Search Results

Search found 3956 results on 159 pages for 'constructor overloading'.

Page 14/159 | < Previous Page | 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21  | Next Page >

  • 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

  • Is this a good or bad way to use constructor chaining? (... to allow for testing).

    - by panamack
    My motivation for chaining my class constructors here is so that I have a default constructor for mainstream use by my application and a second that allows me to inject a mock and a stub. It just seems a bit ugly 'new'-ing things in the ":this(...)" call and counter-intuitive calling a parametrized constructor from a default constructor , I wondered what other people would do here? (FYI - SystemWrapper) using SystemWrapper; public class MyDirectoryWorker{ // SystemWrapper interface allows for stub of sealed .Net class. private IDirectoryInfoWrap dirInf; private FileSystemWatcher watcher; public MyDirectoryWorker() : this( new DirectoryInfoWrap(new DirectoryInfo(MyDirPath)), new FileSystemWatcher()) { } public MyDirectoryWorker(IDirectoryInfoWrap dirInf, FileSystemWatcher watcher) { this.dirInf = dirInf; if(!dirInf.Exists){ dirInf.Create(); } this.watcher = watcher; watcher.Path = dirInf.FullName; watcher.NotifyFilter = NotifyFilters.FileName; watcher.Created += new FileSystemEventHandler(watcher_Created); watcher.Deleted += new FileSystemEventHandler(watcher_Deleted); watcher.Renamed += new RenamedEventHandler(watcher_Renamed); watcher.EnableRaisingEvents = true; } public static string MyDirPath{get{return Settings.Default.MyDefaultDirPath;}} // etc... }

    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

  • How can I create a generic constructor? (ie. BaseClass.FromXml(<param>)

    - by SofaKng
    I'm not sure how to describe this but I'm trying to create a base class that contains a shared (factory) function called FromXml. I want this function to instantiate an object of the proper type and then fill it via an XmlDocument. For example, let's say I have something like this: Public Class XmlObject Public Shared Function FromXml(ByVal source as XmlDocument) As XmlObject // <need code to create SPECIFIC TYPE of object and return it End Function End Class Public Class CustomObject Inherits XmlObject End Class I'd like to be able to do something like this: Dim myObject As CustomObject = CustomObject.FromXml(source) Is this possible?

    Read the article

  • How to use a object whose copy constructor and copy assignment is private?

    - by coanor
    In reading TCPL, I got a problem, as the title refered, and then 'private' class is: class Unique_handle { private: Unique_handle& operator=(const Unique_handle &rhs); Unique_handle(const Unique_handle &rhs); public: //... }; the using code is: struct Y { //... Unique_handle obj; }; and I want to execute such operations: int main() { Y y1; Y y2 = y1; } although, these code are come from TCPL, but I still can not got the solution... Can anybody help me, appreciate.

    Read the article

  • Definition of variables/fields type within a constructor, how is it done?

    - by elementz
    I just had a look at Suns Java tutorial, and found something that totally confused me: Given the following example: public Bicycle(int startCadence, int startSpeed, int startGear) { gear = startGear; cadence = startCadence; speed = startSpeed; } Why is it, that the types of the variables (fields?) gear, cadence and speed do not need to be defined? I would have written it as follows: public Bicycle(int startCadence, int startSpeed, int startGear) { int gear = startGear; int cadence = startCadence; int speed = startSpeed; } What would be the actual differnce?

    Read the article

  • When exactly is constructor of static local object called?

    - by Honza Bambas
    Say we have a code like this: Some class { Some() { // the ctor code } }; Some& globalFunction() { static Some gSome; return gSome; } When exactly 'the ctor code' is executed? As for normal static variables before main() or at the moment we first call to 'globalFunction()'? How is it on different platforms and different compilers (cl, gcc, ...) ? Thanks -hb-

    Read the article

  • Using an interface as a constructor parameter in Java?

    - by aperson
    How would I be able to accomplish the following: public class testClass implements Interface { public testClass(Interface[] args) { } } So that I could declare Interface testObject = new testClass(new class1(4), new class2(5)); Where class1 and class2 are also classes that implement Interface. Also, once I accomplish this, how would I be able to refer to each individual parameter taken in to be used in testClass? Thanks :)

    Read the article

  • Copy Constructors and calling functions

    - by helixed
    Hello, I'm trying to call an accessor function in a copy constructor but it's not working. Here's an example of my problem: A.h class A { public: //Constructor A(int d); //Copy Constructor A(const A &rhs); //accessor for data int getData(); //mutator for data void setData(int d); private: int data; }; A.cpp #include "A.h" //Constructor A::A(int d) { this->setData(d); } //Copy Constructor A::A(const A &rhs) { this->setData(rhs.getData()); } //accessor for data int A::getData() { return data; } //mutator for data void A::setData(int d) { data = d; } When I try to compile this, I get the following error: error: passing 'const A' as 'this' argument of 'int A::getData()' discards qualifiers If I change rhs.getData() to rhs.data, then the constructor works fine. Am I not allowed to call functions in a copy constructor? Could somebody please tell me what I'm doing wrong? Thanks, helixed

    Read the article

  • Overriding or overloading?

    - by atch
    Guys I know this question is silly but just to make sure: Having in my class method: boolean equal(Document d) { //do something } I'm overloading this method nor overriding right? I know that this or similiar question will be on upcoming egzam and would be stupid to not get points for such a simple mistake;

    Read the article

  • Function overloading

    - by makcoozi
    I found this code , and i m not sure that whether overloading should happen or not. void print( int (*arr)[6], int size ); void print( int (*arr)[5], int size ); what happens if I pass pointer to an array of 4 elements , to it should come... any thread will be helpful.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21  | Next Page >