Search Results

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

Page 15/187 | < Previous Page | 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22  | Next Page >

  • Constructor issue

    - by laura
    This is the code that I worked on and I don't understand what it's happening on constructor Package obj2(); On output are displayed only the values 4 (Package obj1(4)) and 2 (Package obj3(2)) #include <iostream> using namespace std; class Package { private: int value; public: Package() { cout<<"constructor #1"<<endl; value = 7; cout << value << endl; } Package(int v) { cout<<"constructor #2"<<endl; value = v; cout << value << endl; } ~Package() { cout<<"destructor"<<endl; cout << value << endl; } }; int main() { Package obj1(4); Package obj2(); Package obj3(2); }

    Read the article

  • Explicit Type Conversion and Multiple Simple Type Specifiers

    - by James McNellis
    To value initialize an object of type T, one would do something along the lines of one of the following: T x = T(); T x((T())); My question concerns types specified by a combination of simple type specifiers, e.g., unsigned int: unsigned int x = unsigned int(); unsigned int x((unsigned int())); Visual C++ 2008 and Intel C++ Compiler 11.1 accept both of these without warnings; Comeau 4.3.10.1b2 and g++ 3.4.5 (which is, admittedly, not particularly recent) do not. According to the C++ standard (C++03 5.2.3/2, expr.type.conv): The expression T(), where T is a simple-type-specifier (7.1.5.2) for a non-array complete object type or the (possibly cv-qualified) void type, creates an rvalue of the specified type, which is value-initialized 7.1.5.2 says, "the simple type specifiers are," and follows with a list that includes unsigned and int. Therefore, given that in 5.2.3/2, "simple-type-specifier" is singular, and unsigned and int are two type specifiers, are the examples above that use unsigned int invalid? (and, if so, the followup is, is it incorrect for Microsoft and Intel to support said expressions?) This question is more out of curiosity than anything else; for all of the types specified by a combination of multiple simple type specifiers, value initialization is equivalent to zero initialization. (This question was prompted by comments in response to this answer to a question about initialization).

    Read the article

  • Can I avoid explicit 'self'?

    - by bguiz
    I am fairly new to Python and trying to pick it up, so please forgive if this question has a very obvious answer! I have been learning Python by following some pygame tutorials. Therein I found extensive use of the keyword self, and coming from a primarily Java background, I find that I keep forgetting to type self. For example, instead of self.rect.centerx I would type rect.centerx, because, to me, rect is already a member variable of the class. The Java parallel I can think of for this situation is having to prefix all references to member variables with this. Am I stuck prefixing all member variables with self, or is there a way to declare them that would allow me to avoid having to do so? Even if what I am suggesting isn't "pythonic", I'd still like to know if it is possible. I have taken a look at these related SO questions, but they don't quite answer what I am after: Python - why use “self” in a class? Why do you need explicitly have the “self” argument into a Python method?

    Read the article

  • Why do properties require explicit typing during compilation?

    - by ctpenrose
    Compilation using property syntax requires the type of the receiver to be known at compile time. I may not understand something, but this seems like a broken or incomplete compiler implementation considering that Objective-C is a dynamic language. The property "comment" is defined with: @property (nonatomic, retain) NSString *comment; and synthesized with: @synthesize comment; "document" is an instance of one of several classes which conform to: @protocol DocumentComment <NSObject> @property (nonatomic, retain) NSString *comment; @end and is simply declared as: id document; When using the following property syntax: stringObject = document.comment; the following error is generated by gcc: error: request for member 'comment' in something not a structure or union However, the following equivalent receiver-method syntax, compiles without warning or error and works fine, as expected, at run-time: stringObject = [document comment]; I don't understand why properties require the type of the receiver to be known at compile time. Is there something I am missing? I simply use the latter syntax to avoid the error in situations where the receiving object has a dynamic type. Properties seem half-baked.

    Read the article

  • Fluent NHibernate - Cascade delete a child object when no explicit parent->child relationship exists

    - by John Price
    I've got an application that keeps track of (for the sake of an example) what drinks are available at a given restaurant. My domain model looks like: class Restaurant { public IEnumerable<RestaurantDrink> GetRestaurantDrinks() { ... } //other various properties } class RestaurantDrink { public Restaurant Restaurant { get; set; } public Drink { get; set; } public string DrinkVariety { get; set; } //"fountain drink", "bottled", etc. //other various properties } class Drink { public string Name { get; set; } public string Manufacturer { get; set; } //other various properties } My db schema is (I hope) about what you'd expect; "RestaurantDrinks" is essentially a mapping table between Restaurants and Drinks with some extra properties (like "DrinkVariety" tacked on). Using Fluent NHibernate to set up mappings, I've set up a "HasMany" relationship from Restaurants to RestaurantDrinks that causes the latter to be deleted when its parent Restaurant is deleted. My question is, given that "Drink" does not have any property on it that explicitly references RestaurantDrinks (the relationship only exists in the underlying database), can I set up a mapping that will cause RestaurantDrinks to be deleted if their associated Drink is deleted? Update: I've been trying to set up the mapping from the "RestaurantDrink" end of things using References(x => x.Drink) .Column("DrinkId") .Cascade.All(); But this doesn't seem to work (I still get an FK violation when deleting a Drink).

    Read the article

  • Any HTTP proxies with explicit, configurable support for request/response buffering and delayed conn

    - by Carlos Carrasco
    When dealing with mobile clients it is very common to have multisecond delays during the transmission of HTTP requests. If you are serving pages or services out of a prefork Apache the child processes will be tied up for seconds serving a single mobile client, even if your app server logic is done in 5ms. I am looking for a HTTP server, balancer or proxy server that supports the following: A request arrives to the proxy. The proxy starts buffering in RAM or in disk the request, including headers and POST/PUT bodies. The proxy DOES NOT open a connection to the backend server. This is probably the most important part. The proxy server stops buffering the request when: A size limit has been reached (say, 4KB), or The request has been received completely, headers and body Only now, with (part of) the request in memory, a connection is opened to the backend and the request is relayed. The backend sends back the response. Again the proxy server starts buffering it immediately (up to a more generous size, say 64KB.) Since the proxy has a big enough buffer the backend response is stored completely in the proxy server in a matter of miliseconds, and the backend process/thread is free to process more requests. The backend connection is immediately closed. The proxy sends back the response to the mobile client, as fast or as slow as it is capable of, without having a connection to the backend tying up resources. I am fairly sure you can do 4-6 with Squid, and nginx appears to support 1-3 (and looks like fairly unique in this respect). My question is: is there any proxy server that empathizes these buffering and not-opening-connections-until-ready capabilities? Maybe there is just a bit of Apache config-fu that makes this buffering behaviour trivial? Any of them that it is not a dinosaur like Squid and that supports a lean single-process, asynchronous, event-based execution model? (Siderant: I would be using nginx but it doesn't support chunked POST bodies, making it useless for serving stuff to mobile clients. Yes cheap 50$ handsets love chunked POSTs... sigh)

    Read the article

  • explicit template instantiations

    - by user323422
    see following code and please clear doubts1. as ABC is template why it not showing error when we put defination of ABC class member function in test.cpp 2.if i put test.cpp code in test.h and remve 2 , then it working fine. // test.h template <typename T> class ABC { public: void foo( T& ); void bar( T& ); }; // test.cpp template <typename T> void ABC<T>::foo( T& ) {} // definition template <typename T> void ABC<T>::bar( T& ) {} // definition template void ABC<char>::foo( char & ); // 1 template class ABC<char>; // 2 // main.cpp #include "test.h" int main() { ABC<char> a; a.foo(); // valid with 1 or 2 a.bar(); // link error if only 1, valid with 2 }

    Read the article

  • explicit copy constructor or implicit parameter by value

    - by R Samuel Klatchko
    I recently read (and unfortunately forgot where), that the best way to write operator= is like this: foo &operator=(foo other) { swap(*this, other); return *this; } instead of this: foo &operator=(const foo &other) { foo copy(other); swap(*this, copy); return *this; } The idea is that if operator= is called with an rvalue, the first version can optimize away construction of a copy. So when called with a rvalue, the first version is faster and when called with an lvalue the two are equivalent. I'm curious as to what other people think about this? Would people avoid the first version because of lack of explicitness? Am I correct that the first version can be better and can never be worse?

    Read the article

  • Attaining Explicit and Predictable Ruby on Rails...

    - by Winston
    I need help, how can I learn this framework? Here's what I need to know. Routes, it's expected outcome, the prefix/suffix methods associated with every changes made with it. ActiveRecord, the dynamic generation of methods, the behind the scenes with prefix_ and _suffix methods. The View, how do I know what prefix/suffix methods can be used in the View. Is there's a way to know all those behind-the-scenes actions in console.

    Read the article

  • Explicit disable MySQL query cache in some parts of program

    - by jack
    In a Django project, some cronjob programs are mainly used for administrative or analysis purposes, e.g. generating site usage stats, rotating user activities log, etc. We probably do not hope MySQL to cache queries in those programs to save memory usage and improve query cache efficiency. Is it possible to turn off MySQL query cache explicitly in those programs while keep it enabled for other parts including all views.py?

    Read the article

  • Get the signed/unsigned variant of an integer template parameter without explicit traits

    - by Blair Holloway
    I am looking to define a template class whose template parameter will always be an integer type. The class will contain two members, one of type T, and the other as the unsigned variant of type T -- i.e. if T == int, then T_Unsigned == unsigned int. My first instinct was to do this: template <typename T> class Range { typedef unsigned T T_Unsigned; // does not compile public: Range(T min, T_Unsigned range); private: T m_min; T_Unsigned m_range; }; But it doesn't work. I then thought about using partial template specialization, like so: template <typename T> struct UnsignedType {}; // deliberately empty template <> struct UnsignedType<int> { typedef unsigned int Type; }; template <typename T> class Range { typedef UnsignedType<T>::Type T_Unsigned; /* ... */ }; This works, so long as you partially specialize UnsignedType for every integer type. It's a little bit of additional copy-paste work (slash judicious use of macros), but serviceable. However, I'm now curious - is there another way of determining the signed-ness of an integer type, and/or using the unsigned variant of a type, without having to manually define a Traits class per-type? Or is this the only way to do it?

    Read the article

  • Spring MVC 3.0: Avoiding explicit JAXBElement<> wrapper in method arg

    - by Keith Myers
    I have the following method and want to avoid having to explicitly show the JAXBElement< syntax. Is there some sort of annotation that would allow the method to appear to accept raw MessageResponse objects but in actuality work the same as shown below? I'm not sure how clear that was so I'll say this: I'm looking for some syntactic sugar :) @ServiceActivator public void handleMessageResponse(JAXBElement<MessageResponse> jaxbResponse) { MessageResponse response = jaxbResponse.getValue(); MessageStatus status = messageStatusDao.getByStoreIdAndMessageId(response.getStoreId(), response.getMessageId()); status.setStatusTimestamp(response.getDate()); status.setStatus("Complete"); }

    Read the article

  • How do I use constructor dependency injection to supply Models from a collection to their ViewModels

    - by GraemeF
    I'm using constructor dependency injection in my WPF application and I keep running into the following pattern, so would like to get other people's opinion on it and hear about alternative solutions. The goal is to wire up a hierarchy of ViewModels to a similar hierarchy of Models, so that the responsibility for presenting the information in each model lies with its own ViewModel implementation. (The pattern also crops up under other circumstances but MVVM should make for a good example.) Here's a simplified example. Given that I have a model that has a collection of further models: public interface IPerson { IEnumerable<IAddress> Addresses { get; } } public interface IAddress { } I would like to mirror this hierarchy in the ViewModels so that I can bind a ListBox (or whatever) to a collection in the Person ViewModel: public interface IPersonViewModel { ObservableCollection<IAddressViewModel> Addresses { get; } void Initialize(); } public interface IAddressViewModel { } The child ViewModel needs to present the information from the child Model, so it's injected via the constructor: public class AddressViewModel : IAddressViewModel { private readonly IAddress _address; public AddressViewModel(IAddress address) { _address = address; } } The question is, what is the best way to supply the child Model to the corresponding child ViewModel? The example is trivial, but in a typical real case the ViewModels have more dependencies - each of which has its own dependencies (and so on). I'm using Unity 1.2 (although I think the question is relevant across the other IoC containers), and I am using Caliburn's view strategies to automatically find and wire up the appropriate View to a ViewModel. Here is my current solution: The parent ViewModel needs to create a child ViewModel for each child Model, so it has a factory method added to its constructor which it uses during initialization: public class PersonViewModel : IPersonViewModel { private readonly Func<IAddress, IAddressViewModel> _addressViewModelFactory; private readonly IPerson _person; public PersonViewModel(IPerson person, Func<IAddress, IAddressViewModel> addressViewModelFactory) { _addressViewModelFactory = addressViewModelFactory; _person = person; Addresses = new ObservableCollection<IAddressViewModel>(); } public ObservableCollection<IAddressViewModel> Addresses { get; private set; } public void Initialize() { foreach (IAddress address in _person.Addresses) Addresses.Add(_addressViewModelFactory(address)); } } A factory method that satisfies the Func<IAddress, IAddressViewModel> interface is registered with the main UnityContainer. The factory method uses a child container to register the IAddress dependency that is required by the ViewModel and then resolves the child ViewModel: public class Factory { private readonly IUnityContainer _container; public Factory(IUnityContainer container) { _container = container; } public void RegisterStuff() { _container.RegisterInstance<Func<IAddress, IAddressViewModel>>(CreateAddressViewModel); } private IAddressViewModel CreateAddressViewModel(IAddress model) { IUnityContainer childContainer = _container.CreateChildContainer(); childContainer.RegisterInstance(model); return childContainer.Resolve<IAddressViewModel>(); } } Now, when the PersonViewModel is initialized, it loops through each Address in the Model and calls CreateAddressViewModel() (which was injected via the Func<IAddress, IAddressViewModel> argument). CreateAddressViewModel() creates a temporary child container and registers the IAddress model so that when it resolves the IAddressViewModel from the child container the AddressViewModel gets the correct instance injected via its constructor. This seems to be a good solution to me as the dependencies of the ViewModels are very clear and they are easily testable and unaware of the IoC container. On the other hand, performance is OK but not great as a lot of temporary child containers can be created. Also I end up with a lot of very similar factory methods. Is this the best way to inject the child Models into the child ViewModels with Unity? Is there a better (or faster) way to do it in other IoC containers, e.g. Autofac? How would this problem be tackled with MEF, given that it is not a traditional IoC container but is still used to compose objects?

    Read the article

  • Django Multi-Table Inheritance VS Specifying Explicit OneToOne Relationship in Models

    - by chefsmart
    Hope all this makes sense :) I'll clarify via comments if necessary. Also, I am experimenting using bold text in this question, and will edit it out if I (or you) find it distracting. With that out of the way... Using django.contrib.auth gives us User and Group, among other useful things that I can't do without (like basic messaging). In my app I have several different types of users. A user can be of only one type. That would easily be handled by groups, with a little extra care. However, these different users are related to each other in hierarchies / relationships. Let's take a look at these users: - Principals - "top level" users Administrators - each administrator reports to a Principal Coordinators - each coordinator reports to an Administrator Apart from these there are other user types that are not directly related, but may get related later on. For example, "Company" is another type of user, and can have various "Products", and products may be supervised by a "Coordinator". "Buyer" is another kind of user that may buy products. Now all these users have various other attributes, some of which are common to all types of users and some of which are distinct only to one user type. For example, all types of users have to have an address. On the other hand, only the Principal user belongs to a "BranchOffice". Another point, which was stated above, is that a User can only ever be of one type. The app also needs to keep track of who created and/or modified Principals, Administrators, Coordinators, Companies, Products etc. (So that's two more links to the User model.) In this scenario, is it a good idea to use Django's multi-table inheritance as follows: - from django.contrib.auth.models import User class Principal(User): # # # branchoffice = models.ForeignKey(BranchOffice) landline = models.CharField(blank=True, max_length=20) mobile = models.CharField(blank=True, max_length=20) created_by = models.ForeignKey(User, editable=False, blank=True, related_name="principalcreator") modified_by = models.ForeignKey(User, editable=False, blank=True, related_name="principalmodifier") # # # Or should I go about doing it like this: - class Principal(models.Model): # # # user = models.OneToOneField(User, blank=True) branchoffice = models.ForeignKey(BranchOffice) landline = models.CharField(blank=True, max_length=20) mobile = models.CharField(blank=True, max_length=20) created_by = models.ForeignKey(User, editable=False, blank=True, related_name="principalcreator") modified_by = models.ForeignKey(User, editable=False, blank=True, related_name="principalmodifier") # # # Please keep in mind that there are other user types that are related via foreign keys, for example: - class Administrator(models.Model): # # # principal = models.ForeignKey(Principal, help_text="The supervising principal for this Administrator") user = models.OneToOneField(User, blank=True) province = models.ForeignKey( Province) landline = models.CharField(blank=True, max_length=20) mobile = models.CharField(blank=True, max_length=20) created_by = models.ForeignKey(User, editable=False, blank=True, related_name="administratorcreator") modified_by = models.ForeignKey(User, editable=False, blank=True, related_name="administratormodifier") I am aware that Django does use a one-to-one relationship for multi-table inheritance behind the scenes. I am just not qualified enough to decide which is a more sound approach.

    Read the article

  • gcc problem with explicit template instantiation?

    - by steve jaffe
    It is my understanding that either a declaration or typedef of a specialization ought to cause a template class to be instantiated, but this does not appear to be happening with gcc. E.g. I have a template class, template class Foo {}; I write class Foo<double>; or typedef Foo<double> DoubleFoo; but after compilation the symbol table of the resulting object file does not contain the members of Foo. If I create an instance: Foo<double> aFoo; then of course the symbols are all generated. Has anyone else experienced this and/or have an explanation?

    Read the article

  • Visual Studio 2008 Explicit Reference Error

    - by Alan
    I have a project which references a dll in the same solution (called "Common"). Common has two types of errors with the same names but different namespaces i.e. Common.Login.UserDeleted Common.Imaging.UserDeleted When I type UserDeleted visual studio recognizes both of these and asks for which it is ("ambiguous reference"). I right-click UserDeleted and select one of the two above, yet it then says that the type or reference doesn't exist! It doesn't make any sense. Why is this happening? I can't compile my program until I find a solution to this, thanks

    Read the article

  • Fluent NHibernate - Delete a related object when no explicit relationship exists in the model

    - by John Price
    I've got an application that keeps track of (for the sake of an example) what drinks are available at a given restaurant. My domain model looks like: class Restaurant { public IEnumerable<RestaurantDrink> GetRestaurantDrinks() { ... } //other various properties } class RestaurantDrink { public Restaurant Restaurant { get; set; } public Drink { get; set; } public string DrinkVariety { get; set; } //"fountain drink", "bottled", etc. //other various properties } class Drink { public string Name { get; set; } public string Manufacturer { get; set; } //other various properties } My db schema is (I hope) about what you'd expect; "RestaurantDrinks" is essentially a mapping table between Restaurants and Drinks with some extra properties (like "DrinkVariety" tacked on). Using Fluent NHibernate to set up mappings, I've set up a "HasMany" relationship from Restaurants to RestaurantDrinks that causes the latter to be deleted when its parent Restaurant is deleted. My question is, given that "Drink" does not have any property on it that explicitly references RestaurantDrinks (the relationship only exists in the underlying database), can I set up a mapping that will cause RestaurantDrinks to be deleted if their associated Drink is deleted?

    Read the article

  • Wanna use StructureMap to store HttpContext/User based explicit instances

    - by René
    Hi I'm having difficulty figuring out how to store an explicitly user generated instance in StructureMap, cached by HttpContext. When I try the code underneath, I even get the first cached instance, which leads to failures when using it for storing user credentials in Asp.Net AuthenticateRequest method. ForRequestedType<TInterface>() .CacheBy(InstanceScope.HttpContext) .TheDefault. Is. Object(instance)); The problem is I can't create a new instance on requesting StructureMap, because I need more other factories for getting rights etc. for the current user. Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • Explicit initialization of struct/class members

    - by Zephon
    struct some_struct{ int a; }; some_struct n = {}; n.a will be 0 after this; I know this braces form of initialization is inherited from C and is supported for compatibility with C programs, but this only compiles with C++, not with the C compiler. I'm using Visual C++ 2005. In C this type of initialization struct some_struct n = {0}; is correct and will zero-initialize all members of a structure. Is the empty pair of braces form of initialization standard? I first saw this form of initialization in a WinAPI tutorial from msdn.

    Read the article

  • reorder XML elements or set an explicit template with XSLT

    - by Sash
    I tried the solution in my previous question (flattening XML to load via SSIS package), however this isn't working. I now know what I need to do, however I need some guidance on how to do it. So say I have the following XML structure: <person id="1"> <name>John</name> <surname>Smith</surname> <age>25</age> <comment> <comment_id>1</comment_id> <comment_text>Hello</comment_text> </comment> <comment> <comment_id>2</comment_id> <comment_text>Hello again!</comment_text> </comment> <somethingelse> <id>1</id> </somethingelse> <comment> <comment_id>3</comment_id> <comment_text>Third Item</comment_text> </comment> </person> <person id="2"> <name>John</name> <surname>Smith</surname> <age>25</age> <somethingelse> <id>1</id> </somethingelse> </person> ... ... If I am to load this into a SSIS package, as an XML source, what I will essentially get is a table created for each element, as opposed to get a structured table output such as person table (name, surname, age) somethingelse table (id) comment table (comment_id, comment_text) What I end up getting is: person table (person_Id <-- internal SSIS id) name table surname table age table person_name table person_surname table person_comment_comment_id table etc... What I found was that if each element and all inner elements are not in the same format and consistency, i will get the above anomaly which makes it rather complex especially if I am dealing with 80 - 100+ columns. Unfortunately I have no way of modifying the system (Lotus Notes) that produces these reports, so I was wondering whether I may be able to explicitly have an XSLT template that will be able to align each person sub elements (and the sub collection elements such as comments ? Unless there is a quicker way to realign all inner elements. Seems that SSIS XML source requires a very consistent XML file in the sense of: if the name element is in position 1, then all subsequent name elements within person parent have to be in position 1. SSIS seems to pickup the inconsistencies if there are certain elements missing from one parent to another, however, if their ordering is not right (A, B, C)(A, B, C)(A,C,B), it will chuck a massive fuss! All help is appreciated! Thank you in advance.

    Read the article

  • Explicit call of Runnable.run

    - by klaudio
    Hi, I have a question. Somebody, who was working on my code before me, created some method and passed Runnable as parameter, more likely: void myMethod(Runnable runnable){ runnable.run(); } Then calling myMethod out of main looks like: public static void main(String args[]) { try { myMethod(new Runnable(){ public void run() { //do something...; }}); } catch (Throwable t) { } } So, to supply parameter to myMethod I need to instantiate object of (in this case anonymous) class implementing Runnable. My question is: is it necessary to use Runnable in this example? Can I use any different interface? I mean I can create new interface with single method i.e. interface MyInterface{ void doThis(); } then change look of myMethod: void myMethod(MyInterface myObject){ myObject.doThis(); } And of course client too: public static void main(String args[]) { try { myMethod(new MyInterface (){ public void doThis() { //do something...; }}); } catch (Throwable t) { } } Or maybe something is about Runnable?!

    Read the article

  • Explicit or implicit execution control statement use

    - by Andrei Rinea
    I sometimes use if (this._currentToolForeColor.HasValue) return this._currentToolForeColor.Value; else throw new InvalidOperationException(); other times I use if (this._currentToolForeColor.HasValue) return this._currentToolForeColor.Value; throw new InvalidOperationException(); The two are equivalent, I know, but I am not sure which is the best and why. This goes even further as you can use other execution-control statements such as brake or continue : while(something) { if(condition) { DoThis(); continue; } else break; } versus while(something) { if(condition) { DoThis(); continue; } break; } EDIT 1 : Yes the loop example(s) suck because they are synthetic (i.e.: made up for this question) unlike the first which is practical.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22  | Next Page >