Search Results

Search found 4652 results on 187 pages for 'explicit constructor'.

Page 10/187 | < Previous Page | 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17  | Next Page >

  • How is a constructor executed?

    - by simion
    I am doing some reviison from the lecture slides and it says a constructor is executed in the following way; If the constructor starts with this, recursively execute the indicated constructor, then go to step 4. Invoke the explicitly or implicitly indicated superclass constructor (unless this class is java.lang.Object) Initialise the fields of the object in the order in which they were declared in this class Execute the rest of the body of this constructor. What i dont undertsand is that, a constructor can never "start" with this, because even if it forms no class heirarchy/relationship then super() is inserted by default. How would this fit in with the description above? Thanks

    Read the article

  • What is the meaning of ": base" in the constructor definition ?

    - by DotNetBeginner
    What is the meaning of ": base" in the costructor of following class(MyClass) ? Please explain the concept behind constructor definition given below for class MyClass. public class MyClass: WorkerThread { public MyClass(object data): base(data) { // some code } } public abstract class WorkerThread { private object ThreadData; private Thread thisThread; public WorkerThread(object data) { this.ThreadData = data; } public WorkerThread() { ThreadData = null; } }

    Read the article

  • Passing parameter to base class constructor or using instance variable?

    - by deamon
    All classes derived from a certain base class have to define an attribute called "path". In the sense of duck typing I could rely upon definition in the subclasses: class Base: pass # no "path" variable here def Sub(Base): def __init__(self): self.path = "something/" Another possiblity would be to use the base class constructor: class Base: def __init__(self, path): self.path = path def Sub(Base): def __init__(self): super().__init__("something/") What would you prefer and why? Is there a better way?

    Read the article

  • Is it a good or bad practice to call instance methods from a java constructor?

    - by Steve
    There are several different ways I can initialize complex objects (with injected dependencies and required set-up of injected members), are all seem reasonable, but have various advantages and disadvantages. I'll give a concrete example: final class MyClass { private final Dependency dependency; @Inject public MyClass(Dependency dependency) { this.dependency = dependency; dependency.addHandler(new Handler() { @Override void handle(int foo) { MyClass.this.doSomething(foo); } }); doSomething(0); } private void doSomething(int foo) { dependency.doSomethingElse(foo+1); } } As you can see, the constructor does 3 things, including calling an instance method. I've been told that calling instance methods from a constructor is unsafe because it circumvents the compiler's checks for uninitialized members. I.e. I could have called doSomething(0) before setting this.dependency, which would have compiled but not worked. What is the best way to refactor this? Make doSomething static and pass in the dependency explicitly? In my actual case I have three instance methods and three member fields that all depend on one another, so this seems like a lot of extra boilerplate to make all three of these static. Move the addHandler and doSomething into an @Inject public void init() method. While use with Guice will be transparent, it requires any manual construction to be sure to call init() or else the object won't be fully-functional if someone forgets. Also, this exposes more of the API, both of which seem like bad ideas. Wrap a nested class to keep the dependency to make sure it behaves properly without exposing additional API:class DependencyManager { private final Dependency dependency; public DependecyManager(Dependency dependency) { ... } public doSomething(int foo) { ... } } @Inject public MyClass(Dependency dependency) { DependencyManager manager = new DependencyManager(dependency); manager.doSomething(0); } This pulls instance methods out of all constructors, but generates an extra layer of classes, and when I already had inner and anonymous classes (e.g. that handler) it can become confusing - when I tried this I was told to move the DependencyManager to a separate file, which is also distasteful because it's now multiple files to do a single thing. So what is the preferred way to deal with this sort of situation?

    Read the article

  • 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

  • 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

  • Why are exceptions considered better than explicit error testing?

    - by Richard Keller
    I often come across heated blog posts where the author uses the argument of "exceptions vs explicit error checking" to advocate their preferred language over some other language. The general consensus seems to be that languages which make use of exceptions are inherently better / cleaner than languages which rely heavily on error checking through explicit function calls. Is the use of exceptions considered better programming practice than explicit error checking, and if so, why?

    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

  • 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

  • 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

  • [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

  • Have set Expiration time: Still getting "Query string present but no explicit expiration time"

    - by oligofren
    I have one local Apache instance running with mod_cache (+ disk & mem) enabled, and it seems to cache content from my appserver fine. My app server sets Expiration headers and Last-modified. Yet, when deploying on a production server with the same modules enabled, I am getting the following error in my logs: blablabla not cached. Reason: Query string present but no explicit expiration time Any clues on why Apache is not caching content? The only difference is the Apache version. Locally I am running 2.2. This is from my config CacheRoot "/var/cache/apache2/" CacheEnable disk / This is example output < HTTP/1.1 200 OK < Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 16:09:13 GMT < Server: Sun GlassFish Enterprise Server v2.1.1 < X-Powered-By: Servlet/2.5 < Expires: Tue Nov 20 05:00:00 CET 2012 < Last-Modified: Mon Nov 19 17:09:13 CET 2012 < Cache-Control: no-transform < Content-Type: application/x-javascript < Transfer-Encoding: chunked

    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

  • Make conversion to a native type explicit in C++

    - by Tal Pressman
    I'm trying to write a class that implements 64-bit ints for a compiler that doesn't support long long, to be used in existing code. Basically, I should be able to have a typedef somewhere that selects whether I want to use long long or my class, and everything else should compile and work. So, I obviously need conversion constructors from int, long, etc., and the respective conversion operators (casts) to those types. This seems to cause errors with arithmetic operators. With native types, the compiler "knows" that when operator*(int, char) is called, it should promote the char to int and call operator*(int, int) (rather than casting the int to char, for example). In my case it gets confused between the various built-in operators and the ones I created. It seems to me like if I could flag the conversion operators as explicit somehow, that it would solve the issue, but as far as I can tell the explicit keyword is only for constructors (and I can't make constructors for built-in types). So is there any way of marking the casts as explicit? Or am I barking up the wrong tree here and there's another way of solving this? Or maybe I'm just doing something else wrong...

    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

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