the parties intent for the time limit rule to be resolved by the court prior to arbitration.
We do not see how that is so. For the reasons stated in Part II, supra , parties to an arbitration contract would normally expect a forum-based decisionmaker to decide forum-specific procedural gateway matters. And any temptation here to place special antiarbitration weight on the appearance of the word eligible in the NASD Code rule is counterbalanced by a different NASD rule; that rule states that arbitrators shall be empowered to interpret and determine the applicability of all provisions under this Code. NASD Code §10324.
Consequently, without the help of a special arbitration-disfavoring presumption, we cannot conclude that the parties intended to have a court, rather than an arbitrator, interpret and apply the NASD time limit rule. And as we held in Part II, supra , that presumption does not apply.
IV
For these reasons, the judgment of the Tenth Circuit is
Reversed .
Justice OConnor took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Opinion
KAREN HOWSAM,
etc.
, PETITIONER
v.
DEAN
WITTER REYNOLDS, INC.
Justice Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case focuses upon an arbitration rule of the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD). The rule states that no dispute shall be eligible for submission to arbitration … where six (6) years have elapsed from the occurrence or event giving rise to the . . . dispute. NASD Code of Arbitration Procedure §10304 (1984) (NASD Code or Code). We must decide whether a court or an NASD arbitrator should apply the rule to the underlying controversy. We conclude that the matter is for the arbitrator.
I
The underlying controversy arises out of investment advice that Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. (Dean Witter), provided its client, Karen Howsam, when, some time between 1986 and 1994, it recommended that she buy and hold interests in four limited partnerships. Howsam says that Dean Witter misrepresented the virtues of the partnerships. The resulting controversy falls within their standard Client Service Agreements arbitration clause, which provides:
all controversies … concerning or arising from … any account … , any transaction … , or … the construction, performance or breach of … any … agreement between us … shall be determined by arbitration before any self-regulatory organization or exchange of which Dean Witter is a member. App. 67.
The agreement also provides that Howsam can select the arbitration forum. And Howsam chose arbitration before the NASD.
To obtain NASD arbitration, Howsam signed the NASDs Uniform Submission Agreement. That agreement specified that the present matter in controversy was submitted for arbitration in accordance with the NASDs Code of Arbitration Procedure. Id ., at 24. And that Code contains the provision at issue here, a provision stating that no dispute shall be eligible for submission … where six (6) years have elapsed from the occurrence or event giving rise to the … dispute. NASD Code §10304.
After the Uniform Submission Agreement was executed, Dean Witter filed this lawsuit in Federal District Court. It asked the court to declare that the dispute was ineligible for arbitration because it was more than six years old. App. 45. And it sought an injunction that would prohibit Howsam from proceeding in arbitration. The District Court dismissed the action on the ground that the NASD arbitrator, not the court, should interpret and apply the NASD rule. The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, however, reversed. 261 F. 3d 956 (2001). In its view, application of the NASD rule presented a question of the underlying disputes arbitrability; and the presumption is that a court, not an arbitrator, will ordinarily decide an arbitrability question. See , e.g., First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan , 514 U. S. 938 (1995) .
The Courts of Appeals have reached different conclusions about whether a court or an arbitrator primarily should interpret and apply this particular NASD rule. Compare, e.g. , 261 F. 3d 956 (CA10 2001) (case below) (holding that the question is for the court); J. E. Liss & Co. v. Levin, 201 F. 3d 848, 851 (CA7 2000) (same), with PaineWebber Inc. v. Elahi , 87 F. 3d 589 (CA1 1996) (holding that NASD §15, currently §10304, is presumptively for the arbitrator); Smith Barney Shearson, Inc. v. Boone , 47 F. 3d 750 (CA5 1995) (same). We granted Howsams petition for certiorari to resolve this disagreement. And we now hold that the matter is for the arbitrator.
II
This Court has determined that arbitration is a matter of contract and a party cannot be required to submit to arbitration any dispute which he has not agreed so to submit. Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Nav. Co ., 363 U. S. 574, 582 (1960) ; see also First Options, supra, at 942943. Although the Court has also long recognized and enforced a liberal federal policy favoring arbitration agreements, Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Constr. Corp. , 460 U. S. 1, 2425 (1983) , it has made clear that there is an exception to this policy: The question whether the parties have submitted a particular dispute to arbitration, i.e. , the question of arbitrability , is an issue for judicial determination [u]nless the parties clearly and unmistakably provide otherwise. AT&T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers , 475 U. S. 643, 649 (1986) (emphasis added); First Options , supra , at 944. We must decide here whether application of the NASD time limit provision falls into the scope of this last-mentioned interpretive rule.
Linguistically speaking, one might call any potentially dispositive gateway question a question of arbitrability, for its answer will determine whether the underlying controversy will proceed to arbitration on the merits. The Courts case law, however, makes clear that, for purposes of applying the interpretive rule, the phrase question of arbitrability has a far more limited scope. See 514 U. S., at 942. The Court has found the phrase applicable in the kind of narrow circumstance where contracting parties would likely have expected a court to have decided the gateway matter, where they are not likely to have thought that they had agreed that an arbitrator would do so, and, consequently, where reference of the gateway dispute to the court avoids the risk of forcing parties to arbitrate a matter that they may well not have agreed to arbitrate.
Thus, a gateway dispute about whether the parties are bound by a given arbitration clause raises a question of arbitrability for a court to decide. See id. , at 943946 (holding that a court should decide whether the arbitration contract bound parties who did not sign the agreement); John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Livingston , 376 U. S. 543, 546547 (1964) (holding that a court should decide whether an arbitration agreement survived a corporate merger and bound the resulting corporation). Similarly, a disagreement about whether an arbitration clause in a concededly binding contract applies to a particular type of controversy is for the court. See , e.g., AT&T Technologies , supra , at 651652 (holding that a court should decide whether a labor-management layoff controversy falls within the arbitration clause of a collective-bargaining agreement); Atkinson v. Sinclair Refining Co., 370 U. S. 238, 241243 (1962) (holding that a court should decide whether a clause providing for arbitration of various grievances covers claims for damages for breach of a no-strike agreement).
At the same time the Court has found the phrase question of arbitrability not applicable in other kinds of general circumstance where parties would likely expect that an arbitrator would decide the gateway matter. Thus procedural questions which grow out of the dispute and bear on its final disposition are presumptively not for the judge, but for an arbitrator, to decide. John Wiley , supra , at 557 (holding that an arbitrator should decide whether the first two steps of a grievance procedure were completed, where these steps are prerequisites to arbitration). So, too, the presumption is that the arbitrator should decide allegation[s] of waiver, delay, or a like defense to arbitrability. Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital, supra , at 2425. Indeed, the Revised Uniform Arbitration Act of 2000 (RUAA), seeking to incorporate the holdings of the vast majority of state courts and the law that has developed under the [Federal Arbitration Act], states that an arbitrator shall decide whether a condition precedent to arbitrability has been fulfilled. RUAA §6(c) and comment 2, 7 U. L. A. 1213 (Supp. 2002). And the comments add that in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, issues of substantive arbitrability … are for a court to decide and issues of procedural arbitrability, i.e., whether prerequisites such as time limits , notice, laches, estoppel, and other conditions precedent to an obligation to arbitrate have been met, are for the arbitrators to decide. Id ., §6, comment 2, 7 U. L. A., at 13 (emphasis added).
Following this precedent, we find that the applicability of the NASD time limit rule is a matter presumptively for the arbitrator, not for the judge. The time limit rule closely resembles the gateway questions that this Court has found not to be questions of arbitrability. E.g., Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital , supra , at 2425 (referring to waiver, delay, or a like defense). Such a dispute seems an aspec[t] of the [controversy] which called the grievance procedures into play. John Wiley , supra , at 559.
Moreover, the NASD arbitrators, comparatively more expert about the meaning of their own rule, are comparatively better able to interpret and to apply it. In the absence of any statement to the contrary in the arbitration agreement, it is reasonable to infer that the parties intended the agreement to reflect that understanding. Cf. First Options , supra , at 944945. And for the law to assume an expectation that aligns (1) decisionmaker with (2) comparative expertise will help better to secure a fair and expeditious resolution of the underlying controversya goal of arbitration systems and judicial systems alike.
We consequently conclude that the NASDs time limit rule falls within the class of gateway procedural disputes that do not present what our cases have called questions of arbitrability. And the strong pro-court presumption as to the parties likely intent does not apply.
III
Dean Witter argues that, in any event, i.e., even without an antiarbitration presumption, we should interpret the contracts between the parties here as calling for judicial determination of the time limit matter. Howsams execution of a Uniform Submission Agreement with the NASD in 1997 effectively incorporated the NASD Code into the parties agreement. Dean Witter notes the Codes time limit rule uses the word eligible. That word, in Dean Witters view, indicates the parties intent for the time limit rule to be resolved by the court prior to arbitration.
We do not see how that is so. For the reasons stated in Part II, supra , parties to an arbitration contract would normally expect a forum-based decisionmaker to decide forum-specific procedural gateway matters. And any temptation here to place special antiarbitration weight on the appearance of the word eligible in the NASD Code rule is counterbalanced by a different NASD rule; that rule states that arbitrators shall be empowered to interpret and determine the applicability of all provisions under this Code. NASD Code §10324.
Consequently, without the help of a special arbitration-disfavoring presumption, we cannot conclude that the parties intended to have a court, rather than an arbitrator, interpret and apply the NASD time limit rule. And as we held in Part II, supra , that presumption does not apply.
IV
For these reasons, the judgment of the Tenth Circuit is
Reversed .
Justice OConnor took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Opinion
KAREN HOWSAM,
etc.
, PETITIONER
v.
DEAN
WITTER REYNOLDS, INC.
Justice Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case focuses upon an arbitration rule of the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD). The rule states that no dispute shall be eligible for submission to arbitration … where six (6) years have elapsed from the occurrence or event giving rise to the . . . dispute. NASD Code of Arbitration Procedure §10304 (1984) (NASD Code or Code). We must decide whether a court or an NASD arbitrator should apply the rule to the underlying controversy. We conclude that the matter is for the arbitrator.
I
The underlying controversy arises out of investment advice that Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. (Dean Witter), provided its client, Karen Howsam, when, some time between 1986 and 1994, it recommended that she buy and hold interests in four limited partnerships. Howsam says that Dean Witter misrepresented the virtues of the partnerships. The resulting controversy falls within their standard Client Service Agreements arbitration clause, which provides:
all controversies … concerning or arising from … any account … , any transaction … , or … the construction, performance or breach of … any … agreement between us … shall be determined by arbitration before any self-regulatory organization or exchange of which Dean Witter is a member. App. 67.
The agreement also provides that Howsam can select the arbitration forum. And Howsam chose arbitration before the NASD.
To obtain NASD arbitration, Howsam signed the NASDs Uniform Submission Agreement. That agreement specified that the present matter in controversy was submitted for arbitration in accordance with the NASDs Code of Arbitration Procedure. Id ., at 24. And that Code contains the provision at issue here, a provision stating that no dispute shall be eligible for submission … where six (6) years have elapsed from the occurrence or event giving rise to the … dispute. NASD Code §10304.
After the Uniform Submission Agreement was executed, Dean Witter filed this lawsuit in Federal District Court. It asked the court to declare that the dispute was ineligible for arbitration because it was more than six years old. App. 45. And it sought an injunction that would prohibit Howsam from proceeding in arbitration. The District Court dismissed the action on the ground that the NASD arbitrator, not the court, should interpret and apply the NASD rule. The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, however, reversed. 261 F. 3d 956 (2001). In its view, application of the NASD rule presented a question of the underlying disputes arbitrability; and the presumption is that a court, not an arbitrator, will ordinarily decide an arbitrability question. See , e.g., First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan , 514 U. S. 938 (1995) .
The Courts of Appeals have reached different conclusions about whether a court or an arbitrator primarily should interpret and apply this particular NASD rule. Compare, e.g. , 261 F. 3d 956 (CA10 2001) (case below) (holding that the question is for the court); J. E. Liss & Co. v. Levin, 201 F. 3d 848, 851 (CA7 2000) (same), with PaineWebber Inc. v. Elahi , 87 F. 3d 589 (CA1 1996) (holding that NASD §15, currently §10304, is presumptively for the arbitrator); Smith Barney Shearson, Inc. v. Boone , 47 F. 3d 750 (CA5 1995) (same). We granted Howsams petition for certiorari to resolve this disagreement. And we now hold that the matter is for the arbitrator.
II
This Court has determined that arbitration is a matter of contract and a party cannot be required to submit to arbitration any dispute which he has not agreed so to submit. Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Nav. Co ., 363 U. S. 574, 582 (1960) ; see also First Options, supra, at 942943. Although the Court has also long recognized and enforced a liberal federal policy favoring arbitration agreements, Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Constr. Corp. , 460 U. S. 1, 2425 (1983) , it has made clear that there is an exception to this policy: The question whether the parties have submitted a particular dispute to arbitration, i.e. , the question of arbitrability , is an issue for judicial determination [u]nless the parties clearly and unmistakably provide otherwise. AT&T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers , 475 U. S. 643, 649 (1986) (emphasis added); First Options , supra , at 944. We must decide here whether application of the NASD time limit provision falls into the scope of this last-mentioned interpretive rule.
Linguistically speaking, one might call any potentially dispositive gateway question a question of arbitrability, for its answer will determine whether the underlying controversy will proceed to arbitration on the merits. The Courts case law, however, makes clear that, for purposes of applying the interpretive rule, the phrase question of arbitrability has a far more limited scope. See 514 U. S., at 942. The Court has found the phrase applicable in the kind of narrow circumstance where contracting parties would likely have expected a court to have decided the gateway matter, where they are not likely to have thought that they had agreed that an arbitrator would do so, and, consequently, where reference of the gateway dispute to the court avoids the risk of forcing parties to arbitrate a matter that they may well not have agreed to arbitrate.
Thus, a gateway dispute about whether the parties are bound by a given arbitration clause raises a question of arbitrability for a court to decide. See id. , at 943946 (holding that a court should decide whether the arbitration contract bound parties who did not sign the agreement); John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Livingston , 376 U. S. 543, 546547 (1964) (holding that a court should decide whether an arbitration agreement survived a corporate merger and bound the resulting corporation). Similarly, a disagreement about whether an arbitration clause in a concededly binding contract applies to a particular type of controversy is for the court. See , e.g., AT&T Technologies , supra , at 651652 (holding that a court should decide whether a labor-management layoff controversy falls within the arbitration clause of a collective-bargaining agreement); Atkinson v. Sinclair Refining Co., 370 U. S. 238, 241243 (1962) (holding that a court should decide whether a clause providing for arbitration of various grievances covers claims for damages for breach of a no-strike agreement).
At the same time the Court has found the phrase question of arbitrability not applicable in other kinds of general circumstance where parties would likely expect that an arbitrator would decide the gateway matter. Thus procedural questions which grow out of the dispute and bear on its final disposition are presumptively not for the judge, but for an arbitrator, to decide. John Wiley , supra , at 557 (holding that an arbitrator should decide whether the first two steps of a grievance procedure were completed, where these steps are prerequisites to arbitration). So, too, the presumption is that the arbitrator should decide allegation[s] of waiver, delay, or a like defense to arbitrability. Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital, supra , at 2425. Indeed, the Revised Uniform Arbitration Act of 2000 (RUAA), seeking to incorporate the holdings of the vast majority of state courts and the law that has developed under the [Federal Arbitration Act], states that an arbitrator shall decide whether a condition precedent to arbitrability has been fulfilled. RUAA §6(c) and comment 2, 7 U. L. A. 1213 (Supp. 2002). And the comments add that in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, issues of substantive arbitrability … are for a court to decide and issues of procedural arbitrability, i.e., whether prerequisites such as time limits , notice, laches, estoppel, and other conditions precedent to an obligation to arbitrate have been met, are for the arbitrators to decide. Id ., §6, comment 2, 7 U. L. A., at 13 (emphasis added).
Following this precedent, we find that the applicability of the NASD time limit rule is a matter presumptively for the arbitrator, not for the judge. The time limit rule closely resembles the gateway questions that this Court has found not to be questions of arbitrability. E.g., Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital , supra , at 2425 (referring to waiver, delay, or a like defense). Such a dispute seems an aspec[t] of the [controversy] which called the grievance procedures into play. John Wiley , supra , at 559.
Moreover, the NASD arbitrators, comparatively more expert about the meaning of their own rule, are comparatively better able to interpret and to apply it. In the absence of any statement to the contrary in the arbitration agreement, it is reasonable to infer that the parties intended the agreement to reflect that understanding. Cf. First Options , supra , at 944945. And for the law to assume an expectation that aligns (1) decisionmaker with (2) comparative expertise will help better to secure a fair and expeditious resolution of the underlying controversya goal of arbitration systems and judicial systems alike.
We consequently conclude that the NASDs time limit rule falls within the class of gateway procedural disputes that do not present what our cases have called questions of arbitrability. And the strong pro-court presumption as to the parties likely intent does not apply.
III
Dean Witter argues that, in any event, i.e., even without an antiarbitration presumption, we should interpret the contracts between the parties here as calling for judicial determination of the time limit matter. Howsams execution of a Uniform Submission Agreement with the NASD in 1997 effectively incorporated the NASD Code into the parties agreement. Dean Witter notes the Codes time limit rule uses the word eligible. That word, in Dean Witters view, indicates the parties intent for the time limit rule to be resolved by the court prior to arbitration.
We do not see how that is so. For the reasons stated in Part II, supra , parties to an arbitration contract would normally expect a forum-based decisionmaker to decide forum-specific procedural gateway matters. And any temptation here to place special antiarbitration weight on the appearance of the word eligible in the NASD Code rule is counterbalanced by a different NASD rule; that rule states that arbitrators shall be empowered to interpret and determine the applicability of all provisions under this Code. NASD Code §10324.
Consequently, without the help of a special arbitration-disfavoring presumption, we cannot conclude that the parties intended to have a court, rather than an arbitrator, interpret and apply the NASD time limit rule. And as we held in Part II, supra , that presumption does not apply.
IV
For these reasons, the judgment of the Tenth Circuit is
Reversed .
Justice OConnor took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Opinion
KAREN HOWSAM,
etc.
, PETITIONER
v.
DEAN
WITTER REYNOLDS, INC.
Justice Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case focuses upon an arbitration rule of the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD). The rule states that no dispute shall be eligible for submission to arbitration … where six (6) years have elapsed from the occurrence or event giving rise to the . . . dispute. NASD Code of Arbitration Procedure §10304 (1984) (NASD Code or Code). We must decide whether a court or an NASD arbitrator should apply the rule to the underlying controversy. We conclude that the matter is for the arbitrator.
I
The underlying controversy arises out of investment advice that Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. (Dean Witter), provided its client, Karen Howsam, when, some time between 1986 and 1994, it recommended that she buy and hold interests in four limited partnerships. Howsam says that Dean Witter misrepresented the virtues of the partnerships. The resulting controversy falls within their standard Client Service Agreements arbitration clause, which provides:
all controversies … concerning or arising from … any account … , any transaction … , or … the construction, performance or breach of … any … agreement between us … shall be determined by arbitration before any self-regulatory organization or exchange of which Dean Witter is a member. App. 67.
The agreement also provides that Howsam can select the arbitration forum. And Howsam chose arbitration before the NASD.
To obtain NASD arbitration, Howsam signed the NASDs Uniform Submission Agreement. That agreement specified that the present matter in controversy was submitted for arbitration in accordance with the NASDs Code of Arbitration Procedure. Id ., at 24. And that Code contains the provision at issue here, a provision stating that no dispute shall be eligible for submission … where six (6) years have elapsed from the occurrence or event giving rise to the … dispute. NASD Code §10304.
After the Uniform Submission Agreement was executed, Dean Witter filed this lawsuit in Federal District Court. It asked the court to declare that the dispute was ineligible for arbitration because it was more than six years old. App. 45. And it sought an injunction that would prohibit Howsam from proceeding in arbitration. The District Court dismissed the action on the ground that the NASD arbitrator, not the court, should interpret and apply the NASD rule. The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, however, reversed. 261 F. 3d 956 (2001). In its view, application of the NASD rule presented a question of the underlying disputes arbitrability; and the presumption is that a court, not an arbitrator, will ordinarily decide an arbitrability question. See , e.g., First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan , 514 U. S. 938 (1995) .
The Courts of Appeals have reached different conclusions about whether a court or an arbitrator primarily should interpret and apply this particular NASD rule. Compare, e.g. , 261 F. 3d 956 (CA10 2001) (case below) (holding that the question is for the court); J. E. Liss & Co. v. Levin, 201 F. 3d 848, 851 (CA7 2000) (same), with PaineWebber Inc. v. Elahi , 87 F. 3d 589 (CA1 1996) (holding that NASD §15, currently §10304, is presumptively for the arbitrator); Smith Barney Shearson, Inc. v. Boone , 47 F. 3d 750 (CA5 1995) (same). We granted Howsams petition for certiorari to resolve this disagreement. And we now hold that the matter is for the arbitrator.
II
This Court has determined that arbitration is a matter of contract and a party cannot be required to submit to arbitration any dispute which he has not agreed so to submit. Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Nav. Co ., 363 U. S. 574, 582 (1960) ; see also First Options, supra, at 942943. Although the Court has also long recognized and enforced a liberal federal policy favoring arbitration agreements, Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Constr. Corp. , 460 U. S. 1, 2425 (1983) , it has made clear that there is an exception to this policy: The question whether the parties have submitted a particular dispute to arbitration, i.e. , the question of arbitrability , is an issue for judicial determination [u]nless the parties clearly and unmistakably provide otherwise. AT&T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers , 475 U. S. 643, 649 (1986) (emphasis added); First Options , supra , at 944. We must decide here whether application of the NASD time limit provision falls into the scope of this last-mentioned interpretive rule.
Linguistically speaking, one might call any potentially dispositive gateway question a question of arbitrability, for its answer will determine whether the underlying controversy will proceed to arbitration on the merits. The Courts case law, however, makes clear that, for purposes of applying the interpretive rule, the phrase question of arbitrability has a far more limited scope. See 514 U. S., at 942. The Court has found the phrase applicable in the kind of narrow circumstance where contracting parties would likely have expected a court to have decided the gateway matter, where they are not likely to have thought that they had agreed that an arbitrator would do so, and, consequently, where reference of the gateway dispute to the court avoids the risk of forcing parties to arbitrate a matter that they may well not have agreed to arbitrate.
Thus, a gateway dispute about whether the parties are bound by a given arbitration clause raises a question of arbitrability for a court to decide. See id. , at 943946 (holding that a court should decide whether the arbitration contract bound parties who did not sign the agreement); John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Livingston , 376 U. S. 543, 546547 (1964) (holding that a court should decide whether an arbitration agreement survived a corporate merger and bound the resulting corporation). Similarly, a disagreement about whether an arbitration clause in a concededly binding contract applies to a particular type of controversy is for the court. See , e.g., AT&T Technologies , supra , at 651652 (holding that a court should decide whether a labor-management layoff controversy falls within the arbitration clause of a collective-bargaining agreement); Atkinson v. Sinclair Refining Co., 370 U. S. 238, 241243 (1962) (holding that a court should decide whether a clause providing for arbitration of various grievances covers claims for damages for breach of a no-strike agreement).
At the same time the Court has found the phrase question of arbitrability not applicable in other kinds of general circumstance where parties would likely expect that an arbitrator would decide the gateway matter. Thus procedural questions which grow out of the dispute and bear on its final disposition are presumptively not for the judge, but for an arbitrator, to decide. John Wiley , supra , at 557 (holding that an arbitrator should decide whether the first two steps of a grievance procedure were completed, where these steps are prerequisites to arbitration). So, too, the presumption is that the arbitrator should decide allegation[s] of waiver, delay, or a like defense to arbitrability. Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital, supra , at 2425. Indeed, the Revised Uniform Arbitration Act of 2000 (RUAA), seeking to incorporate the holdings of the vast majority of state courts and the law that has developed under the [Federal Arbitration Act], states that an arbitrator shall decide whether a condition precedent to arbitrability has been fulfilled. RUAA §6(c) and comment 2, 7 U. L. A. 1213 (Supp. 2002). And the comments add that in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, issues of substantive arbitrability … are for a court to decide and issues of procedural arbitrability, i.e., whether prerequisites such as time limits , notice, laches, estoppel, and other conditions precedent to an obligation to arbitrate have been met, are for the arbitrators to decide. Id ., §6, comment 2, 7 U. L. A., at 13 (emphasis added).
Following this precedent, we find that the applicability of the NASD time limit rule is a matter presumptively for the arbitrator, not for the judge. The time limit rule closely resembles the gateway questions that this Court has found not to be questions of arbitrability. E.g., Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital , supra , at 2425 (referring to waiver, delay, or a like defense). Such a dispute seems an aspec[t] of the [controversy] which called the grievance procedures into play. John Wiley , supra , at 559.
Moreover, the NASD arbitrators, comparatively more expert about the meaning of their own rule, are comparatively better able to interpret and to apply it. In the absence of any statement to the contrary in the arbitration agreement, it is reasonable to infer that the parties intended the agreement to reflect that understanding. Cf. First Options , supra , at 944945. And for the law to assume an expectation that aligns (1) decisionmaker with (2) comparative expertise will help better to secure a fair and expeditious resolution of the underlying controversya goal of arbitration systems and judicial systems alike.
We consequently conclude that the NASDs time limit rule falls within the class of gateway procedural disputes that do not present what our cases have called questions of arbitrability. And the strong pro-court presumption as to the parties likely intent does not apply.
III
Dean Witter argues that, in any event, i.e., even without an antiarbitration presumption, we should interpret the contracts between the parties here as calling for judicial determination of the time limit matter. Howsams execution of a Uniform Submission Agreement with the NASD in 1997 effectively incorporated the NASD Code into the parties agreement. Dean Witter notes the Codes time limit rule uses the word eligible. That word, in Dean Witters view, indicates the parties intent for the time limit rule to be resolved by the court prior to arbitration.
We do not see how that is so. For the reasons stated in Part II, supra , parties to an arbitration contract would normally expect a forum-based decisionmaker to decide forum-specific procedural gateway matters. And any temptation here to place special antiarbitration weight on the appearance of the word eligible in the NASD Code rule is counterbalanced by a different NASD rule; that rule states that arbitrators shall be empowered to interpret and determine the applicability of all provisions under this Code. NASD Code §10324.
Consequently, without the help of a special arbitration-disfavoring presumption, we cannot conclude that the parties intended to have a court, rather than an arbitrator, interpret and apply the NASD time limit rule. And as we held in Part II, supra , that presumption does not apply.
IV
For these reasons, the judgment of the Tenth Circuit is
Reversed .
Justice OConnor took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Opinion
KAREN HOWSAM,
etc.
, PETITIONER
v.
DEAN
WITTER REYNOLDS, INC.
Justice Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case focuses upon an arbitration rule of the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD). The rule states that no dispute shall be eligible for submission to arbitration … where six (6) years have elapsed from the occurrence or event giving rise to the . . . dispute. NASD Code of Arbitration Procedure §10304 (1984) (NASD Code or Code). We must decide whether a court or an NASD arbitrator should apply the rule to the underlying controversy. We conclude that the matter is for the arbitrator.
I
The underlying controversy arises out of investment advice that Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc. (Dean Witter), provided its client, Karen Howsam, when, some time between 1986 and 1994, it recommended that she buy and hold interests in four limited partnerships. Howsam says that Dean Witter misrepresented the virtues of the partnerships. The resulting controversy falls within their standard Client Service Agreements arbitration clause, which provides:
all controversies … concerning or arising from … any account … , any transaction … , or … the construction, performance or breach of … any … agreement between us … shall be determined by arbitration before any self-regulatory organization or exchange of which Dean Witter is a member. App. 67.
The agreement also provides that Howsam can select the arbitration forum. And Howsam chose arbitration before the NASD.
To obtain NASD arbitration, Howsam signed the NASDs Uniform Submission Agreement. That agreement specified that the present matter in controversy was submitted for arbitration in accordance with the NASDs Code of Arbitration Procedure. Id ., at 24. And that Code contains the provision at issue here, a provision stating that no dispute shall be eligible for submission … where six (6) years have elapsed from the occurrence or event giving rise to the … dispute. NASD Code §10304.
After the Uniform Submission Agreement was executed, Dean Witter filed this lawsuit in Federal District Court. It asked the court to declare that the dispute was ineligible for arbitration because it was more than six years old. App. 45. And it sought an injunction that would prohibit Howsam from proceeding in arbitration. The District Court dismissed the action on the ground that the NASD arbitrator, not the court, should interpret and apply the NASD rule. The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, however, reversed. 261 F. 3d 956 (2001). In its view, application of the NASD rule presented a question of the underlying disputes arbitrability; and the presumption is that a court, not an arbitrator, will ordinarily decide an arbitrability question. See , e.g., First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan , 514 U. S. 938 (1995) .
The Courts of Appeals have reached different conclusions about whether a court or an arbitrator primarily should interpret and apply this particular NASD rule. Compare, e.g. , 261 F. 3d 956 (CA10 2001) (case below) (holding that the question is for the court); J. E. Liss & Co. v. Levin, 201 F. 3d 848, 851 (CA7 2000) (same), with PaineWebber Inc. v. Elahi , 87 F. 3d 589 (CA1 1996) (holding that NASD §15, currently §10304, is presumptively for the arbitrator); Smith Barney Shearson, Inc. v. Boone , 47 F. 3d 750 (CA5 1995) (same). We granted Howsams petition for certiorari to resolve this disagreement. And we now hold that the matter is for the arbitrator.
II
This Court has determined that arbitration is a matter of contract and a party cannot be required to submit to arbitration any dispute which he has not agreed so to submit. Steelworkers v. Warrior & Gulf Nav. Co ., 363 U. S. 574, 582 (1960) ; see also First Options, supra, at 942943. Although the Court has also long recognized and enforced a liberal federal policy favoring arbitration agreements, Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Constr. Corp. , 460 U. S. 1, 2425 (1983) , it has made clear that there is an exception to this policy: The question whether the parties have submitted a particular dispute to arbitration, i.e. , the question of arbitrability , is an issue for judicial determination [u]nless the parties clearly and unmistakably provide otherwise. AT&T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers , 475 U. S. 643, 649 (1986) (emphasis added); First Options , supra , at 944. We must decide here whether application of the NASD time limit provision falls into the scope of this last-mentioned interpretive rule.
Linguistically speaking, one might call any potentially dispositive gateway question a question of arbitrability, for its answer will determine whether the underlying controversy will proceed to arbitration on the merits. The Courts case law, however, makes clear that, for purposes of applying the interpretive rule, the phrase question of arbitrability has a far more limited scope. See 514 U. S., at 942. The Court has found the phrase applicable in the kind of narrow circumstance where contracting parties would likely have expected a court to have decided the gateway matter, where they are not likely to have thought that they had agreed that an arbitrator would do so, and, consequently, where reference of the gateway dispute to the court avoids the risk of forcing parties to arbitrate a matter that they may well not have agreed to arbitrate.
Thus, a gateway dispute about whether the parties are bound by a given arbitration clause raises a question of arbitrability for a court to decide. See id. , at 943946 (holding that a court should decide whether the arbitration contract bound parties who did not sign the agreement); John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. Livingston , 376 U. S. 543, 546547 (1964) (holding that a court should decide whether an arbitration agreement survived a corporate merger and bound the resulting corporation). Similarly, a disagreement about whether an arbitration clause in a concededly binding contract applies to a particular type of controversy is for the court. See , e.g., AT&T Technologies , supra , at 651652 (holding that a court should decide whether a labor-management layoff controversy falls within the arbitration clause of a collective-bargaining agreement); Atkinson v. Sinclair Refining Co., 370 U. S. 238, 241243 (1962) (holding that a court should decide whether a clause providing for arbitration of various grievances covers claims for damages for breach of a no-strike agreement).
At the same time the Court has found the phrase question of arbitrability not applicable in other kinds of general circumstance where parties would likely expect that an arbitrator would decide the gateway matter. Thus procedural questions which grow out of the dispute and bear on its final disposition are presumptively not for the judge, but for an arbitrator, to decide. John Wiley , supra , at 557 (holding that an arbitrator should decide whether the first two steps of a grievance procedure were completed, where these steps are prerequisites to arbitration). So, too, the presumption is that the arbitrator should decide allegation[s] of waiver, delay, or a like defense to arbitrability. Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital, supra , at 2425. Indeed, the Revised Uniform Arbitration Act of 2000 (RUAA), seeking to incorporate the holdings of the vast majority of state courts and the law that has developed under the [Federal Arbitration Act], states that an arbitrator shall decide whether a condition precedent to arbitrability has been fulfilled. RUAA §6(c) and comment 2, 7 U. L. A. 1213 (Supp. 2002). And the comments add that in the absence of an agreement to the contrary, issues of substantive arbitrability … are for a court to decide and issues of procedural arbitrability, i.e., whether prerequisites such as time limits , notice, laches, estoppel, and other conditions precedent to an obligation to arbitrate have been met, are for the arbitrators to decide. Id ., §6, comment 2, 7 U. L. A., at 13 (emphasis added).
Following this precedent, we find that the applicability of the NASD time limit rule is a matter presumptively for the arbitrator, not for the judge. The time limit rule closely resembles the gateway questions that this Court has found not to be questions of arbitrability. E.g., Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital , supra , at 2425 (referring to waiver, delay, or a like defense). Such a dispute seems an aspec[t] of the [controversy] which called the grievance procedures into play. John Wiley , supra , at 559.
Moreover, the NASD arbitrators, comparatively more expert about the meaning of their own rule, are comparatively better able to interpret and to apply it. In the absence of any statement to the contrary in the arbitration agreement, it is reasonable to infer that the parties intended the agreement to reflect that understanding. Cf. First Options , supra , at 944945. And for the law to assume an expectation that aligns (1) decisionmaker with (2) comparative expertise will help better to secure a fair and expeditious resolution of the underlying controversya goal of arbitration systems and judicial systems alike.
We consequently conclude that the NASDs time limit rule falls within the class of gateway procedural disputes that do not present what our cases have called questions of arbitrability. And the strong pro-court presumption as to the parties likely intent does not apply.
III
Dean Witter argues that, in any event, i.e., even without an antiarbitration presumption, we should interpret the contracts between the parties here as calling for judicial determination of the time limit matter. Howsams execution of a Uniform Submission Agreement with the NASD in 1997 effectively incorporated the NASD Code into the parties agreement. Dean Witter notes the Codes time limit rule uses the word eligible. That word, in Dean Witters view, indicates the parties intent for the time limit rule to be resolved by the court prior to arbitration.
We do not see how that is so. For the reasons stated in Part II, supra , parties to an arbitration contract would normally expect a forum-based decisionmaker to decide forum-specific procedural gateway matters. And any temptation here to place special antiarbitration weight on the appearance of the word eligible in the NASD Code rule is counterbalanced by a different NASD rule; that rule states that arbitrators shall be empowered to interpret and determine the applicability of all provisions under this Code. NASD Code §10324.
Consequently, without the help of a special arbitration-disfavoring presumption, we cannot conclude that the parties intended to have a court, rather than an arbitrator, interpret and apply the NASD time limit rule. And as we held in Part II, supra , that presumption does not apply.
IV
For these reasons, the judgment of the Tenth Circuit is
Reversed .
Justice OConnor took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.


Functions |
| void | pv_debug (Search *search, const Move *bestmove, FILE *f) |
| | Debug PV.
|
| bool | is_pv_ok (Search *search, int bestmove, int search_depth) |
| | Check if PV is ok.
|
| static int | guess_move (Search *search, Board *board) |
| | Guess a move.
|
| void | record_best_move (Search *search, const Board *init_board, const Move *bestmove, const int alpha, const int beta, const int depth) |
| | Record best move.
|
| void | show_current_move (FILE *f, Search *search, const Move *move, const int alpha, const int beta, const bool parallel) |
| int | search_bound (const Search *search, int score) |
| | bound root scores according to stable squares
|
| static int | search_route_PVS (Search *search, int alpha, int beta, const int depth, Node *node) |
| | Reroute the PVS between midgame,endgame or terminal PVS.
|
| int | search_get_pv_cost (Search *search) |
| | Compute a cost as a combination of node count, depth, etc. from hash_table.
|
| int | PVS_root (Search *search, const int alpha, const int beta, const int depth) |
| | Principal Variation Search algorithm at the root of the tree.
|
| int | aspiration_search (Search *search, int alpha, int beta, const int depth, int score) |
| | Aspiration window.
|
| static bool | get_last_level (Search *search, int *depth, int *selectivity) |
| | Retrieve the last level of the search.
|
| void | iterative_deepening (Search *search, int alpha, int beta) |
| | Iterative deepening.
|
| void * | search_run (void *v) |
| | Search the bestmove of a given board.
|
Search near the end of the game.
- Date:
- 1998 - 2012
- Author:
- Richard Delorme
- Version:
- 4.3
| void* search_run |
( |
void * |
v | ) |
|
Search the bestmove of a given board.
this is a function runable within its own thread. The board is supposed to have been set (by search_set_board()), and all search options (level, time, etc.) too. this function proceeds to some internal initialisations and then call the iterative deepening function, from where the search is actually done. After the search ends, some finalizations are done before the function returns.
- Parameters:
-
- Returns:
- The search result.


Avoiding login prompts in mobile approvals Posted by Stephan H Wissel on 31 December 2012 | Comments (5) | categories: IBM Notes Lotus Notes Show-N-Tell Thursday
Now that you can have embedded experiences in Notes, you need to send them Posted by Stephan H Wissel on 14 December 2012 | Comments (1) | categories: IBM Notes Lotus Notes Show-N-Tell Thursday
Inbox vs. Stream interaction pattern Posted by Stephan H Wissel on 13 December 2012 | Comments (6) | categories: SocialBusiness Software
Age of first interest – Teach what is interesting, useful or captive! Black holes, Dinos, Knights and Smartphones Posted by Stephan H Wissel on 11 December 2012 | Comments (0) | categories: After hours eLearning Omnisophie
Hide my Ass on Linux Posted by Stephan H Wissel on 07 December 2012 | Comments (0) | categories: Software
Graceful degradation Posted by Stephan H Wissel on 05 December 2012 | Comments (0) | categories: Software
Hyperlinks need to live forever - Blog edition Posted by Stephan H Wissel on 05 December 2012 | Comments (4) | categories: Blog Software WebDevelopment
Whiteboard Selling Posted by Stephan H Wissel on 05 December 2012 | Comments (0) | categories: Business
Managing @Today in view selection formulas Posted by Stephan H Wissel on 30 November 2012 | Comments (0) | categories: Show-N-Tell Thursday
The AppStore Conundrum Posted by Stephan H Wissel on 28 October 2012 | Comments (2) | categories: IBM Notes Lotus Notes
IBM Forms 8.0 Workshop - enroll for free! Posted by Stephan H Wissel on 26 October 2012 | Comments (0) | categories: Software
Mastering XPages released - in Chinese Posted by Stephan H Wissel on 24 October 2012 | Comments (2) | categories: XPages
If you think decomposition is from CSI, stop writing code! Posted by Stephan H Wissel on 15 October 2012 | Comments (3) | categories: Software
(Browser) Client side XSLT transformations Posted by Stephan H Wissel on 15 October 2012 | Comments (0) | categories: Show-N-Tell Thursday
How much effort will you spend on old browsers? Posted by Stephan H Wissel on 04 October 2012 | Comments (2) | categories: Software
Starting Domino on Linux using UPSTART Posted by Stephan H Wissel on 25 September 2012 | Comments (0) | categories: Linux Show-N-Tell Thursday
Creating Notes 8.5.3++ plug-ins with Eclipse 4.2 Posted by Stephan H Wissel on 18 September 2012 | Comments (2) | categories: Show-N-Tell Thursday
Calendars worked better when they were manual, did they? Posted by Stephan H Wissel on 09 September 2012 | Comments (0) | categories: After hours Software
The 2,147,483,648 NoteId limit Posted by Stephan H Wissel on 08 September 2012 | Comments (3) | categories: Show-N-Tell Thursday
XSS Vulnerabilities in Domino Posted by Stephan H Wissel on 06 September 2012 | Comments (1) | categories: Show-N-Tell Thursday
Use Chrome web apps to access IBM Connections (and others) Posted by Stephan H Wissel on 06 September 2012 | Comments (0) | categories: IBM IBM - Lotus
Identifying platform dependent code in your Domino application Posted by Stephan H Wissel on 15 August 2012 | Comments (0) | categories: DXLMagic Show-N-Tell Thursday
Fixing Domino's LDAP Posted by Stephan H Wissel on 05 July 2012 | Comments (3) | categories: Show-N-Tell Thursday
Testing your mobile applications on real devices Posted by Stephan H Wissel on 26 June 2012 | Comments (0) | categories: XPages
Business Travel Essentials Posted by Stephan H Wissel on 17 June 2012 | Comments (0) | categories: After hours
How does an ideal Notes Client deployment look like? Posted by Stephan H Wissel on 15 June 2012 | Comments (1) | categories: IBM Notes Lotus Notes Show-N-Tell Thursday
Share your application setup Posted by Stephan H Wissel on 12 June 2012 | Comments (0) | categories: Linux
Change partition layout on LUKS encrypted LVM volumes Posted by Stephan H Wissel on 11 June 2012 | Comments (0) | categories: Linux
Some things don't change - what makes a good web appication Posted by Stephan H Wissel on 31 May 2012 | Comments (1) | categories: Software
Understanding the Needs of the Next Generation Digital Consumer Posted by Stephan H Wissel on 30 May 2012 | Comments (0) | categories: Technology
Grow your Social Business Tree Posted by Stephan H Wissel on 24 May 2012 | Comments (0) | categories: SocialBusiness
OAuth, HTTP and file size limitations Posted by Stephan H Wissel on 24 May 2012 | Comments (0) | categories: Software
Fun with TCPMon and Lotus Traveler Posted by Stephan H Wissel on 13 May 2012 | Comments (0) | categories: Show-N-Tell Thursday
Getting a Job Done Posted by Stephan H Wissel on 10 May 2012 | Comments (0) | categories: After hours
Prezi presentation style lessons Posted by Stephan H Wissel on 09 May 2012 | Comments (0) | categories: Business
HSBC is starting to seriously annoy me #fail Posted by Stephan H Wissel on 30 April 2012 | Comments (0) | categories: Business
Extracting data from Domino into PDF using XSLT and XSL:FO (Part 4) Posted by Stephan H Wissel on 28 April 2012 | Comments (1) | categories: Show-N-Tell Thursday XPages
Extracting data from Domino into PDF using XSLT and XSL:FO (Part 3) Posted by Stephan H Wissel on 28 April 2012 | Comments (2) | categories: Show-N-Tell Thursday XPages
Extracting data from Domino into PDF using XSLT and XSL:FO (Part 2) Posted by Stephan H Wissel on 26 April 2012 | Comments (2) | categories: Show-N-Tell Thursday XPages
LotusScript LSI_INFO potentially harmful on (64Bit) Domino Posted by Stephan H Wissel on 24 April 2012 | Comments (7) | categories: Show-N-Tell Thursday
Teaching an ol' dog a new trick: SET CONFIG param=value update Posted by Stephan H Wissel on 24 April 2012 | Comments (1) | categories: Show-N-Tell Thursday
Extracting data from Domino into PDF using XSLT and XSL:FO (Part 1) Posted by Stephan H Wissel on 23 April 2012 | Comments (3) | categories: Show-N-Tell Thursday XML XPages
Importing EML files into Notes (lots of them) Posted by Stephan H Wissel on 23 April 2012 | Comments (18) | categories: Show-N-Tell Thursday
Setting focus to the first invalid field Posted by Stephan H Wissel on 07 April 2012 | Comments (1) | categories: XPages
Inside the IBM Support Process Posted by Stephan H Wissel on 05 April 2012 | Comments (3) | categories: IBM
Wipe them out - all of them (when a design refresh doesn't work) Posted by Stephan H Wissel on 05 April 2012 | Comments (b) | categories: Show-N-Tell Thursday
Reuse web agents that use PRINT - Bean edition Posted by Stephan H Wissel on 03 April 2012 | Comments (0) | categories: XPages
Webservices in XPages - AXIS vs. CXF Posted by Stephan H Wissel on 29 March 2012 | Comments (e) | categories: XPages
Connecting to Wireless@SGx using Ubuntu Linux Posted by Stephan H Wissel on 23 March 2012 | Comments (2) | categories: Buying Broadband Linux Singapore
Make Java code for XAgents easy to test Posted by Stephan H Wissel on 21 March 2012 | Comments (6) | categories: XPages
Reuse web agents that PRINT to the browser in XPages Posted by Stephan H Wissel on 16 March 2012 | Comments (4) | categories: XPages
9 essential skills Posted by Stephan H Wissel on 14 March 2012 | Comments (0) | categories: After hours
How much abstraction is healthy for a schema/data model? - Part 2 Posted by Stephan H Wissel on 13 March 2012 | Comments (0) | categories: Software
How much abstraction is healthy for a schema/data model? - Part 1 Posted by Stephan H Wissel on 10 March 2012 | Comments (0) | categories: Software
Who designed that process (a visit to the SingTel shop)? Posted by Stephan H Wissel on 10 March 2012 | Comments (0) | categories: Buying Broadband
Preparing for a boring flight - XPages.tv offline (Extract media from a feed) Posted by Stephan H Wissel on 02 March 2012 | Comments (3) | categories: XML XPages
Newspeak - if there is no word for something, does it still exist? Posted by Stephan H Wissel on 13 February 2012 | Comments (0) | categories: Technology
Hierarchies, relations and tags - thoughts on thought processes Posted by Stephan H Wissel on 11 February 2012 | Comments (1) | categories: After hours
AD106, AD111 and AD114 slides posted Posted by Stephan H Wissel on 25 January 2012 | Comments (0) | categories: Lotusphere
Lotussphere Session evaluations Posted by Stephan H Wissel on 24 January 2012 | Comments (0) | categories: Lotusphere
AD111 - What's your investment in Notes Applications? Posted by Stephan H Wissel on 24 January 2012 | Comments (4) | categories: Lotusphere
Give your web applications a speedboost and HTML5 compatibility boost in Internet Explorer Posted by Stephan H Wissel on 18 January 2012 | Comments (2) | categories: XPages
Lotusphere announcements (The OGS) Posted by Stephan H Wissel on 16 January 2012 | Comments (4) | categories: Lotusphere
Famous German chocolate manufacturer to cater to Singapore taste buds Posted by Stephan H Wissel on 08 January 2012 | Comments (2) | categories: After hours
Nachlese München, Hamburg und Düsseldorf Februar 2012 Posted by Stephan H Wissel on 05 January 2012 | Comments (0) | categories: Lotusphere
Customer Service failures 2011 Posted by Stephan H Wissel on 05 January 2012 | Comments (0) | categories: Business


{% extends "gallery_template.html" %} {% import "macros/trade.html" as trade %} {% block top_menu %} {{ trade.searchbar("search", label="Search", value="fred", type="header" ) }} {% endblock %} {% block main %}
A Google like search bar. This control has two 'types', it can either be a regular searchbar displayed below, or a 'header' searchbar which is suited to use in the GDS style header, and is more compact.
<form class="searchbar" action="/search" method="get" role="search">

Search for company name or contact
<input class="searchbar__input form-control" id="search-term" type="search" name="term" value="" placeholder="Search for company name or contact">
<input class="searchbar__submit" type="submit" value="Search">

</form>
{% raw %}{{ trade.searchbar("search", label="Search", value="fred") }}{% endraw %}
| Parameter | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| name | Y | The url to use for the cancel button |
| label | Y | A label to use to indicate what the search field is for, note that this is hidden from view and rendered solely for the purpose of accessibility |
| value | N | An existing value to populate the search field is there is one, e.g. the user has landed on a results page, show the current term |
| type | N | By default the search bar is styled for use in the main part of the page, optionally the developer can pass a value of 'header' to mutate the style to suit usage in a compact space such as the header. |
| action | N | The action attribute for the search form, this is a url. If no value is specified then '/search' is used. |
| submitLabel | N | A text label for the search button, this defaults to 'Search' |


{% extends "base.html" %} {% set active_page = "home" %} {% block content %}
A collection of tools for automated biocatalytic cascade design
Version: v{{ rbc_version }}
Any feedback is very welcome. Please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Learn more »
Privacy and cookie policy
Terms and conditions


What is neuroplasticity and its benefits?
Find out more about Neuroplasticity
1. Neuroplasticity
According to brainworks.com. Neuroplasticity is the 'muscle building' part of the brain; the things we do often we become stronger at, and what we don’t use fades away. That is the physical basis of why making a thought or action over and over again increases its power. Over time, it becomes automatic; a part of us. We literally become what we think and do.
Neuroplasticity is at work throughout life. Connections within the brain are constantly becoming stronger or weaker, depending on what is being used. Younger people change easily; their brains are very plastic. As we age change doesn't come as easily; the brain loses some of its plasticity and we become more fixed in how we think, learn, and perceive.
2. Neuroplasticity and Learning
The relation between neuroplasticity and learning is an easy one to surmise—when we learn, we form new pathways in the brain. Each new lesson has the potential to connect new neurons and change our brain’s default mode of operation.
Such like learning new language, technologies, a new music instrument certainly improve your neuroplasticity. I found out reading book and learning new perspectives are also super useful for your brain activity as well.
3. A Growth Mindset and Neuroplasticity
A person with a growth mindset believes that he or she can get smarter, better, or more skilled at something through sustained effort—which is exactly what neuroplasticity tells us. You might say that a growth mindset is simply accepting the idea of neuroplasticity on a broad level!
4. Neuroplasticity in Adults
This ability is not absent in adults, but it is generally observed less than in children and at lower strengths; however, the adult brain is still capable of extraordinary change.
It can restore old, lost connections and functions that have not been used in some time, enhance memory, and even enhance overall cognitive skills.
The potential is generally not as great in older adults as it is in children and young adults, but with sustained effort and a healthy lifestyle, adults are just as able to promote positive change and growth in their brains as the younger generations.
5. Neuroplasticity Exercises
All of these activities and exercises have been found to improve neuroplasticity and may be helpful for dealing with depression:
- Memory tasks and game
- Learning to juggle
- Learning to play new music instrument
- Leaning new language
- Yoga
- Challegning brain acttivities such like sudoku, crosswords, cubic
- Mild to moderate regular exercise, healthful habit
- Learning new subject or reading a new book
6. Music changes the brain
This is the most thing I love about because I listen to music everyday. It does not matter what sort of music that you listened to, music will help you focusing and mediatate you when you need.
Basically, findings on how music affects the brain indicate that musical training—and perhaps even habitual engagement with listening to and appreciating music—can help the brain enhance its natural neuroplasticity and improve countless abilities and cognitive skills.
Growth Mindset
Find out more about Growth vs Fixed Mindset
1. What is Growth Mindset & Fixed Mindset
A Growth mindset is “the understanding that abilities and understanding can be developed” (Mindset Works, n.d.). Those with a growth mindset believe that they can get smarter, more intelligent, and more talented through putting in time and effort.
While a Fixed mindset is one that assumes abilities and understanding are relatively fixed. Those with a fixed mindset may not believe that intelligence can be enhanced, or that you either “have it or you don’t” when it comes to abilities and talents.
2. How to train your Growth mindset
There are eight general approaches for developing the foundation for such a mindset:
- Create a new compelling belief: a belief in yourself, in your own skills and abilities, and in your capacity for positive change.
- View failure in a different light: see failure as an opportunity to learn from your experiences and apply what you have learned next time around.
- Cultivate your self-awareness: work on becoming more aware of your talents, strengths, and weaknesses; gather feedback from those who know you best and put it together for a comprehensive view of yourself.
- Be curious and commit to lifelong learning: try to adopt the attitude of a child, looking at the world around you with awe and wonderment; ask questions and truly listen to the answers.
- Get friendly with challenges: know that if you mean to accomplish anything worthwhile, you will face many challenges on your journey; prepare yourself for facing these challenges, and for failing sometimes.
- Do what you love and love what you do: it’s much easier to succeed when you are passionate about what you’re doing; whether you cultivate love for what you already do or focus on doing what you already love, developing passion is important.
- Be tenacious: it takes a lot of hard work to succeed, but it takes even more than working hard—you must be tenacious, weathering obstacles and getting back up after each time you fall.
- Inspire and be inspired by others: it can be tempting to envy others when they succeed, especially if they go farther than you, but it will not help you to succeed; commit to being an inspiration to others and use the success of others to get inspiration as well (Zimmerman, 2016).


Platform Supported¶
Language Stats¶
Repo Stats¶
Code Stats¶
Deployments¶
Activity¶
Development and Maintenance¶
Reach Out¶
Jarvis¶
IronMan’s Jarvis with python
Setup:¶
Run the following commands in command line/terminal:
cd lib && chmod +x installs.sh
- Makes installation file as executable.python3 -m venv venv
- Creates a virtual env namedvenv
source venv/bin/activate
- Activates the virtual envvenv
which python
- Validate which python is being used. Should be the one within the virtual envvenv
bash installs.sh
- Installs the required libraries/modules.python3 jarvis.py
- BOOM, you’re all set, go ahead and interact with Jarvis
ENV Variables:¶
Environment variables are loaded from a .env
file using the python_dotenv
module.
More on Environment variables
Default args:¶
Used to retrieve the current location.
icloud_user - iCloud account username.
icloud_pass - iCloud account password.
Additional args:¶
git_user - GitHub Username
git_pass - GitHub Token
weather_api - API Key from openweathermap
news_api - API Key from newsapi
maps_api - API Key for maps from google
gmail_user - Gmail account username to send and read emails.
gmail_pass - Gmail account password to send and read emails.
robinhood_user - Robinhood account username.
robinhood_pass - Robinhood account password.
robinhood_qr - Robinhood login QR code
birthday - Birth date in the format DD-MM - Example:
24-April
icloud_recovery - Recovery phone number to activate lost mode on a target device - Example:
+11234567890
phone_number - To send SMS from Jarvis - Example:
+11234567890
think_id - API Key from wolfram alpha.
root_password - System password for your
mac
to get the system vitals.
Args for PersonalCloud integration:¶
personal_cloud_host - Directory path which has to shared through the internet.
Args to control TV - Applies only for LGWebOS¶
tv_client_key - Client key to control the TV using
pywebostv
module.tv_mac - Mac address of the TV which will be retrieved by the
arp
command but just in case.
Args for ip_scanner - Applies only for Netgear routers:¶
router_pass - Router’s admin password to get the available devices using
pynetgear
module.Note that this may be done even without the module by simply scanning the whole network. Using the module makes it easier since the devices are already connected to the router.
Args for offline-communicator:¶
Built for a personalized usage.
offline_receive_user - Alternate gmail account username to send response from Jarvis as SMS. (
gmail_user
can be re-used)offline_receive_pass - Alternate gmail account password to send response from Jarvis as SMS. (
gmail_pass
can be re-used)offline_phrase - Secure phrase to be used for authentication purpose.
ngrok_auth_key - Auth token from ngrok - Only used for
offline_communicator
Coding Standards:¶
Docstring format: Google
Styling conventions: PEP 8
Clean code with pre-commit hooks: flake8
and
isort
Pre-Commit¶
pre-commit
will run flake8
and isort
to ensure proper coding standards along with docs_generator
to update the runbook
pre-commit run --all-files
Feature(s) Implementation:¶
Please refer wiki for API usage, access controls, env variables, features’ overview and demo videos.
Runbook:¶
https://thevickypedia.github.io/Jarvis/
License & copyright¶
© Vignesh Sivanandha Rao
Licensed under the MIT License


Authorities
Translations, Attestations,
Will Creations, and more).
Dear Incorporators UAE, Thank you for your service to our practice in relation supply of shelf Companies over the last few years. Your service and professionalism is much appreciated.
Incorporators UAE has been our preferred supplier of incorporation, trust and entity establishment services since its inception seven years ago. Incorporators UAE team offered superior levels of service that allow speedy delivery of off the shelf incorporation Incorporators UAE tailored personal service for those more challenging issues. While Incorporators UAE’s pricing at certainly competitive, in our profession service is everything and with Incorporators UAE’s team supporting us we know that we will be able to deliver superior service to our clients.
I have just received our Company and Family Trust Registers. I am so impressed with your service, the quality of the registers and your great specials. I wish I had found you sooner. I have spread the word within my accounting circles about your services. We will definitely use you and recommend your company whenever we can. Thank you so much.
India Office
31, 510 Suprabhath
Commercial Apartments Bejai,
Kapikad Road, Bejai, Mangaluru,
India


OGImage Class Reference
| Inherits from | NSObject |
| Declared in | OGImage.h |
Tasks
-
– initWithURL:
Will asynchronously load the image at
url
, updating theimage
property when loading is complete or updating theerror
property if there’s a problem. -
– initWithURL:placeholderImage:
Synchronously sets the
image
property withplaceholderImage
and then asynchronously loads the image aturl
, updating theimage
property when loading is complete or updating theerror
property if there’s a problem. -
– imageDidLoadFromURL:
Subclasses can override this method to perform caching, processing, etc., but must make sure that KVO notifications are fired once the
image
property is ready for display. -
– loadImageFromURL
Subclasses can override this method to check caches, etc., before initiating loading the image from
url
. -
image
Observe this property to be notified when the image has finished loading.
property -
error
Observe this property to be notified if there was an error loading the image.
property -
url
The image’s url (provided to init methods)
property -
loadTime
The amount of time it took to load the image from the network.
property
Properties
error
Observe this property to be notified if there was an error loading the image.
@property (nonatomic, strong) NSError *error
Discussion
Observe this property to be notified if there was an error loading the image.
Declared In
OGImage.h
image
Observe this property to be notified when the image has finished loading.
@property (nonatomic, strong) UIImage *image
Discussion
Observe this property to be notified when the image has finished loading.
If initWithURL:placeholderImage
initializer was used, this will return
the placeholder image until the image at url
has finished loading.
If there’s an error loading and the initWithURL:placeholderImage
initializer
was used, this will continue to return the placeholder image even after the
error occurs.
Declared In
OGImage.h
Instance Methods
imageDidLoadFromURL:
Subclasses can override this method to perform caching, processing, etc., but
must make sure that KVO notifications are fired once the
image
property is ready for display.
- (void)imageDidLoadFromURL:(UIImage *)image
Discussion
Subclasses can override this method to perform caching, processing, etc., but
must make sure that KVO notifications are fired once the
image
property is ready for display.
This method will always be called on the main queue.
Declared In
OGImage.h
initWithURL:
Will asynchronously load the image at url
, updating the image
property
when loading is complete or updating the error
property if there’s a problem.
- (id)initWithURL:(NSURL *)url
Discussion
Will asynchronously load the image at url
, updating the image
property
when loading is complete or updating the error
property if there’s a problem.
Declared In
OGImage.h
initWithURL:placeholderImage:
Synchronously sets the image
property with placeholderImage
and then
asynchronously loads the image at url
, updating the image
property
when loading is complete or updating the error
property if there’s a problem.
- (id)initWithURL:(NSURL *)url placeholderImage:(UIImage *)placeholderImage
Discussion
Synchronously sets the image
property with placeholderImage
and then
asynchronously loads the image at url
, updating the image
property
when loading is complete or updating the error
property if there’s a problem.
Declared In
OGImage.h


contact
home
steps
supplies
contact
Fullname
Email
Date
Request for
Select
Print
Original
Large scale
Other
Get in touch


Friends
Six young (20-something) people from New York City (Manhattan), on their own and struggling to survive in the real world, find the companionship, comfort and support they get from each other to be the perfect antidote to the pressures of life.This average group of buddies goes through massive mayhem, family trouble, past and future romances, fights, laughs, tears and surprises as they learn what it really means to be a friend.


Description
The DateInputBox allows a date to be entered. The date entered may be:
- an exact date including the day of the week
- an exact date excluding the day of the week
- an approximate date
- a month and a year
- a year
- a null index date type which can be defined by the ISV
- a null date
- If the date entered is ambiguous, it will be interpreted as having format dd-MM-yyyy.
For example, if 01/02/2007 is entered, this will be interpreted as representing the 1st of February 2007 and typically displayed as 01-Feb-2007.
Additional Information
Additional information relating to this control can be found on the corresponding MSCUI control page.


Overall idea
Blog
Inference
NLP
Training
Examples
Resources
GitHub
January 31, 2021
Work in progress
Performing NLP Tasks using AIKA
Words, Phrases and Entities
Negative Feedback Synapses vs. Parse Trees


Classpath Restriction
×
Target file can be found in repository but not included in current classpath.


--- layout: archive title: Zulip Chat Archive permalink: /stream/113489-new-members/topic/Partial.20functions.html ---
Are there cases where partial functions are actually necessary? [Should probably make a new topic.]
Necessary for lean, or for mathematics?
I can imagine that high school math (or some university math) definitely contains exercises with, for example, functions not defined for all real numbers.
"Find the domain of definition of blah-blah function, and it's range of values, etc."
"Find the solutions and don't forget about domain of definition."
Programming should have use for them too, imo (they could throws exceptions, errors or NaNs)
...
Necessary for lean, or for mathematics?
For math.
There are plenty of places where partial functions in all their guises are useful
But there are many ways to interpret what "partial function" even means
There are definitely lots of circumstances when the domain of a function is only a subset of some initial set that we are interested in; I guess you might call that a partial function, though I think most of the time people prefer just to talk about functions with different domains.
In dependent type theory, you have the ability to specify such precise domains that it is not really necessary to have a partial function in the truest sense
Usually when I talk about a partial function in lean I mean a function with an argument that is a proof
Every partial function is isomorphic to a total function, over the subtype
Usually when I talk about a partial function in lean I mean a function with an argument that is a proof
Like F: forall x, P x -> A
?
Right
Actually there are two ways to losslessly totalize the function. One is to "push the argument left" to form the subtype {x // P x} -> A
, and the other is to push the argument right, into the output, as X -> \Sigma p, p -> A
also known as X -> roption A
or X ->. A
which is the mathlib type of partial functions
When working in a programming context, it is often reasonable to upgrade this to X -> option A
. Here the function will "tell you" if you have gone out of domain, and will return a result if not
whereas X -> roption A
will not "tell you" if you have got the domain right; you have to pass in a proof that you are allowed to call the function before you get a result
X -> option A
is what people have at school. :D
It looks like roption
is only used in the computability stuff in mathlib, whereas option
appears much more frequently.
That's mostly because we don't use partial functions that much
Most of the time you can avoid it one way or another
Notice that with either approach, you get a plain nondependent function. This is important for stuff like rewriting to work smoothly
with the proof exposed version, you have a dependent function, and then rw
will often fail and simp
will produce huge goals
How are square root or logarithms (staying with real numbers) done in lean?
Coq has that positive := { x | x >= 0 }
approach and than square root works on them, if I remember correctly.
No idea about logarithms, should check if they're even in the Standard Library. It seems they're not.
Here's sqrt and here's the in-progress fork with ln.
Most mathematical functions in mathlib are totalized, meaning that rather than preserving the proof part we just do something random when it's not true
e.g. a sqrt function might be defined to be the usual thing for nonnegative x and 0 for negative x
unfortunately sqrt(-1) is not 37
And 1/0 isn't too.
Ok, then partial functions are used only if really necessary. We should do that at school math too :D.
I am a mathematician and was very uncomfortable initially with the fact that sqrt(-1) was not NaN
. But now I interpret it exactly as Mario says -- I have a mental note not to use the square root function on negative numbers in the statements of my theorems because I use it like a partial function even though it's total. Of course in the proofs I can do what I like. The fact that the square root function "should" only be used on non-negative integers is somehow something which a human uses for guidelines, but Lean doesn't need to be told this.
Last updated: Apr 24 2020 at 19:02 UTC