Search Results

Search found 1275 results on 51 pages for 'derived'.

Page 13/51 | < Previous Page | 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20  | Next Page >

  • Compile time type determination in C++

    - by dicroce
    A coworker recently showed me some code that he found online. It appears to allow compile time determination of whether a type has an "is a" relationship with another type. I think this is totally awesome, but I have to admit that I'm clueless as to how this actually works. Can anyone explain this to me? template<typename BaseT, typename DerivedT> inline bool isRelated(const DerivedT&) { DerivedT derived(); char test(const BaseT&); // sizeof(test()) == sizeof(char) char (&test(...))[2]; // sizeof(test()) == sizeof(char[2]) struct conversion { enum { exists = (sizeof(test(derived())) == sizeof(char)) }; }; return conversion::exists; } Once this function is defined, you can use it like this: #include <iostream> class base {}; class derived : public base {}; class unrelated {}; int main() { base b; derived d; unrelated u; if( isRelated<base>( b ) ) std::cout << "b is related to base" << std::endl; if( isRelated<base>( d ) ) std::cout << "d is related to base" << std::endl; if( !isRelated<base>( u ) ) std::cout << "u is not related to base" << std::endl; }

    Read the article

  • Why it's can be compiled in GNU/C++, can't compiled in VC++2010 RTM?

    - by volnet
    #include #include #include #include "copy_of_auto_ptr.h" #ifdef _MSC_VER #pragma message("#include ") #include // http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Diagnostic-Pragmas.html#Diagnostic-Pragmas #endif /* case 1-4 is the requirement of the auto_ptr. which form http://ptgmedia.pearsoncmg.com/images/020163371X/autoptrupdate/auto_ptr_update.html */ /* case 1. (1) Direct-initialization, same type, e.g. */ std::auto_ptr source_int() { // return std::auto_ptr(new int(3)); std::auto_ptr tmp(new int(3)); return tmp; } /* case 2. (2) Copy-initialization, same type, e.g. */ void sink_int(std::auto_ptr p) { std::cout source_derived() { // return std::auto_ptr(new Derived()); std::auto_ptr tmp(new Derived()); return tmp; } /* case 4. (4) Copy-initialization, base-from-derived, e.g. */ void sink_base( std::auto_ptr p) { p-go(); } int main(void) { /* // auto_ptr */ // case 1. // auto_ptr std::auto_ptr p_int(source_int()); std::cout p_derived(source_derived()); p_derived-go(); // case 4. // auto_ptr sink_base(source_derived()); return 0; } In Eclipse(GNU C++.exe -v gcc version 3.4.5 (mingw-vista special r3)) it's two compile error: Description Resource Path Location Type initializing argument 1 of void sink_base(std::auto_ptr<Base>)' from result ofstd::auto_ptr<_Tp::operator std::auto_ptr<_Tp1() [with _Tp1 = Base, _Tp = Derived]' auto_ptr_ref_research.cpp auto_ptr_ref_research/auto_ptr_ref_research 190 C/C++ Problem Description Resource Path Location Type no matching function for call to `std::auto_ptr::auto_ptr(std::auto_ptr)' auto_ptr_ref_research.cpp auto_ptr_ref_research/auto_ptr_ref_research 190 C/C++ Problem But it's right in VS2010 RTM. Questions: Which compiler stand for the ISO C++ standard? The content of case 4 is the problem "auto_ptr & auto_ptr_ref want to resolve?"

    Read the article

  • Is this an error in "More Effective C++" in Item28?

    - by particle128
    I encountered a question when I was reading the item28 in More Effective C++ .In this item, the author shows to us that we can use member template in SmartPtr such that the SmartPtr<Cassette> can be converted to SmartPtr<MusicProduct>. The following code is not the same as in the book,but has the same effect. #include <iostream> class Base{}; class Derived:public Base{}; template<typename T> class smart{ public: smart(T* ptr):ptr(ptr){} template<typename U> operator smart<U>() { return smart<U>(ptr); } ~smart(){delete ptr;} private: T* ptr; }; void test(const smart<Base>& ) {} int main() { smart<Derived> sd(new Derived); test(sd); return 0; } It indeed can be compiled without compilation error. But when I ran the executable file, I got a core dump. I think that's because the member function of the conversion operator makes a temporary smart, which has a pointer to the same ptr in sd (its type is smart<Derived>). So the delete directive operates twice. What's more, after calling test, we can never use sd any more, since ptr in sd has already been delete. Now my questions are : Is my thought right? Or my code is not the same as the original code in the book? If my thought is right, is there any method to do this? Thanks very much for your help.

    Read the article

  • Mutate an object into an instance of one its subclasses

    - by Gohu
    Hi, Is it possible to mutate an object into an instance of a derived class of the initial's object class? Something like: class Base(): def __init__(self): self.a = 1 def mutate(self): self = Derived() class Derived(Base): def __init__(self): self.b = 2 But that doesn't work. >>> obj = Base() >>> obj.mutate() >>> obj.a 1 >>> obj.b AttributeError... If this isn't possible, how should I do otherwise? My problem is the following: My Base class is like a "summary", and the Derived class is the "whole thing". Of course getting the "whole thing" is a bit expensive so working on summaries as long as it is possible is the point of having these two classes. But you should be able to get it if you want, and then there's no point in having the summary anymore, so every reference to the summary should now be (or contain, at least) the whole thing. I guess I would have to create a class that can hold both, right? class Thing(): def __init__(self): self.summary = Summary() self.whole = None def get_whole_thing(self): self.whole = Whole()

    Read the article

  • Boost bind function

    - by Gokul
    Hi, I have a abstract base class A and a set of 10 derived classes. The infix operator is overloaded in all of the derived classes class A{ void printNode( std::ostream& os ) { this->printNode_p(); } void printNode_p( std::ostream& os ) { os << (*this); } }; There is a container which stores the base class pointers. I want to use boost::bind function to call the overloaded infix operator in each of its derived class. I have written like this std::vector<A*> m_args .... std::ostream os; for_each( m_args.begin(), m_args.end(), bind(&A::printNode, _1, os) ); What is the problem with this code? Thanks, Gokul.

    Read the article

  • Is WPF Decorator class useful?

    - by darja
    I need to create control to draw border around its child. So, I have created class and derived it from Decorator: class RoundedBoxDecorator : Decorator { protected override Size ArrangeOverride(Size arrangeSize) { //some source } protected override void OnRender(DrawingContext dc) { //some source } } It works fine, but I have some doubts about using Decorator as ancestor. I have found in MSDN that there are no special methods or properties in it, only derived from its ancestors (UIElement or FrameworkElement). ArrangeOverride and OnRender are also derived. So, what for Decorator class was designed and does it makes sense to use it? Or I can derive from FrameworkElement?

    Read the article

  • Using implicit conversion as a substitute for multiple inheritance in .NET

    - by Daniel Plaisted
    I have a situation where I would like to have objects of a certain type be able to be used as two different types. If one of the "base" types was an interface this wouldn't be an issue, but in my case it is preferable that they both be concrete types. I am considering adding copies of the methods and properties of one of the base types to the derived type, and adding an implicit conversion from the derived type to that base type. Then users will be able treat the derived type as the base type by using the duplicated methods directly, by assigning it to a variable of the base type, or by passing it to a method that takes the base type. It seems like this solution will fit my needs well, but am I missing anything? Is there a situation where this won't work, or where it is likely to add confusion instead of simplicity when using the API?

    Read the article

  • Override number of parameters of pure virtual functions

    - by Jir
    I have implemented the following interface: template <typename T> class Variable { public: Variable (T v) : m_value (v) {} virtual void Callback () = 0; private: T m_value; }; A proper derived class would be defined like this: class Derived : public Variable<int> { public: Derived (int v) : Variable<int> (v) {} void Callback () {} }; However, I would like to derive classes where Callback accepts different parameters (eg: void Callback (int a, int b)). Is there a way to do it?

    Read the article

  • VIrtual class problem

    - by ugur
    What i think about virtual class is, if a derived class has a public base, let's say, class base, then a pointer to derived can be assigned to a variable of type pointer to base without use of any explicit type conversion. But what if, we are inside of base class then how can we call derived class's functions. I will give an example: class Graph{ public: Graph(string); virtual bool addEdge(string,string); } class Direct:public Graph{ public: Direct(string); bool addEdge(string,string); } Direct::Direct(string filename):Graph(filename){}; When i call constructor of Direct class then it calls Graph. Now lets think Graph function calls addedge. Graph(string str){ addedge(str,str); } When it calls addedge, even if the function is virtual, it calls Graph::edge. What i want is, to call Direct::addedge. How can it be done?

    Read the article

  • Virtual class problem

    - by ugur
    What i think about virtual class is, if a derived class has a public base, let's say, class base, then a pointer to derived can be assigned to a variable of type pointer to base without use of any explicit type conversion. But what if, we are inside of base class then how can we call derived class's functions. I will give an example: class Graph{ public: Graph(string); virtual bool addEdge(string,string); } class Direct:public Graph{ public: Direct(string); bool addEdge(string,string); } Direct::Direct(string filename):Graph(filename){}; When i call constructor of Direct class then it calls Graph. Now lets think Graph function calls addedge. Graph(string str){ addedge(str,str); } When it calls addedge, even if the function is virtual, it calls Graph::edge. What i want is, to call Direct::addedge. How can it be done?

    Read the article

  • Accessing constructor from abstract base class with reflection

    - by craesh
    Hi! I'm playing around with Java's Reflection. I have an abstract class Base with a constructor. abstract class Base { public Base( String foo ) { // do some magic } } I have some further classes extending Base. They don't contain much logic. I want to instantiate them with Base's constructor, without having to write some proxy contructors in those derived classes. And of course, I want to instantiate those derived classes with Reflection. Say: Class cls = SomeDerivedClass.class; Constructor constr; constr = cls.getConstructor( new Class[] { String.class } ); // will return null Class clsBase = Base.class; constr = clsBase.getConstructor( new Class[] { String.class } ); // ok Base obj = (Base) constr.newInstance( new Object[] { "foo" } ); // will throw InstantiationException because it belongs to an abstract class Any ideas, how I can instantiate a derived class with Base's constructor? Or must I declare those dumb proxy constructors?

    Read the article

  • InvalidOperationException When XML Serializing Inherited Class

    - by Nick
    I am having an issue serializing a c# class to an XML file that has a base class... here is a simple example: namespace Domain { [Serializable] public class ClassA { public virtual int MyProperty { get; set; } } } namespace Derived { public class ClassA : Domain.ClassA { public override int MyProperty { get { return 1; } set { /* Do Nothing */ } } } } When I attempt to serialize an instance of Derived.ClassA, I receive the following exception: InvalidOperationException(Types 'Domain.ClassA' and 'Derived.ClassA' both use the XML type name 'ClassA', from the namespace ". Use XML attributes to specify a unique XML name and/or namespace for the type.) The problem is that I want to create a single base class that simply defines the structure of the XML file, and then allow anyone else to derive from that class to insert business rules, but that the formatting will come through from the base. Is this possible, and if so, how do I attribute the base class to allow this?

    Read the article

  • Getting PDT code completion to recognise runtime return types from base class?

    - by Keith Humm
    Hi guys, I've got an abstract base class: abstract class BaseClass { /** * @return CLASSNAME */ public function fluent() { // do stuff return $this; } } Generally, i would put BaseClass where CLASSNAME is and all would be fine, PDT would pick up the phpdoc return type and happily autocomplete. Until, that is, I subclass BaseClass and add additional methods, and code compete on an instance of the derived class. PDT will only recognise the methods from BaseClass and not those from the derived class. What I need is something like @return self or @return this. Does PDT have such functionality? Or is there an alternate trick without having to declare these methods in every derived class?

    Read the article

  • Inheriting and static members

    - by Bruce
    Here is my code - #include <iostream> #include <conio.h> using namespace std; class Base { public: int a; }; //int Base::a = 5; class Derived : public Base { public: int static a; }; int main() { Derived d; cout<<d.a; getch(); return 0; } I get a linker error here. But when I do it the other way round - class Base { public: int static a; }; int Base::a = 5; class Derived : public Base { public: int a; }; I get no error. Can someone please explain what is happening here.

    Read the article

  • Weird use of generics

    - by Karl Trumstedt
    After a bit of programming one of my classes used generics in a way I never seen before. I would like some opinions of this, if it's bad coding or not. abstract class Base<T> : where T : Base<T> { // omitted methods and properties. virtual void CopyTo(T instance) { /*code*/ } } class Derived : Base<Derived> { override void CopyTo(Derived instance) { base.CopyTo(instance); // copy remaining stuff here } } is this an OK use of generics or not? I'm mostly thinking about the constraint to "itself". I sometimes feel like generics can "explode" to other classes where I use the Base class.

    Read the article

  • Type casting in TPC inheritance

    - by Mohsen Esmailpour
    I have several products like HotelProduct, FlightProduct ... which derived from BaseProduct class. The table of these products will be generated in TPC manner in database. There is OrderLine class which has a BaseProduct. My problem is when i select an OrderLine with related product i don't know how cast BaseProduct to derived product. for example i have this query: var order = (from odr in _context.Orders join orderLine in _context.OrderLines on odr.Id equals orderLine.OrderId join hotel in _context.Products.OfType<HotelProduct>() on orderLine.ProductId equals hotel.Id where odr.UserId == userId && odr.Id == orderId orderby odr.OrderDate descending select odr).SingleOrDefault(); In OrderLine i have BaseProduct properties not properties of HotelProduct. Is there any way to cast BaseProduct to derived class in OrderLine or any other solutions ?

    Read the article

  • Inheriting the main method

    - by Eric
    I want to define a base class that defines a main method that instantiates the class, and runs a method. There are a couple of problems though. Here is the base class: public abstract class Strategy { abstract void execute(SoccerRobot robot); public static void main(String args) { Strategy s = new /*Not sure what to put here*/(); s.execute(new SoccerRobot()) } } And here is an example derived class: public class UselessStrategy { void execute(SoccerRobot robot) { System.out.println("I'm useless") } } It defines a simple execute method, which should be called in a main method upon usage as a the main application. However, in order to do so, I need to instantiate the derived class from within the base class's main method. Which doesn't seem to be possible. I'd rather not have to repeat the main method for every derived class, as it feels somewhat unnessary. Is there a right way of doing this?

    Read the article

  • How to better design it ???

    - by Deepak
    public interface IBasePresenter { } public interface IJobViewPresenter : IBasePresenter { } public interface IActivityViewPresenter : IBasePresenter { } public class BaseView { public IBasePresenter Presenter { get; set; } } public class JobView : BaseView { public IJobViewPresenter JobViewPresenter { get { this.Presenter as IJobViewPresenter;} } } public class ActivityView : BaseView { public IActivityViewPresenter ActivityViewPresenter { get { this.Presenter as IActivityViewPresenter;} } } Lets assume that I need a IBasePresenter property on BaseView. Now this property is inherited by JobView and ActivityView but if I need reference to IJobViewPresenter object in these derived classes then I need to type cast IBasePresenter property to IJobViewPresenter or IActivityPresenter (which I want to avoid) or create JobViewPresenter and ActivityViewPresenter on derived classes (as shown above). I want to avoid type casting in derived classes and still have reference to IJobViewPresenter or IActivityViewPresenter and still have IBasePresenter in BaseView. Is there a way I can achieve it ?

    Read the article

  • Copying a Polymorphic object in C++

    - by doron
    I have base-class Base from which is derived Derived1, Derived2 and Derived3. I have constructed an instance for one of the the derived classes which I store as Base* a. I now need to make a deep copy of the object which I will store as Base* b. As far as I know, the normal way of copying a class is to use copy constructors and to overload operator=. However since I don't know whether a is of type Derived1, Derived2 or Derived3, I cannot think of a way of using either the copy constructor or operator=. The only way I can think of to cleanly make this work is to implement something like: class Base { public: virtual Base* Clone() = 0; }; and the implement Clone in in the derived class as in: class Derivedn : public Base { public: Base* Clone() { Derived1* ret = new Derived1; copy all the data members } }; Java tends to use Clone quite a bit is there more of a C++ way of doing this?

    Read the article

  • C++ inheritance and member function pointers

    - by smh
    In C++, can member function pointers be used to point to derived (or even base) class members? EDIT: Perhaps an example will help. Suppose we have a hierarchy of three classes X, Y, Z in order of inheritance. Y therefore has a base class X and a derived class Z. Now we can define a member function pointer p for class Y. This is written as: void (Y::*p)(); (For simplicity, I'll assume we're only interested in functions with the signature void f() ) This pointer p can now be used to point to member functions of class Y. This question (two questions, really) is then: Can p be used to point to a function in the derived class Z? Can p be used to point to a function in the base class X?

    Read the article

  • C#: why Base class is allowed to implement an interface contract without inheriting from it?

    - by etarassov
    I've stumbled upon this "feature" of C# - the base class that implements interface methods does not have to derive from it. Example: public interface IContract { void Func(); } // Note that Base does **not** derive from IContract public abstract class Base { public void Func() { Console.WriteLine("Base.Func"); } } // Note that Derived does *not* provide implementation for IContract public class Derived : Base, IContract { } What happens is that Derived magically picks-up a public method Base.Func and decides that it will implement IContract.Func. What is the reason behind this magic? IMHO: this "quasi-implementation" feature is very-unintuitive and make code-inspection much harder. What do you think?

    Read the article

  • (this == null) in C#!

    - by SLaks
    Due to a bug that was fixed in C# 4, the following program prints true. (Try it in LINQPad) void Main() { new Derived(); } class Base { public Base(Func<string> valueMaker) { Console.WriteLine(valueMaker()); } } class Derived : Base { string CheckNull() { return "Am I null? " + (this == null); } public Derived() : base(() => CheckNull()) { } } In VS2008 in Release mode, in throws an InvalidProgramException. (In Debug mode, it works fine) In VS2010 Beta 2, it doesn't compile (I didn't try Beta 1); I learned that the hard way Is there any other way to make this == null in pure C#?

    Read the article

  • Returning a static array without using a class field

    - by Bart Friederichs
    I have the following base and derived (partial, for sake of brevity) classes: class Base { public abstract int[] someArray { get; } } class Derived : Base { private readonly static int[] _someArray = new int[] { 1,2,3,4 }; public override int[] someArray { get { return _someArray; } } } What I would like now, is put the new int[] { 1,2,3,4 } in the return part of the getter. But, that would create a new array every time the getter is called. Is it possible to directly return some kind of object, which stays the same for all objects of class Derived ? Something along the lines of (I know this is invalid C#): get { return (int[]) { 1, 2, 3, 4 }; }

    Read the article

  • Inheritance - initialization problem

    - by dumbquestion
    I have a c++ class derived from a base class in a framework. The derived class doesn't have any data members because I need it to be freely convertible into a base class and back - the framework is responsible for loading and saving the objects and I can't change it. My derived class just has functions for accessing the data. But there are a couple of places where I need to store some temporary local variables to speed up access to data in the base class. mydata* MyClass::getData() { if ( !m_mydata ) { // set to NULL in the constructor m_mydata = some_long_and complex_operation_to_get_the_data_in_the_base() } return m_mydata; } The problem is if I just access the object by casting the base class pointer returned from the framework to MyClass* the ctor for MyClass is never called and m_mydata is junk. Is there a way of only initializing the m_mydata pointer once?

    Read the article

  • Make sure base method gets called in C#

    - by Fnatte
    Can I somehow force a derived class to always call the overridden methods base? public class BaseClass { public virtual void Update() { if(condition) { throw new Exception("..."); // Prevent derived method to be called } } } And then in a derived class : public override void Update() { base.Update(); // Forced call // Do any work } I've searched and found a suggestion to use a non-virtual Update() but also a protected virtual UpdateEx(). It just doesn't feel very neat, isn't there any better way? I hope you get the question and I am sorry for any bad English.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20  | Next Page >