Search Results

Search found 3678 results on 148 pages for 'constructor chaining'.

Page 10/148 | < Previous Page | 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17  | Next Page >

  • Does binding temporary to a reference require a copy constructor in C++?

    - by vitaut
    Consider the following code: class A { A(const A&); public: A() {} }; int main() { const A &a = A(); } This code compiles fine with GCC, but fails to compile with Visual C++ with the following error: test.cc(8) : error C2248: 'A::A' : cannot access private member declared in class 'A' test.cc(2) : see declaration of 'A::A' test.cc(1) : see declaration of 'A' So is it necessary to have a copy constructor accessible when binding a temporary to a reference?

    Read the article

  • How can I define a constructor in an open generic type?

    - by Cort
    I am trying to create on open generic type that has a constructor to be used by derived types, but I either don't know how to do it or it is not possible -- not sure which. public struct DataType<T> : IDataType { private T myValue; private TypeState myState; private DataType<T>(T initialValue, TypeState state) { myValue = initialValue; myState = state; } } Any help much appreciated! Cort

    Read the article

  • How do JVM's implicit memory barriers behave when chaining constructors

    - by Joonas Pulakka
    Referring to my earlier question on incompletely constructed objects, I have a second question. As Jon Skeet pointed out, there's an implicit memory barrier in the end of a constructor that makes sure that final fields are visible to all threads. But what if a constructor calls another constructor; is there such a memory barrier in the end of each of them, or only in one being called from outside? That is, when the "wrong" solution is: public class ThisEscape { public ThisEscape(EventSource source) { source.registerListener( new EventListener() { public void onEvent(Event e) { doSomething(e); } }); } } And the correct one would be a factory method version: public class SafeListener { private final EventListener listener; private SafeListener() { listener = new EventListener() { public void onEvent(Event e) { doSomething(e); } } } public static SafeListener newInstance(EventSource source) { SafeListener safe = new SafeListener(); source.registerListener(safe.listener); return safe; } } Would the following work too, or not? public class MyListener { private final EventListener Listener; private MyListener() { listener = new EventListener() { public void onEvent(Event e) { doSomething(e); } } } public MyListener(EventSource source) { this(); source.register(listener); } }

    Read the article

  • When should a method of a class return the same instance after modifying itself?

    - by modiX
    I have a class that has three methods A(), B() and C(). Those methods modify the own instance. While the methods have to return an instance when the instance is a separate copy (just as Clone()), I got a free choice to return void or the same instance (return this;) when modifying the same instance in the method and not returning any other value. When deciding for returning the same modified instance, I can do neat method chains like obj.A().B().C();. Would this be the only reason for doing so? Is it even okay to modify the own instance and return it, too? Or should it only return a copy and leave the original object as before? Because when returning the same modified instance the user would maybe admit the returned value is a copy, otherwise it would not be returned? If it's okay, what's the best way to clarify such things on the method?

    Read the article

  • Move constructor and assignment operator: why no default for derived classes?

    - by doublep
    Why there is default move constructor or assignment operator not created for derived classes? To demonstrate what I mean; having this setup code: #include <utility> struct A { A () { } A (A&&) { throw 0; } A& operator= (A&&) { throw 0; } }; struct B : A { }; either of the following lines throws: A x (std::move (A ()); A x; x = A (); but neither of the following does: B x (std::move (B ()); B x; x = B (); In case it matters, I tested with GCC 4.4.

    Read the article

  • spring - constructor injection and overriding parent definition of nested bean

    - by mdma
    I've read the Spring 3 reference on inheriting bean definitions, but I'm confused about what is possible and not possible. For example, a bean that takes a collaborator bean, configured with the value 12 <bean name="beanService12" class="SomeSevice"> <constructor-arg index="0"> <bean name="beanBaseNested" class="SomeCollaborator"> <constructor-arg index="0" value="12"/> </bean> </constructor-arg> </bean> I'd then like to be able to create similar beans, with slightly different configured collaborators. Can I do something like <bean name="beanService13" parent="beanService12"> <constructor-arg index="0"> <bean> <constructor-arg index="0" value="13"/> </bean> </constructor> </bean> I'm not sure this is possible and, if it were, it feels a bit clunky. Is there a nicer way to override small parts of a large nested bean definition? It seems the child bean has to know quite a lot about the parent, e.g. constructor index. I'd prefer not to change the structure - the parent beans use collaborators to perform their function, but I can add properties and use property injection if that helps. This is a repeated pattern, would creating a custom schema help? Thanks for any advice!

    Read the article

  • Why must "stride" in the System.Drawing.Bitmap constructor be a multiple of 4?

    - by Gorchestopher H
    I am writing an application that requires me to take a proprietary bitmap format (an MVTec Halcon HImage) and convert it into a System.Drawing.Bitmap in C#. The only proprietary functions given to me to help me do this involve me writing to file, except for the use of a "get pointer" function. This function is great, it gives me a pointer to the pixel data, the width, the height, and the type of the image. My issue is that when I create my System.Drawing.Bitmap using the constructor: new System.Drawing.Bitmap(width, height, stride, format, scan) I need to specify a "stride" that is a multiple of 4. This may be a problem as I am unsure what size bitmap my function will be hit with. Supposing I end up with a bitmap that is 111x111 pixels, I have no way to run this function other than adding a bogus column to my image or subtracting 3 columns. Is there a way I can sneak around this limitation?

    Read the article

  • Can an interface define the signature of a c#-constructor

    - by happyclicker
    I have a .net-app that provides a mechanism to extend the app with plugins. Each plugin must implement a plugin-interface and must provide furthermore a constructor that receives one parameter (a resource context). During the instantiation of the plugin-class I look via reflection, if the needed constructor exists and if yes, I instantiate the class (via Reflection). If the constructor does not exists, I throw an exception that says that the plugin not could be created, because the desired constructor is not available. My question is, if there is a way to declare the signature of a constructor in the plugin-interface so that everyone that implements the plugin-interface must also provide a constructor with the desired signature. This would ease the creation of plugins. I don’t think that such a possibility exists because I think such a feature falls not in the main purpose for what interfaces were designed for but perhaps someone knows a statement that does this, something like: public interface IPlugin { ctor(IResourceContext resourceContext); int AnotherPluginFunction(); } I want to add that I don't want to change the constructor to be parameterless and then set the resource-context through a property, because this will make the creation of plugins much more complicated. The persons that write plugins are not persons with deep programming experience. The plugins are used to calculate statistical data that will be visualized by the app.

    Read the article

  • [C#] How to create a constructor of a class that return a collection of instances of that class?

    - by codemonkie
    My program has the following class definition: public sealed class Subscriber { private subscription; public Subscriber(int id) { using (DataContext dc = new DataContext()) { this.subscription = dc._GetSubscription(id).SingleOrDefault(); } } } ,where _GetSubscription() is a sproc which returns a value of type ISingleResult<_GetSubscriptionResult> Say, I have a list of type List<int> full of 1000 ids and I want to create a collection of subscribers of type List<Subscriber>. How can I do that without calling the constructor in a loop for 1000 times? Since I am trying to avoid switching the DataContext on/off so frequently that may stress the database. TIA.

    Read the article

  • C# Struct No Parameterless Constructor? See what I need to accomplish

    - by Changeling
    I am using a struct to pass to an unmanaged DLL as so - [StructLayout(LayoutKind.Sequential)] public struct valTable { public byte type; public byte map; public byte spare1; public byte spare2; public int par; public int min; public byte[] name; public valTable() { name = new byte[24]; } } The code above will not compile because VS 2005 will complain that "Structs cannot contain explicit parameterless constructors". In order to pass this struct to my DLL, I have to pass an array of struct's like so valTable[] val = new valTable[281]; What I would like to do is when I say new, the constructor is called and it creates an array of bytes like I am trying to demonstrate because the DLL is looking for that byte array of size 24 in each dimension. How can I accomplish this?

    Read the article

  • Daisy-chaining network switches with multiple cables

    - by user72153
    This might just be the dumbest question you'll ever read, but I digress. Say I have two 100Mbps Ethernet switches with 2 computers on each, connected together by a single cable. This way, the two PCs on each switch share the 100Mbps bandwidth with the others. If I added another cable between the 2 switches, would there be 200Mbps throughput available between the switches? Or am I completely off my rocker? Thanks for the help.

    Read the article

  • OpenVPN Chaining

    - by noderunner
    I'm trying to set up an OpenVPN "chain", similar to what is described here. I have two separate networks, A and B. Each network has an OpenVPN server using a standard "road warrior" or "client/server" approach. A client can connect to either one for access to the hosts/services on that respective network. But server A and B are also connected to each other. The servers on each network have a "site-to-site" connection between the two. What I'm trying to accomplish, is the ability to connect to network A as a client, and then make connections with hosts on network B. I'm using tun/routing for all of the VPN connections. The "chain" looks something like this: [Client] --- [Server A] --- [Server A] --- [Server B] --- [Server B] --- [Host B] (tun0) (tun0) (tun1) (tun0) (eth0) (eth0) The whole idea is that server A should route traffic destined to network B through the "site-to-site" VPN set up on tun1 when a client from tun0 tries to connect. I did this simply by setting up two connection profiles on server A. One profile is a standard server config running on tun0, defining a virtual client network, IP address pool, pushing routes, etc. The other is a client connection to Server B running on tun1. With ip_forwarding enabled, I then simply added a "push route" to the clients advertising a route to network B. On server A, this seems to work when I look at tcpdump output. If I connect as a client, and then ping a host on network B, I can see the traffic getting passed from tun0 to tun1 on Server A: tcpdump -nSi tun1 icmp The weird thing is that I don't see Server B receiving that traffic through the tunnel. It's as if Server A is sending it through the site-to-site connection like it should, but server B is completely ignoring it. When I look for the traffic on Server B, it simply isn't there. A ping from Server A -- Host B works fine. But a ping from a client connected to Server A to host B does not. I'm wondering if Server B is ignoring the traffic because the source IP does not match the client IP pool that it hands out to clients? Does anyone know if I need to do something on Server B in order for it to see the traffic? This is a complicated problem to explain, so thanks if you stuck with me this far.

    Read the article

  • Why my object sees variables which were not given to it in the constructor?

    - by Roman
    I have the following code. Which is "correct" and which I do not understand: private static void updateGUI(final int i, final JLabel label) { SwingUtilities.invokeLater( new Runnable() { public void run() { label.setText("You have " + i + " seconds."); } } ); } I create a new instance of the Runnable class and then in the run method of this instance I use variables label and i. It works, but I do not understand why it work. Why the considered object sees values of these variables. According to my understanding the code should look like that (and its wrong): private static void updateGUI(final int i, final JLabel label) { SwingUtilities.invokeLater(new Runnable(i,label) { public Runnable(int i, JLabel label) { this.i = i; this.label = label; } public void run() { label.setText("You have " + i + " seconds."); } }); } So, I would give the i and label variables to the constructor so the object can access them... By the way, in the updateGUI I use final before the i and label. I think I used final because compiler wanted that. But I do not understand why.

    Read the article

  • C++: Static variable inside a constructor, are there any drawbacks or side effects?

    - by doc
    What I want to do: run some prerequisite code whenever instance of the class is going to be used inside a program. This code will check for requiremts etc. and should be run only once. I found that this can be achieved using another object as static variable inside a constructor. Here's an example for a better picture: class Prerequisites { public: Prerequisites() { std::cout << "checking requirements of C, "; std::cout << "registering C in dictionary, etc." << std::endl; } }; class C { public: C() { static Prerequisites prerequisites; std::cout << "normal initialization of C object" << std::endl; } }; What bothers me is that I haven't seen similar use of static variables so far. Are there any drawbacks or side-effects or am I missing something? Or maybe there is a better solution? Any suggestions are welcome.

    Read the article

  • ReSharper: find derived types constructor usages points

    - by Roman
    I have some base class ControlBase and many derived classes which also have derived classes... ControlBase and derived classes have parameterless constructor. How can I easily find all derived classes constructor invocation points? ReSharper find usages on ControlBase constructor shows only usages of this base class constructor but not derived classes constructors. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Parameterized constructor in view model not working

    - by rajcool111
    I have one small issue. in my view model parameterized constructor is not working. while debugging i observed that default constructor get hit but it never triggers my parameterized constructor. How I can get my parameterized constructor working? public EmployeeRequestViewModel(IEventAggregator eventAggregator, IContextManager contextmanager):this() { _contextmanager = contextmanager; _eventAgg = eventAggregator; _eventAgg.GetEvent<EmployeeEvent>().Subscribe(EventTask); } public EmployeeRequestViewModel() { LoadEmpRequest(); }

    Read the article

  • Getting the constructor of an Interface Type through reflection, is there a better approach than loo

    - by Will Marcouiller
    I have written a generic type: IDirectorySource<T> where T : IDirectoryEntry, which I'm using to manage Active Directory entries through my interfaces objects: IGroup, IOrganizationalUnit, IUser. So that I can write the following: IDirectorySource<IGroup> groups = new DirectorySource<IGroup>(); // Where IGroup implements `IDirectoryEntry`, of course.` foreach (IGroup g in groups.ToList()) { listView1.Items.Add(g.Name).SubItems.Add(g.Description); } From the IDirectorySource<T>.ToList() methods, I use reflection to find out the appropriate constructor for the type parameter T. However, since T is given an interface type, it cannot find any constructor at all! Of course, I have an internal class Group : IGroup which implements the IGroup interface. No matter how hard I have tried, I can't figure out how to get the constructor out of my interface through my implementing class. [DirectorySchemaAttribute("group")] public interface IGroup { } internal class Group : IGroup { internal Group(DirectoryEntry entry) { NativeEntry = entry; Domain = NativeEntry.Path; } // Implementing IGroup interface... } Within the ToList() method of my IDirectorySource<T> interface implementation, I look for the constructor of T as follows: internal class DirectorySource<T> : IDirectorySource<T> { // Implementing properties... // Methods implementations... public IList<T> ToList() { Type t = typeof(T) // Let's assume we're always working with the IGroup interface as T here to keep it simple. // So, my `DirectorySchema` property is already set to "group". // My `DirectorySearcher` is already instantiated here, as I do it within the DirectorySource<T> constructor. Searcher.Filter = string.Format("(&(objectClass={0}))", DirectorySchema) ConstructorInfo ctor = null; ParameterInfo[] params = null; // This is where I get stuck for now... Please see the helper method. GetConstructor(out ctor, out params, new Type() { DirectoryEntry }); SearchResultCollection results = null; try { results = Searcher.FindAll(); } catch (DirectoryServicesCOMException ex) { // Handling exception here... } foreach (SearchResult entry in results) entities.Add(ctor.Invoke(new object() { entry.GetDirectoryEntry() })); return entities; } } private void GetConstructor(out ConstructorInfo constructor, out ParameterInfo[] parameters, Type paramsTypes) { Type t = typeof(T); ConstructorInfo[] ctors = t.GetConstructors(BindingFlags.CreateInstance | BindingFlags.NonPublic | BindingFlags.Public | BindingFlags.InvokeMethod); bool found = true; foreach (ContructorInfo c in ctors) { parameters = c.GetParameters(); if (parameters.GetLength(0) == paramsTypes.GetLength(0)) { for (int index = 0; index < parameters.GetLength(0); ++index) { if (!(parameters[index].GetType() is paramsTypes[index].GetType())) found = false; } if (found) { constructor = c; return; } } } // Processing constructor not found message here... } My problem is that T will always be an interface, so it never finds a constructor. Is there a better way than looping through all of my assembly types for implementations of my interface? I don't care about rewriting a piece of my code, I want to do it right on the first place so that I won't need to come back again and again and again. EDIT #1 Following Sam's advice, I will for now go with the IName and Name convention. However, is it me or there's some way to improve my code? Thanks! =)

    Read the article

  • What we call this kind of chaining in C#

    - by Thinking
    Can you please tell me what kind of construct in C# is this. Code Golf: Numeric equivalent of an Excel column name C.WriteLine(C.ReadLine() .Reverse() .Select((c, i) => (c - 64) * System.Math.Pow(26, i)) .Sum()); Though I am new to C# (only two months exp so far), but since the time I have joined a C# team, I have never seen this kind of chaining. It really attracted me and I want to learn more about it. Please give some insight about this.

    Read the article

  • Constructors and method chaining in JavaScript

    - by Sethen Maleno
    I am trying to make method chaining work in conjunction with my constructors, but I am not exactly sure how to go about it. Here is my code thus far: function Points(one, two, three) { this.one = one; this.two = two; this.three = three; } Points.prototype = { add: function() { return this.result = this.one + this.two + this.three; }, multiply: function() { return this.result * 30; } } var some = new Points(1, 1, 1); console.log(some.add().multiply()); I am trying to call the multiply method on the return value of the add method. I know there is something obvious that I am not doing, but I am just not sure what it is. Any thoughts?

    Read the article

  • Passing IDisposable objects through constructor chains

    - by Matt Enright
    I've got a small hierarchy of objects that in general gets constructed from data in a Stream, but for some particular subclasses, can be synthesized from a simpler argument list. In chaining the constructors from the subclasses, I'm running into an issue with ensuring the disposal of the synthesized stream that the base class constructor needs. Its not escaped me that the use of IDisposable objects this way is possibly just dirty pool (plz advise?) for reasons I've not considered, but, this issue aside, it seems fairly straightforward (and good encapsulation). Codes: abstract class Node { protected Node (Stream raw) { // calculate/generate some base class properties } } class FilesystemNode : Node { public FilesystemNode (FileStream fs) : base (fs) { // all good here; disposing of fs not our responsibility } } class CompositeNode : Node { public CompositeNode (IEnumerable some_stuff) : base (GenerateRaw (some_stuff)) { // rogue stream from GenerateRaw now loose in the wild! } static Stream GenerateRaw (IEnumerable some_stuff) { var content = new MemoryStream (); // molest elements of some_stuff into proper format, write to stream content.Seek (0, SeekOrigin.Begin); return content; } } I realize that not disposing of a MemoryStream is not exactly a world-stopping case of bad CLR citizenship, but it still gives me the heebie-jeebies (not to mention that I may not always be using a MemoryStream for other subtypes). It's not in scope, so I can't explicitly Dispose () it later in the constructor, and adding a using statement in GenerateRaw () is self-defeating since I need the stream returned. Is there a better way to do this? Preemptive strikes: yes, the properties calculated in the Node constructor should be part of the base class, and should not be calculated by (or accessible in) the subclasses I won't require that a stream be passed into CompositeNode (its format should be irrelevant to the caller) The previous iteration had the value calculation in the base class as a separate protected method, which I then just called at the end of each subtype constructor, moved the body of GenerateRaw () into a using statement in the body of the CompositeNode constructor. But the repetition of requiring that call for each constructor and not being able to guarantee that it be run for every subtype ever (a Node is not a Node, semantically, without these properties initialized) gave me heebie-jeebies far worse than the (potential) resource leak here does.

    Read the article

  • How does initializing inherited members inside base class constructor reduce the calls to…?

    - by flockofcode
    I’ve read that instead of initializing inherited members ( _c1 in our example ) inside derived constructor: class A { public int _c; } class B:A { public B(int c) { _c = c; } } we should initialize them inside base class constructor, since that way we reduce the calls to inherited members ( _c ): class A { public A(int c) { _c = c; } public int _c; } class B:A { public B(int c) : base(c) { } } If _c field is initialized inside base constructor, the order of initialization is the following: 1) First the field initializers of derived class B are called 2) Then field initializers of base class A are called (at this point _c is set to value 0) 3) B’s constructor is called, which in turn calls A’s custom constructor 4) _c field gets set to value of a parameter c ( inside A’s custom constructor ) 5) Once A’s custom constructor returns, B’s constructor executes its code. If _c field is initialized inside B's constructor, the order of initialization is the following: 1) First the field initializers of a derived class B are called 2) Then field initializers of a base class A are called(at this point _c is set to value 0) 3) B’s constructor is called, which in turn calls A’s default constructor 4) Once A’s custom constructor returns, B’s constructor sets _c field to a value of parameter c As far as I can tell, in both cases was _c called two times, so how exactly did we reduce calls to inherited member _c? thanx

    Read the article

  • Spring constructor injection of SLF4J logger - how to get injection target class?

    - by disown
    I'm trying to use Spring to inject a SLF4J logger into a class like so: @Component public class Example { private final Logger logger; @Autowired public Example(final Logger logger) { this.logger = logger; } } I've found the FactoryBean class, which I've implemented. But the problem is that I cannot get any information about the injection target: public class LoggingFactoryBean implements FactoryBean<Logger> { @Override public Class<?> getObjectType() { return Logger.class; } @Override public boolean isSingleton() { return false; } @Override public Logger getObject() throws Exception { return LoggerFactory.getLogger(/* how do I get a hold of the target class (Example.class) here? */); } } Is FactoryBean even the right way to go? When using picocontainers factory injection, you get the Type of the target passed in. In guice it is a bit trickier. But how do you accomplish this in Spring?

    Read the article

  • Why would the assignment operator ever do something different than its matching constructor?

    - by Neil G
    I was reading some boost code, and came across this: inline sparse_vector &assign_temporary(sparse_vector &v) { swap(v); return *this; } template<class AE> inline sparse_vector &operator=(const sparse_vector<AE> &ae) { self_type temporary(ae); return assign_temporary(temporary); } It seems to be mapping all of the constructors to assignment operators. Great. But why did C++ ever opt to make them do different things? All I can think of is scoped_ptr?

    Read the article

  • Why isn't the "this." command needed in this constructor? (java)

    - by David
    I'm reading a book about java. It just got to explaining how you create a class called "deck" which contains an array of cards as its instance variable(s). Here is the code snippit: class Deck { Card[] cards; public Deck (int n) { cards = new Card[n]; } } why isn't the this. command used? for example why isn't the code this: class Deck { Card[[] cards; public Deck (int n) { this.cards = new Card[n]; } }

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17  | Next Page >