Search Results

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

Page 16/187 | < Previous Page | 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23  | Next Page >

  • SVN Subversion use explicit cached credentials

    - by Nick
    I am trying to run a SVN command in a script, but the script is launched as a system service that has cached svn username/password credentials. I could always just put the username/password arguments in the command: svn info --username bob --password pass but I'd rather not have my username/password just sitting in a text file. I've discovered that my cached credentails (when run svn normally) end up here: C:\Documents and Settings\bob\Application Data\Subversion\auth\svn.simple\6ef188c2163f1ccc860a690b7ad21a15 Is there any way I could copy this cached credential file to where my script exists and just call that file explicitly?

    Read the article

  • scala implicit or explicit conversion from iterator to iterable

    - by landon9720
    Does Scala provide a built-in class, utility, syntax, or other mechanism for converting (by wrapping) an Iterator with an Iterable? For example, I have an Iterator[Foo] and I need an Iterable[Foo], so currently I am: val foo1: Iterator[Foo] = .... val foo2: Iterable[Foo] = new Iterable[Foo] { def elements = foo1 } This seems ugly and unnecessary. What's a better way?

    Read the article

  • Defining implicit and explicit casts for C# interfaces

    - by ehdv
    Is there a way to write interface-based code (i.e. using interfaces rather than classes as the types accepted and passed around) in C# without giving up the use of things like implicit casts? Here's some sample code - there's been a lot removed, but these are the relevant portions. public class Game { public class VariantInfo { public string Language { get; set; } public string Variant { get; set; } } } And in ScrDictionary.cs, we have... public class ScrDictionary: IScrDictionary { public string Language { get; set; } public string Variant { get; set; } public static implicit operator Game.VariantInfo(ScrDictionary s) { return new Game.VariantInfo{Language=sd.Language, Variant=sd.Variant}; } } And the interface... public interface IScrDictionary { string Language { get; set; } string Variant { get; set; } } I want to be able to use IScrDictionary instead of ScrDictionary, but still be able to implicitly convert a ScrDictionary to a Game.VariantInfo. Also, while there may be an easy way to make this work by giving IScrDictionary a property of type Game.VariantInfo my question is more generally: Is there a way to define casts or operator overloading on interfaces? (If not, what is the proper C# way to maintain this functionality without giving up interface-oriented design?)

    Read the article

  • Delegates with explicit "this" pointer?

    - by Qwertie
    Is it possible to adapt a method like this function "F" class C { public void F(int i); } to a delegate like Action<C,int>? I have this vague recollection that Microsoft was working on supporting this kind of adaptation. But maybe I misremembered!

    Read the article

  • Ninject WithConstructorArgument : No matching bindings are available, and the type is not self-bindable

    - by Jean-François Beauchamp
    My understanding of WithConstructorArgument is probably erroneous, because the following is not working: I have a service, lets call it MyService, whose constructor is taking multiple objects, and a string parameter called testEmail. For this string parameter, I added the following Ninject binding: string testEmail = "[email protected]"; kernel.Bind<IMyService>().To<MyService>().WithConstructorArgument("testEmail", testEmail); However, when executing the following line of code, I get an exception: var myService = kernel.Get<MyService>(); Here is the exception I get: Error activating string No matching bindings are available, and the type is not self-bindable. Activation path: 2) Injection of dependency string into parameter testEmail of constructor of type MyService 1) Request for MyService Suggestions: 1) Ensure that you have defined a binding for string. 2) If the binding was defined in a module, ensure that the module has been loaded into the kernel. 3) Ensure you have not accidentally created more than one kernel. 4) If you are using constructor arguments, ensure that the parameter name matches the constructors parameter name. 5) If you are using automatic module loading, ensure the search path and filters are correct. What am I doing wrong here? UPDATE: Here is the MyService constructor: [Ninject.Inject] public MyService(IMyRepository myRepository, IMyEventService myEventService, IUnitOfWork unitOfWork, ILoggingService log, IEmailService emailService, IConfigurationManager config, HttpContextBase httpContext, string testEmail) { this.myRepository = myRepository; this.myEventService = myEventService; this.unitOfWork = unitOfWork; this.log = log; this.emailService = emailService; this.config = config; this.httpContext = httpContext; this.testEmail = testEmail; } I have standard bindings for all the constructor parameter types. Only 'string' has no binding, and HttpContextBase has a binding that is a bit different: kernel.Bind<HttpContextBase>().ToMethod(context => new HttpContextWrapper(new HttpContext(new MyHttpRequest("", "", "", null, new StringWriter())))); and MyHttpRequest is defined as follows: public class MyHttpRequest : SimpleWorkerRequest { public string UserHostAddress; public string RawUrl; public MyHttpRequest(string appVirtualDir, string appPhysicalDir, string page, string query, TextWriter output) : base(appVirtualDir, appPhysicalDir, page, query, output) { this.UserHostAddress = "127.0.0.1"; this.RawUrl = null; } }

    Read the article

  • What are good reasons to use explicit interface implementation for the sole purpose of hiding members?

    - by Nathanus
    During one of my studies into the intricacies of C#, I came across an interesting passage concerning explicit interface implementation. While this syntax is quite helpful when you need to resolve name clashes, you can use explicit interface implementation simply to hide more "advanced" members from the object level. The difference between allowing the use of object.method() or requiring the casting of ((Interface)object).method() seems like mean-spirited obfuscation to my inexperienced eyes. The text noted that this will hide the method from Intellisense at the object level, but why would you want to do that if it was not necessary to avoid name conflicts?

    Read the article

  • Best Practice With JFrame Constructors?

    - by David Barry
    In both my Java classes, and the books we used in them laying out a GUI with code heavily involved the constructor of the JFrame. The standard technique in the books seems to be to initialize all components and add them to the JFrame in the constructor, and add anonymous event handlers to handle events where needed, and this is what has been advocated in my class. This seems to be pretty easy to understand, and easy to work with when creating a very simple GUI, but seems to quickly get ugly and cumbersome when making anything other than a very simple gui. Here is a small code sample of what I'm describing: public class FooFrame extends JFrame { JLabel inputLabel; JTextField inputField; JButton fooBtn; JPanel fooPanel; public FooFrame() { super("Foo"); fooPanel = new JPanel(); fooPanel.setLayout(new FlowLayout()); inputLabel = new JLabel("Input stuff"); fooPanel.add(inputLabel); inputField = new JTextField(20); fooPanel.add(inputField); fooBtn = new JButton("Do Foo"); fooBtn.addActionListener(new ActionListener() { public void actionPerformed(ActionEvent e) { //handle event } }); fooPanel.add(fooBtn); add(fooPanel, BorderLayout.CENTER); } } Is this type of use of the constructor the best way to code a Swing application in java? If so, what techniques can I use to make sure this type of constructor is organized and maintainable? If not, what is the recommended way to approach putting together a JFrame in java?

    Read the article

  • C++ privately contructed class

    - by Nona Urbiz
    How can I call a function and keep my constructor private? If I make the class static, I need to declare an object name which the compiler uses to call the constructor, which it cannot if the constructor is private (also the object would be extraneous). Here is the code I am attempting to use (it is not compilable): I want to keep the constructor private because I will later be doing a lot of checks before adding an object, modifying previous objects when all submitted variables are not unique rather than creating new objects. #include <iostream> #include <fstream> #include <regex> #include <string> #include <list> #include <map> using namespace std; using namespace tr1; class Referral { public: string url; map<string, int> keywords; static bool submit(string url, string keyword, int occurrences) { //if(Referrals.all.size == 0){ // Referral(url, keyword, occurrences); //} } private: list<string> urls; Referral(string url, string keyword, int occurrences) { url = url; keywords[keyword] = occurrences; Referrals.all.push_back(this); } }; struct All { list<Referral> all; }Referrals; int main() { Referral.submit("url", "keyword", 1); }

    Read the article

  • How to get the parameter names of an object's constructors (reflection)?

    - by Tom
    Say I somehow got an object reference from an other class: Object myObj = anObject; Now I can get the class of this object: Class objClass = myObj.getClass(); Now, I can get all constructors of this class: Constructor[] constructors = objClass.getConstructors(); Now, I can loop every constructor: if (constructors.length > 0) { for (int i = 0; i < constructors.length; i++) { System.out.println(constructors[i]); } } This is already giving me a good summary of the constructor, for example a constructor public Test(String paramName) is shown as public Test(java.lang.String) Instead of giving me the class type however, I want to get the name of the parameter.. in this case "paramName". How would I do that? I tried the following without success: if (constructors.length > 0) { for (int iCon = 0; iCon < constructors.length; iCon++) { Class[] params = constructors[iCon].getParameterTypes(); if (params.length > 0) { for (int iPar = 0; iPar < params.length; iPar++) { Field fields[] = params[iPar].getDeclaredFields(); for (int iFields = 0; iFields < fields.length; iFields++) { String fieldName = fields[i].getName(); System.out.println(fieldName); } } } } } Unfortunately, this is not giving me the expected result. Could anyone tell me how I should do this or what I am doing wrong? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • C++ Why is the converter constructor implicitly called?

    - by ShaChris23
    Why is the Child class's converter constructor called in the code below? I mean, it automatically converts Base to Child via the Child converter constructor. The code below compiles, but shouldn't it not compile since I haven't provided bool Child::operator!=(Base const&)? class Base { }; class Child : public Base { public: Child() {} Child(Base const& base_) : Base(base_) { std::cout <<"should never called!"; } bool operator!=(Child const&) { return true; } }; void main() { Base base; Child child; if(child != base) std::cout << "not equal"; else std::cout << "equal"; }

    Read the article

  • Serialize WPF component using XamlWriter without default constructor

    - by mizipzor
    Ive found out that you can serialize a wpf component, in my example a FixedDocument, using the XamlWriter and a MemoryStream: FixedDocument doc = GetDocument(); MemoryStream stream = new MemoryStream(); XamlWriter.Save(doc, stream); And then to get it back: stream.Seek(0, SeekOrigin.Begin); FixedDocument result = (FixedDocument)XamlReader.Load(stream); return result; However, now I need to be able to serialize a DocumentPage as well. Which lacks a default constructor which makes the XamlReader.Load call throw an exception. Is there a way to serialize a wpf component without a default constructor?

    Read the article

  • Why doesn't Visual Studio show an exception message when my exception occurs in a static constructor

    - by Tim Goodman
    I'm running this C# code in Visual Studio in debug mode: public class MyHandlerFactory : IHttpHandlerFactory { private static Dictionary<string, bool> myDictionary = new Dictionary<string, bool>(); static MyHandlerFactory() { myDictionary.Add("someKey",true); myDictionary.Add("someKey",true); // fails due to duplicate key } } Outside of the static constructor, when I get to the line with the error Visual Studio highlights it and pops up a message about the exception. But in the static constructor I get no such message. I am stepping through line-by-line, so I know that I'm getting to that line and no further. Why is this? (I have no idea if that fact that my class implements IHttpHandlerFactory matters, but I included it just in case.) This is VS2005, .Net 2.0

    Read the article

  • C# Constructor Question

    - by Vaccano
    I have a constructor question for C#. I have this class: public partial class Signature : Form, ISignature { private readonly SignatureMediator mediator; public Signature(SignatureMediator mediator) { this.mediator = mediator; InitializeComponent(); } .... more stuff } I want to construct this class like this: public SignatureMediator(int someValue, int otherValue, int thirdValue) : this(new Signature(this), someValue, otherValue, thirdValue) // This is not allowed --^ { // I don't see anyway to get this in to the ":this" part. //Signature signature = new Signature(this); } public SignatureMediator(ISignature form, int someValue, int otherValue, int thirdValue) { SigForm = form; SomeValue= someValue; OtherValue= otherValue; ThirdValue= thirdValue; } The : this( new SignatureThis(this) is not allowed (the this used in the constructor is not allowed). Is there anyway to set this up without duplicating the assignment of the int values?

    Read the article

  • Activator.CreateInstance(Type) for a type without parameterless constructor

    - by Seb
    Reading existing code at work, I wondered how come this could work. I have a class defined in an assembly : [Serializable] public class A { private readonly string _name; private A(string name) { _name = name; } } And in another assembly : public void f(Type t) { object o = Activator.CreateInstance(t); } and that simple call f(typeof(A)) I expected an exception about the lack of a parameterless constructor because AFAIK, if a ctor is declared, the compiler isn't supposed to generate the default public parameterless constructor. This code runs under .NET 2.0.

    Read the article

  • Class Type Expected error on TableAdapter constructor

    - by Chris Franz
    I am using Delphi Prism to connect to an Advantage Database Server. I created a connection using the server explorer to the database. I added a dataset object to my project and added a table to the dataset. Everything works fine in the IDE, however, I get an error in the generated designer code on the table adapter constructor. The error is: (PE26) Class type expected. Here is the generated code: { Presidents.PresidentsTableAdapters.USPRESIDENTSTableAdapter } constructor Presidents.PresidentsTableAdapters.USPRESIDENTSTableAdapter; begin self.ClearBeforeFill := true; end;

    Read the article

  • mockito mock a constructor with parameter

    - by Shengjie
    I have a class as below: public class A { public A(String test) { bla bla bla } public String check() { bla bla bla } } The logic in the constructor A(String test) and check() are the things I am trying to mock. I want any calls like: new A($$$any string$$$).check() returns a dummy string "test". I tried: A a = mock(A.class); when(a.check()).thenReturn("test"); String test = a.check(); // to this point, everything works. test shows as "tests" whenNew(A.class).withArguments(Matchers.anyString()).thenReturn(rk); // also tried: //whenNew(A.class).withParameterTypes(String.class).withArguments(Matchers.anyString()).thenReturn(rk); new A("random string").check(); // this doesn't work But it doesn't seem to be working. new A($$$any string$$$).check() is still going through the constructor logic instead of fetch the mocked object of A.

    Read the article

  • ASP.NET MVC - ASPX with non-default constructor

    - by bh213
    Is it possible for a ASPX view (in ASP.NET MVC) to have non-default constructor AND use this constructor when creating this view? Example - Page will inherit from this class: public class ViewPageWithHelper<TModel> : System.Web.Mvc.ViewPage<TModel> where TModel : class { public ViewPageWithHelper(Helpers helpers) { Helpers = helpers; } protected Helpers Helpers { get; private set; } } ASPX view: <%@ Page Language="C#" MasterPageFile="~/Views/Shared/Site.Master" Inherits="MyInjectedViewPage<MyModel>" %> <% Helpers.XXXX %> Now, I'd like to inject Helpers into view somehow - automatically. Ideas?

    Read the article

  • Constructor type not found

    - by WaffleTop
    Hello, What I am doing: I am taking the Microsoft Enterprise Library 4.1 and attempting to expand upon it using a few derived classes. I have created a MyLogEntry, MyFormatter, and MyTraceListener which derive from their respective base classes when you remove the "My" from their names. What my problem is: Everything compiles fine. When I go to run a test using Logger.Write(logEntry) it errors right after it initializes MyTraceListener with an error message: "The current build operation (... EnterpriseLibrary.Logging.LogWriter, null]) failed: Constructor on type 'MyLogging.MyFormatter' not found. (Strategy type ConfiguredObjectStrategy, index 2) I figured it was something to do with the constructor so I tried removing it, add it, and adding a call to the base class LogFormatter. Nothing has worked. Does anyone have insight into this problem? Is it maybe a reference issue? Bad App.config configuration? Thank you in advance

    Read the article

  • How to use this Color's constructor? Java

    - by MaxMackie
    According to Oracle's site, the class Color has a constructor that accepts a single int value which represents an RGB value. http://download.oracle.com/javase/1.4.2/docs/api/java/awt/Color.html#Color(int) An RGB color is actually three different numbers ranging from 0-255. So combining them together to make one int would look like this: White 255,255,255 White 255255255 Right? So I pass this to the constructor and get a vibrant teal color. What am I doing wrong? What haven't I understood?

    Read the article

  • Flash AS3: automate property assignment to new instance from arguments in constructor

    - by matt lohkamp
    I like finding out about tricky new ways to do things. Let's say you've got a class with a property that gets set to the value of an argument in the constructor, like so: package{ public class SomeClass{ private var someProperty:*; public function SomeClass(_someProperty:*):void{ someProperty = _someProperty; } } } That's not exactly a hassle. But imagine you've got... I don't know, five properties. Ten properties, maybe. Rather then writing out each individual assignment, line by line, isn't there a way to loop through the constructor's arguments and set the value of each corresponding property on the new instance accordingly? I don't think that the ...rest or arguments objects will work, since they only keep an enumerated list of the arguments, not the argument names - I'm thinking something like this would be better: for(var propertyName:String in argsAsAssocArray){this[propertyName] = argsAsAssocArray[propertyName];} ... does something like this exist?

    Read the article

  • std::string constructor corrupts pointer

    - by computergeek6
    I have an Entity class, which contains 3 pointers: m_rigidBody, m_entity, and m_parent. Somewhere in Entity::setModel(std::string model), it's crashing. Apparently, this is caused by bad data in m_entity. The weird thing is that I nulled it in the constructor and haven't touched it since then. I debugged it and put a watchpoint on it, and it comes up that the m_entity member is being changed in the constructor for std::string that's being called while converting a const char* into an std::string for the setModel call. I'm running on a Mac, if that helps (I think I remember some problem with std::string on the Mac). Any ideas about what's going on?

    Read the article

  • C++ Why is the copy constructor implicitly called?

    - by ShaChris23
    Why is the Child class's copy constructor called in the code below? I mean, it automatically converts Base to Child via the Child copy constructor. The code below compiles, but shouldn't it not compile since I haven't provided bool Child::operator!=(Base const&)? class Base { }; class Child : public Base { public: Child() {} Child(Base const& base_) : Base(base_) { std::cout <<"should never called!"; } bool operator!=(Child const&) { return true; } }; void main() { Base base; Child child; if(child != base) std::cout << "not equal"; else std::cout << "equal"; }

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23  | Next Page >