Search Results

Search found 15364 results on 615 pages for 'static assert'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 12/615 | < Previous Page | 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19  | Next Page >

  • How to free static member variable in C++?

    - by user299831
    Can anybody explain how to free memory of a static member Variable? In my understanding it can only be freed if all the instances of the class are destroyed. I am a little bit helpless at this point... Some Code to explain it: class ball { private: static SDL_Surface *ball_image; }; //FIXME: how to free static Variable? SDL_Surface* ball::ball_image = SDL_LoadBMP("ball.bmp");

    Read the article

  • C++ static virtual members?

    - by cvb
    Is it possible in C++ to have a member function that is both static and virtual? Apperantly, there isn't a straight-forward way to do it (static virtual member(); is a complie error), but at least a way to acheive the same effect? I.E: struct Object { struct TypeInformation; static virtual const TypeInformation &GetTypeInformation() const; }; struct SomeObject : public Object { static virtual const TypeInformation &GetTypeInformation() const; }; It makes sence to use GetTypeInformation() both on an instance (object->GetTypeInformation()) and on a class (SomeObject::GetTypeInformation()), which can be useful for comparsions and vital for templates. The only ways I can think of involves writing two functions / a function and a constant, per class, or use macros. Any other solutions?

    Read the article

  • Why does this static field always get initialized over-eagerly?

    - by TheSilverBullet
    I am looking at this excellent article from Jon Skeet. While executing the demo code, Jon Skeet says that we can expect three different kinds of behaviours. To quote that article: The runtime could decide to run the type initializer on loading the assembly to start with... Or perhaps it will run it when the static method is first run... Or even wait until the field is first accessed... When I try this out (on framework 4), I always get the first result. That is, the static method is initialized before the assembly is loaded. I have tried running this multiple times and get the same result. (I tried both the debug and release versions) Why is this so? Am I missing something?

    Read the article

  • Make methods that do not depend on instance fields, static?

    - by m3th0dman
    Recently I started programming in Groovy for a integration testing framework, for a Java project. I use Intellij IDEA with Groovy plug-in and I am surprised to see as a warning for all the methods that are non-static and do not depend on any instance fields. In Java, however, this is not an issue (at least from IDE's point of view). Should all methods that do not depend onto any instance fields be transformed into static functions? If true, is this specific to Groovy or it is available for OOP in general? And why?

    Read the article

  • C#4: Why does this static field always get initialized over-eagerly?

    - by TheSilverBullet
    I am looking at this excellent article from Jon Skeet at this location: http://csharpindepth.com/Articles/General/Beforefieldinit.aspx While executing the demo code, Jon Skeet says that we can expect three different kinds of behaviours. To quote that article: The runtime could decide to run the type initializer on loading the assembly to start with... Or perhaps it will run it when the static method is first run... Or even wait until the field is first accessed... When I try this out (on framework 4), I always get the first result. That is, the static method is initialized before the assembly is loaded. I have tried running this multiple times and get the same result. (I tried both the debug and release versions) Why is this so? Am I missing something?

    Read the article

  • Requriing static class setter to be called before Constructor, bad design?

    - by roverred
    I have a class, say Foo, and every instance of Foo will need and contain the same List object, myList. Since every class instance will share the same List Object, I thought it would be good to make myList static and use a static function to set myList before the constructor is called. I was wondering if this was bad, because this requires the setter to be called before the constructor. If the person doesn't, the program will crash. Alternative way would be passing myList every time. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • What is the difference between all-static-methods and applying a singleton pattern?

    - by shahensha
    I am making a database to store information about the users of my website (I am using stuts2 and hence Java EE technology). For the database I'll be making a DBManager. Should I apply singleton pattern here or rather make all it's methods static? I will be using this DBManager for basic things like adding, deleting and updating User profiles. Along with it, I'll use for all other querying purposes, for instance to find out whether a username already exists and to get all users for administrative purposes and stuff like that. My questions What is the benefit of singleton pattern? Which thing is most apt here? All static methods or a singleton pattern? Please compare both of them. regards shahensha P.S. The database is bigger than this. Here I am talking only about the tables which I'll be using for storing User Information.

    Read the article

  • What is the difference between all-static-methods and applying a singleton pattern?

    - by shahensha
    I am making a database to store information about the users of my website (I am using stuts2 and hence Java EE technology). For the database I'll be making a DBManager. Should I apply singleton pattern here or rather make all it's methods static? I will be using this DBManager for basic things like adding, deleting and updating User profiles. Along with it, I'll use for all other querying purposes, for instance to find out whether a username already exists and to get all users for administrative purposes and stuff like that. My questions What is the benefit of singleton pattern? Which thing is most apt here? All static methods or a singleton pattern? Please compare both of them. P.S. The database is bigger than this. Here I am talking only about the tables which I'll be using for storing User Information.

    Read the article

  • Apache - Serving static files from different subdomain + machine

    - by rubayeet
    Here's the scenario A site is running on this domain - www.someserver.com I'm going to host subdomain.someserver.com on my machine. Let's say all the image files are under the directory 'img'. I don't want to copy all their images to my machine. So what should be the Apache directive(s) that'll map the request for an image, like http://subdomain.someserver.com/img/image.png to http://www.someserver.com/img/image.png

    Read the article

  • Static Routes and the Routing Table

    - by TheD
    This is very much a learning question if someone would be happy to explain a couple of concepts. My question is - the default routing table that exists in, in my case, a default Windows 7 install, what do each of the routes in the table do? Here is a screenshot: The 10.128.4.0 is just a route I've added while messing. I understand from a question I posted on Superuser the first route is just a default route that will route all traffic for any IP to my default gateway on my Interface in use. But what about the others? And how would the routing table handle a machine with multiple NIC's, perhaps connected to two different networks, or maybe even two NIC's on the same network so a VM can have a physical Network card instead of each VM sharing the hosts. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Static Route Qestion

    - by mrlayance
    I have a Wan simulator between 2 networks. I can ping both networks from the wan simulator, but I can not ping from one network to the other. testr01 Fa0/0 10.0.0.1/24 FA0/1 192.168.0.1/30 | | Wan Sim 2 nics Eth0 192.168.0.2/30 | Eth1 192.168.1.2/30 | | testr02 Fa0/1 192.168.1.1/30 Fa0/0 10.1.0.2/24 I can not figure out what type of routes I need. On the route? On the Server? I guess all 10. traffic to the Fa0/0 ports? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Generate static gallery

    - by theomega
    Hy, I need a (linux/shell) script which does the following: It takes a folder full of jpg-files, generates thumbnails and previews (maybe using imagemagik's convert) and creates a html-page which includes all the thumbnails, opens a preview using something like LightBox and links to the original size. Does somebody know a script which does this? I could write one on my own, but it would save me some time.

    Read the article

  • Why are static classes considered “classes” and “reference types”?

    - by Timwi
    I’ve been pondering about the C# and CIL type system today and I’ve started to wonder why static classes are considered classes. There are many ways in which they are not really classes: A “normal” class can contain non-static members, a static class can’t. In this respect, a class is more similar to a struct than it is to a static class, and yet structs have a separate name. You can have a reference to an instance of a “normal” class, but not a static class (despite it being considered a “reference type”). In this respect, a class is more similar to an interface than it is to a static class, and yet interfaces have a separate name. The name of a static class can never be used in any place where a type name would normally fit: you can’t declare a variable of this type, you can’t use it as a base type, and you can’t use it as a generic type parameter. In this respect, static classes are somewhat more like namespaces. A “normal” class can implement interfaces. Once again, that makes classes more similar to structs than to static classes. A “normal” class can inherit from another class. It is also bizarre that static classes are considered to derive from System.Object. Although this allows them to “inherit” the static methods Equals and ReferenceEquals, the purpose of that inheritance is questionable as you would call those methods on object anyway. C# even allows you to specify that useless inheritance explicitly on static classes, but not on interfaces or structs, where the implicit derivation from object and System.ValueType, respectively, actually has a purpose. Regarding the subset-of-features argument: Static classes have a subset of the features of classes, but they also have a subset of the features of structs. All of the things that make a class distinct from the other kinds of type, do not seem to apply to static classes. Regarding the typeof argument: Making a static class into a new and different kind of type does not preclude it from being used in typeof. Given the sheer oddity of static classes, and the scarcity of similarities between them and “normal” classes, shouldn’t they have been made into a separate kind of type instead of a special kind of class?

    Read the article

  • Variables in static library are never initialized. Why?

    - by Coyote
    I have a bunch of variables that should be initialized then my game launches, but must of them are never initialized. Here is an example of the code: MyClass.h class MyClass : public BaseObject { DECLARE_CLASS_RTTI(MyClass, BaseObject); ... }; MyClass.cpp REGISTER_CLASS(MyClass) Where REGISTER_CLASS is a macro defined as follow #define REGISTER_CLASS(className)\ class __registryItem##className : public __registryItemBase {\ virtual className* Alloc(){ return NEW className(); }\ virtual BaseObject::RTTI& GetRTTI(){ return className::RTTI; }\ }\ \ const __registryItem##className __registeredItem##className(#className); and __registryItemBase looks like this: class __registryItemBase { __registryItemBase(const _string name):mName(name){ ClassRegistry::Register(this); } const _string mName; virtual BaseObject* Alloc() = 0; virtual BaseObject::RTTI& GetRTTI() = 0; } Now the code is similar to what I currently have and what I have works flawlessly, all the registered classes are registered to a ClassManager before main(...) is called. I'm able to instantiate and configure components from scripts and auto-register them to the right system etc... The problem arrises when I create a static library (currently for the iPhone, but I fear it will happen with android as well). In that case the code in the .cpp files is never registered. Why is the resulting code not executed when it is in the library while the same code in the program's binary is always executed? Bonus questions: For this to work in the static library, what should I do? Is there something I am missing? Do I need to pass a flag when building the lib? Should I create another structure and init all the __registeredItem##className using that structure?

    Read the article

  • Static method not called

    - by Smile
    I'm trying to call a static method (printABC()) in this class but it's not working. If I uncomment both of the lines marked T_T (1 and 2), it works! Why does it fail with only one of the lines? import java.util.Scanner; class pro0009 { static Scanner in = new Scanner(System.in); static int A,B,C; static void printABC(){ String ABC = in.nextLine(); ABC=ABC.replace("A"," "+A+" "); ABC=ABC.replace("B"," "+B+" "); ABC=ABC.replace("C"," "+C+" "); //System.out.print(ABC.substring(1)); System.out.print(ABC); } public static void main(String[] args){ int x = in.nextInt(); //1 int y = in.nextInt(); //2 int z = in.nextInt(); //3 if(x<y){//1<2 if(x<z){ //1<3 if(y<z){//x<y<z 2<3 //1<2<3 A=x; B=y; C=z; printABC();//T_T 1 System.out.println("Here"); //pro0009.printABC();//T_T 2 //System.out.println("Here2"); }else{ //x<z<y A=x; B=z; C=y; } }else{//z<x<y A=z; B=x; C=y; } }else{//y<x if(y<z){ if(x<z){//y<x<z A=y; B=x; C=z; }else{//y<z<x A=y; B=z; C=x; } }else{//z<y<x A=z; B=y; C=x; } } } }

    Read the article

  • Accessing Static Methods on a Generic class in c#

    - by mrlane
    Hello, I have the following situation in code, which I suspect may be a bit dodgey: I have a class: abstract class DataAccessBase<T> : IDataAccess where T : AnotherAbstractClass This class DataAccessBase also has a static factory method which creates instances of derived classes of itself using an enum value in a which statement to decide which derived type to create: static IDataAccess CreateInstance(TypeToCreateEnum) Now, the types derived from DataAccessBase<T> are themselves NOT generic, they specify a type for T: class PoLcZoneData : DataAccessBase<PoLcZone> // PoLcZone is derived from AnotherAbstractClass So far I am not sure if this is pushing the limits of good use of generics, but what I am really concerned about is how to access the static CreateInstance() method in the first place: The way I am doing this at the moment is to simply pass any type T where T : AnotherAbstractClass. In particular I am passing AnotherAbstractClass itself. This allows compilation just fine, but it does seem to me that passing any type to a generic class just to get at the statics is a bit dodgey. I have actually simplified the situation somewhat as DataAccessBase<T> is the lower level in the inheritance chain, but the static factory methods exists in a middle tier with classes such as PoLcZoneData being the most derived on the only level that is not generic. What are peoples thoughts on this arrangement?

    Read the article

  • Thread-safe initialization of function-local static const objects

    - by sbi
    This question made me question a practice I had been following for years. For thread-safe initialization of function-local static const objects I protect the actual construction of the object, but not the initialization of the function-local reference referring to it. Something like this: namspace { const some_type& create_const_thingy() { lock my_lock(some_mutex); static const some_type the_const_thingy; return the_const_thingy; } } void use_const_thingy() { static const some_type& the_const_thingy = create_const_thingy(); // use the_const_thingy } The idea is that locking takes time, and if the reference is overwritten by several threads, it won't matter. I'd be interested if this is safe enough in practice? safe according to The Rules? (I know, the current standard doesn't even know what "concurrency" is, but what about trampling over an already initialized reference? And do other standards, like POSIX, have something to say that's relevant to this?) For the inquiring minds: Many such function-local static const objects I used are maps which are initialized from const arrays upon first use and used for lookup. For example, I have a few XML parsers where tag name strings are mapped to enum values, so I could later switch over the tags enum values.

    Read the article

  • Can I write a test without any assert in it ?

    - by stratwine
    Hi, I'd like to know if it is "ok" to write a test without any "assert" in it. So the test would fail only when an exception / error has occured. Eg: like a test which has a simple select query, to ensure that the database configuration is right. So when I change some db-configuration, I re-run this test and check if the configuration is right. ? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Django: How do I use assert False, sys.exc_info()[0] without showing a system error page?

    - by swisstony
    I'm new to Django and have some code in my views.py like this: try: myfunction() except: assert False, sys.exc_info()[0] This is very helpful because I get an email with lots of useful info if there's an error. The problem is that it also redirects the user to a Webfaction system error page. What I'd like to know is how do I still get the useful error email, but redirect the user to my own error page? Also, is this the best way to be handling errors in Django?

    Read the article

  • C# Debug.Assert-s use the same error message. Should I promote it to a static variable?

    - by Hamish Grubijan
    I love Asserts but not code duplication, and in several places I use a Debug.Assert which checks for the same condition like so: Debug.Assert(kosherBaconList.SelectedIndex != -1, "An error message along the lines - you should not ever be able to click on edit button without selecting a kosher bacon first."); This is in response to an actual bug, although the actual list does not contain kosher bacon. Anyhow, I can think of two approaches: private static readonly mustSelectKosherBaconBeforeEditAssertMessage = "An error message along the lines - you should not ever be able to " + "click on edit button without selecting a something first."; ... Debug.Assert( kosherBaconList.SelectedIndex != -1, mustSelectKosherBaconBeforeEditAssertMessage) or: if (kosherBaconList.SelectedIndex == -1) { AssertMustSelectKosherBaconBeforeEdit(); } ... [Conditional("DEBUG")] private void AssertMustSelectKosherBaconBeforeEdit() { // Compiler will optimize away this variable. string errorMessage = "An error message along the lines - you should not ever be able to " + "click on edit button without selecting a something first."; Debug.Assert(false, errorMessage); } or is there a third way which sucks less than either one above? Please share. General helpful relevant tips are also welcome.

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19  | Next Page >