Search Results

Search found 11078 results on 444 pages for 'virtual inheritance'.

Page 107/444 | < Previous Page | 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114  | Next Page >

  • C++ - Where to code a member function for an inherited object.

    - by Francisco P.
    Hello! I have a few classes (heat, gas, contact, pressure) inheriting from a main one (sensor). I have a need to store them in a vector<Sensor *> (part of the specification). At some point in time, I need to call a function that indiscriminately stores those Sensor *. (also part of the specification, not open for discussion) Something like this: for(size_t i = 0; i < Sensors.size(); ++i) Sensors[i]->storeSensor(os) //os is an ofstream kind of object, passed onwards by reference Where and how shall storeSensor be defined? Is there any simple way to do this or will I need to disregard the specification? Mind you, I'm a beginner! Thanks for your time!

    Read the article

  • question about class derivation in c++?

    - by jack22
    hi, i want to know some things about class derivation in c++ so i have super class x and an inherited class y and i did this class x{ public:a; private:b; protected:c; } class y:public x{ public:d; } in this case how y can access a,b,and c and by how i mean(public,protected,private) the second case: class x{ public:a; private:b; protected:c; } class y:private x{ public:d; } the same question? the third case: class x{ public:a; private:b; protected:c; } class y:private x{ public:d; } again the same question? sorry i think i wrote too much bye

    Read the article

  • Is it possible to specify a return type of "Derivative(of T)" for a MustOverride sub in VB.NET?

    - by Casey
    VB.NET 2008 .NET 3.5 I have two base classes that are MustInherit (partial). Let's call one class OrderBase and the other OrderItemBase. A specific type of order and order item would inherit from these classes. Let's call these WebOrder (inherits from OrderBase) and WebOrderItem (inherits from OrderItemBase). Now, in the grand scheme of things WebOrder is a composite class containing a WebOrderItem, like so: Public Class WebOrder Inherits OrderBase Public Property OrderItem() as WebOrderItem End Property End Class Public Class WebOrderItem Inherits OrderItemBase End Class In order to make sure any class that derives from OrderBase has the OrderItem property, I would like to do something like this in the OrderBase class: Public MustInherit Class OrderBase Public MustOverride Property OrderItem() as Derivative(Of OrderItemBase) End Class In other words, I want the derived class to be forced to contain a property that returns a derivative of OrderItemBase. Is this possible, or should I be using an entirely different approach?

    Read the article

  • How to manage feeds with subclassed object in Django 1.2?

    - by Matteo
    Hi, I'm trying to generate a feed rss from a model like this one, selecting all the Entry objects: from django.db import models from django.contrib.sites.models import Site from django.contrib.auth.models import User from imagekit.models import ImageModel import datetime class Entry(ImageModel): date_pub = models.DateTimeField(default=datetime.datetime.now) author = models.ForeignKey(User) via = models.URLField(blank=True) comments_allowed = models.BooleanField(default=True) icon = models.ImageField(upload_to='icon/',blank=True) class IKOptions: spec_module = 'journal.icon_specs' cache_dir = 'icon/resized' image_field = 'icon' class Post(Entry): title = models.CharField(max_length=200) description = models.TextField() slug = models.SlugField(unique=True) def __unicode__(self): return self.title class Photo(Entry): alt = models.CharField(max_length=200) description = models.TextField(blank=True) original = models.ImageField(upload_to='photo/') class IKOptions: spec_module = 'journal.photo_specs' cache_dir = 'photo/resized' image_field = 'original' def __unicode__(self): return self.alt class Quote(Entry): blockquote = models.TextField() cite = models.TextField(blank=True) def __unicode__(self): return self.blockquote When I use the render_to_response in my views I simply call: def get_journal_entries(request): entries = Entry.objects.all().order_by('-date_pub') return render_to_response('journal/entries.html', {'entries':entries}) And then I use a conditional template to render the right snippets of html: {% extends "base.html" %} {% block main %} <hr> {% for entry in entries %} {% if entry.post %}[...]{% endif %}[...] But I cannot do the same with the Feed Framework in django 1.2... Any suggestion, please?

    Read the article

  • AS3: How can I require a method argument to implement multiple interfaces?

    - by Anders
    The argument to my method func() must implement the two unrelated interfaces IFoo and IBar. Is there a better way of doing this than declaring another interface only for this purpose that inherits from IFoo and IBar and using that interface as the argument type? public interface IFooBar implements IFoo, IBar { } public function func(arg:IFooBar):void { } I'm developing for Flash Player 9.

    Read the article

  • What would be a better implementation of shared variable among subclass

    - by Churk
    So currently I have a spring unit testing application. And it requires me to get a session cookie from a foreign authentication source. Problem what that is, this authentication process is fairly expensive and time consuming, and I am trying to create a structure where I am authenticate once, by any subclass, and any subsequent subclass is created, it will reuse this session cookie without hitting the authentication process again. My problem right now is, the static cookie is null each time another subclass is created. And I been reading that using static as a global variable is a bad idea, but I couldn't think of another way to do this because of Spring framework setting things during run time and how I would set the cookie so that all other classes can use it. Another piece of information. The variable is being use, but is change able during run time. It is not a single user being signed in and used across the board. But more like a Sub1 would call login, and we have a cookie. Then multiple test will be using that login until SubX will come in and say, I am using different credential, so I need to login as something else. And repeats. Here is a outline of my code: public class Parent implements InitializingBean { protected static String BASE_URL; public static Cookie cookie; ... All default InitializingBean methods ... afterPropertiesSet() { cookie = // login process returns a cookie } } public class Sub1 extends Parent { @resource public String baseURL; @PostConstruct public void init() { // set parents with my baseURL; BASE_URL = baseURL; } public void doSomething() { // Do something with cookie, because it should have been set by parent class } } public class Sub2 extends Parent { @resource public String baseURL; @PostConstruct public void init() { // set parents with my baseURL; BASE_URL = baseURL; } public void doSomethingElse() { // Do something with cookie, because it should have been set by parent class } }

    Read the article

  • Call overidden method in Dojo

    - by nomind
    In dojo, one cannot call a overidden superclass method outside of the same method in the derived class (for which there is this.inherited(), other than that one can call using class_name.function_name.apply). This feature is no longer there because of some refactoring and dojo guys are not going to put it back because they are not convinced about a good enough case for this. Please read this mail thread for details. Isn't there a good enough case for this functionality? Why or why not?

    Read the article

  • How to implement a C# interface in F#?

    - by Anton Andreev
    I would like to implement the following C# interface in F#: using System; using System.Collections.Generic; using System.Linq; using System.Text; using Mono.Addins; [TypeExtensionPoint] public interface ISparqlCommand { string Name { get; } object Run(Dictionary<string, string> NamespacesDictionary, org.openrdf.repository.Repository repository, params object[] argsRest); } This is what I have tried, but it gives me: "Incomplete structured construct at or before this point in expression" #light module Module1 open System open System.Collections.Generic; type MyClass() = interface ISparqlCommand with member this.Name = "Finding the path between two tops in the Graph" member this.Run(NamespacesDictionary, repository, argsRest) = new System.Object What am I doing wrong? Maybe indentation is wrong?

    Read the article

  • are there requirements for Struts setters beyond variable name matching?

    - by slk
    I have a model-driven Struts Web action: public class ModelDrivenAction<T extends Object> implements ModelDriven<T>, Preparable { protected Long id; protected T model; @Override public void prepare() {} public void setId(Long id) { this.id = id; } @Override public T getModel() { return model; } public void setModel(T model) { this.model = model; } } I have another action which is not currently model-driven: public class OtherAction implements Preparable { private ModelObj modelObj; private Long modelId; @Override public void prepare() { modelObj = repoService.retrieveModelById(modelId); } public void setModelId(Long modelId) { this.modelId = modelId; } } I wish to make it so, and would like to avoid having to track down all the instances in JavaScript where the action is passed a "modelId" parameter instead of "id" if at all possible. I thought this might work, so either modelId or id could be passed in: public class OtherAction extends ModelDrivenAction<ModelObj> { @Override public void prepare() { model = repoService.retrieveModelById(id); } public void setModelId(Long modelId) { this.id = modelId; } } However, server/path/to/other!method?modelId=123 is failing to set id. I thought so long as a setter matched a parameter name the Struts interceptor would call it on action invocation. Am I missing something here?

    Read the article

  • Can this be done with multiple inhertance?

    - by Milo
    Here is what I would like to do. Say I have Class Widget. I then create Button from Widget. I then create ModifiedWidget which re-implements certain functions of Widget. I then want Button to use ModifiedWidget rather than plain Widget. Is this possible to do some how? Thanks class Button : public Widget; class SuperButton : public Button, public ModifiedWidget; I'm just not sure if that would do what I want it to though.

    Read the article

  • Persisting non-entity class that extends an entity (jpa) - example?

    - by Michal Minicki
    The JPA tutorial states that one can have a non-entity that extends entity class: Entities may extend both entity and non-entity classes, and non-entity classes may extend entity classes. - http://java.sun.com/javaee/5/docs/tutorial/doc/bnbqa.html Is it possible to persist such structure? I want to do this: @Entity abstract class Test { ... } class FirstConcreteTest extends Test { ... } // Non-ntity class SecondConcreteTest extends Test { ... } // Non-entity Test test = new FirstConcreteTest(); em.persist(test); What I would like it to do is to persist all fields mapped on abstract Test to a common database table for all concrete classes (first and second), leaving all fields of first and second test class unpersisted (these can contain stuff like EJBs, jdbc pools, etc). And a bonus question. Is it possible to persist abstract property too? @Entity abstract class Test { @Column @Access(AccessType.PROPERTY) abstract public String getName(); } class SecondConcreteTest extends Test { public String getName() { return "Second Concrete Test"; } }

    Read the article

  • Why doesn't C++ allow you to request a pointer to the most derived class?

    - by Matthew Lowe
    (This question should probably be answered with a reference to Stroustrup.) It seems extremely useful to be able to request a pointer to the most derived class, as in the following: class Base { ... }; class DerivedA { ... }; class DerivedB { ... }; class Processor { public: void Do(Base* b) {...} void Do(DerivedA* d) {...} void Do(DerivedB* d) {...} }; list<Base*> things; Processor p; for(list<Base*>::iterator i=things.begin(), e=things.end(); i!=e; ++i) { p.Do(CAST_TO_MOST_DERIVED_CLASS(*i)); } But this mechanism isn't provided in c++. Why?

    Read the article

  • Dynamic Object Not Creating for Privately Inherited Class.

    - by mahesh
    Hi, What is the reason for the following code that does not let me to create object. class base { public: void foo() { cout << "base::foo()"; } }; class derived : private base { public: void foo() { cout << "deived::foo()"; } }; void main() { base *d = new derived(); d->foo(); } It Gives me error : " 'type cast' : conversion from 'derived *' to 'base *' exists, but is inaccessible" Thanks in advance :)

    Read the article

  • Calling base class constructor

    - by The Void
    In the program below, is the line Derived(double y): Base(), y_(y) correct/allowed? That is, does it follow ANSI rules? #include <iostream> class Base { public: Base(): x_(0) { std::cout << "Base default constructor called" << std::endl; } Base(int x): x_(x) { std::cout << "Base constructor called with x = " << x << std::endl; } void display() const { std::cout << x_ << std::endl; } protected: int x_; }; class Derived: public Base { public: Derived(): Base(1), y_(1.2) { std::cout << "Derived default constructor called" << std::endl; } Derived(double y): Base(), y_(y) { std::cout << "Derived constructor called with y = " << y << std::endl; } void display() const { std::cout << Base::x_ << ", " << y_ << std::endl; } private: double y_; }; int main() { Base b1; b1.display(); Derived d1; d1.display(); std::cout << std::endl; Base b2(-9); b2.display(); Derived d2(-8.7); d2.display(); return 0; }

    Read the article

  • How can one enforce calling a base class function after derived class constructor?

    - by Mike Elkins
    I'm looking for a clean C++ idiom for the following situation: class SomeLibraryClass { public: SomeLibraryClass() { /* start initialization */ } void addFoo() { /* we are a collection of foos */ } void funcToCallAfterAllAddFoos() { /* Making sure this is called is the issue */ } }; class SomeUserClass : public SomeLibraryClass { public: SomeUserClass() { addFoo(); addFoo(); addFoo(); // SomeUserClass has three foos. } }; class SomeUserDerrivedClass : public SomeUserClass { public: SomeUserDerrivedClass() { addFoo(); // This one has four foos. } }; So, what I really want is for SomeLibraryClass to enforce the calling of funcToCallAfterAllAddFoos at the end of the construction process. The user can't put it at the end of SomeUserClass::SomeUserClass(), that would mess up SomeUserDerrivedClass. If he puts it at the end of SomeUserDerrivedClass, then it never gets called for SomeUserClass. To further clarify what I need, imagine that /* start initialization */ acquires a lock, and funcToCallAfterAllAddFoos() releases a lock. The compiler knows when all the initializations for an object are done, but can I get at that information by some nice trick?

    Read the article

  • What's an elegant solution to get the property values from two classes (that have the same property

    - by SlipToFall
    Essentially I have to deal with a poorly implemented web service. They have two classes that don't derive from a parent class, but have the same properties (Ughh...). So it looks like this in my web service proxy class file: public partial class Product1 { public int Quantity; public int Price; } public partial class Product2 { public int Quantity; public int Price; } So what's the best way to grab the values from known properties without duplicating the code and casting to their respective classes? I know I probably could use reflection, but that can get ugly. If there is an easier less crazier way to do it (maybe in the new c# features?) please let me know.

    Read the article

  • Should downcasting be avoided while using a class hierarchy in C++?

    - by neuviemeporte
    Let's say I'm writing an application which works with projects, and exposes different functionality depending on the type of the project. I have a hierarchy of classes for the different types of projects: class AbstractProject { }; class ProjectA : public AbstractProject { }; class ProjectB : public AbstractProject { }; class ProjectC : public AbstractProject { }; Now, I was planning to have an AbstractProject *_currentProject pointer as a member in the application's main class, pop up a dialog box on startup and based on the selection, do: _currentProject = new ProjectB(); // e.g. Later, I'll have to downcast the pointer to the specific type to utilize the functionality specific to different Project-s. Somehow this makes me feel uneasy. Is there a Better Way of doing this?

    Read the article

  • what would be the output?

    - by Abhishek Jain
    Please explain me below situation What would be the output? interface A{} class B implements A{} class C extends B{} Class D extends C{} class E extends D{ public static void main(String args[]){ C c = new C(); B b = c; A a = (E)c; A a = (B)c; C c = (C)(B)c; } }

    Read the article

  • C# private (hidden) base class

    - by Loadmaster
    It is possible to make a C# base class accessible only within the library assembly it's compiled into, while making other subclasses that inherit from it public? For example: using System.IO; class BaseOutput: Stream // Hidden base class { protected BaseOutput(Stream o) { ... } ...lots of common methods... } public class MyOutput: BaseOutput // Public subclass { public BaseOutput(Stream o): base(o) { ... } public override int Write(int b) { ... } } Here I'd like the BaseOutput class to be inaccessible to clients of my library, but allow the subclass MyOutput to be completely public. I know that C# does not allow base classes to have more restrictive access than subclasses, but is there some other legal way of achieving the same effect?

    Read the article

  • "Overriding" instance variables in subtype: Possible risks?

    - by sebastiangeiger
    Say I had a class SuperClass and two subclasses SubClassA and SubClassB that inherit from SuperClass. abstract class SuperClass{ ... List someList; ... } class SubClassA extends SuperClass{ ... List<String> someList; ... } class SubClassB extends SuperClass{ ... List<Integer> someList; ... } That way it is convenient because I can get someList.size() in Superclass and have Typesafety in the Subclasses. The problem is that it does not "feel" right, can you think of potential hazards this apporach has that I am not aware of?

    Read the article

  • Nhibernate Common columns in base class

    - by sukh
    I want to design following scenario Base class (Id, Name, order, Value) 3 Derived classes derive1, derive2, derive3 inheriting properties from base There is no table for base class. And 1 table for each derived class. 3 tables have same columns. How can I create mapping file ignoring base class? Do I need to create 1 mapping file for each derived class? can I achieve this using only 1 mapping file?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114  | Next Page >