Search Results

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

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

Page 17/187 | < Previous Page | 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  | Next Page >

  • Static constructor can run after the non-static constructor. Is this a compiler bug?

    - by Joe H
    The output from the following program is: Non-Static Static Non-Static Is this a compiler bug? I expected: Static Non-Static Non-Static because I thought the static constructor was ALWAYS called before the non-static constructor. I tested this with Visual Studio 2010 using both .net 3.5 and .net 4.0. using System; using System.Collections.Generic; using System.Linq; using System.Text; namespace StaticConstructorBug { class Program { static void Main(string[] args) { var mc = new MyClass(); Console.ReadKey(); } } public class MyClass { public MyClass() { Console.WriteLine("Non-static"); } static MyClass() { Console.WriteLine("Static"); } public static MyClass aVar = new MyClass(); } }

    Read the article

  • C++ Scoping and ambiguity in constructor overloads

    - by loarabia
    I've tried the following code snippet in 3 different compilers (G++, clang++, CL.exe) and they all report to me that they cannot disambiguate the overloaded constructors. Now, I know how I could modify the call to the constructor to make it pick one or the other (either make explicit that the second argument is a unsigned literal value or explicitly cast it). However, I'm curious why the compiler would be attempting to choose between constructors in the first place given that one of the constructors is private and the call to the constructor is happening in the main function which should be outside the class's scope. Can anyone enlighten me? class Test { private: Test(unsigned int a, unsigned int *b) { } public: Test(unsigned int a, unsigned int b) { } }; int main() { Test t1 = Test(1,0); // compiler is confused }

    Read the article

  • Why do we need a private constructor?

    - by isthatacode
    if a class has a private constructor then it cant be instantiated. so, if i dont want my class to be instantiated and still use it, then i can make it static. what is the use of a private constructor ? Also its used in singleton class, except that, is there any othe use ? (Note : The reason i am excuding the singleton case above is because I dont understand why do we need a singleton at all ? when there is a static class availble. You may not answer for my this confusion in the question. )

    Read the article

  • this pointer to base class constructor?

    - by Rolle
    I want to implement a derived class that should also implement an interface, that have a function that the base class can call. The following gives a warning as it is not safe to pass a this pointer to the base class constructor: struct IInterface { void FuncToCall() = 0; }; struct Base { Base(IInterface* inter) { m_inter = inter; } void SomeFunc() { inter->FuncToCall(); } IInterface* m_inter; }; struct Derived : Base, IInterface { Derived() : Base(this) {} FuncToCall() {} }; What is the best way around this? I need to supply the interface as an argument to the base constructor, as it is not always the dervied class that is the interface; sometimes it may be a totally different class. I could add a function to the base class, SetInterface(IInterface* inter), but I would like to avoid that.

    Read the article

  • question about copy constructor

    - by lego69
    I have this class: class A { private: int player; public: A(int initPlayer = 0); A(const A&); A& operator=(const A&); ~A(); void foo() const; }; and I have function which contains this row: A *pa1 = new A(a2); can somebody please explain what exactly is going on, when I call A(a2) compiler calls copy constructor or constructor, thanks in advance

    Read the article

  • Passing parameters to a delphi TFrame

    - by ajob
    To avoid singletons and global variables I'd like to be able to pass parameters to a TFrame component. However since a TFrame normally is included on form at design time it is only possible to use the default constructor. The parent form can of course set some properties in the OnCreate callback after the TFrame has been created. However this does not ensure that a property is not forgotten, and the dependencies are not as clear as using a constructor. A nice way would be if it was possible to register a factory for creating components while the dfm file is being read. Then the required parameters could be passed to the TFrame constructor when created by the factory. Is there a way of accomplishing this? Or does anyone have a better solution on how to pass parameters to a TFrame?

    Read the article

  • How to call superconstructor in a neat way

    - by sandis
    So here is my code: public MyClass (int y) { super(y,x,x); //some code } My problem is that in this case i want to generate a 'x' and sent to the super constructor. However the call to the superconstructor must be the first line in this constructor. Of course I could do something like this: int x; { x = generateX(); } But this feels ugly, and then the code will run no matter what constructor I use, which feels not so nice. Right now I am consider encapsulating my whole object in another object that only calculates x and then starts this object. Is this the best approach?

    Read the article

  • Custom constructors for models in Google App Engine (python)

    - by Nikhil Chelliah
    I'm getting back to programming for Google App Engine and I've found, in old, unused code, instances in which I wrote constructors for models. It seems like a good idea, but there's no mention of it online and I can't test to see if it works. Here's a contrived example, with no error-checking, etc.: class Dog(db.Model): name = db.StringProperty(required=True) breeds = db.StringListProperty() age = db.IntegerProperty(default=0) def __init__(self, name, breed_list, **kwargs): db.Model.__init__(**kwargs) self.name = name self.breeds = breed_list.split() rufus = Dog('Rufus', 'spaniel terrier labrador') rufus.put() The **kwargs are passed on to the Model constructor in case the model is constructed with a specified parent or key_name, or in case other properties (like age) are specified. This constructor differs from the default in that it requires that a name and breed_list be specified (although it can't ensure that they're strings), and it parses breed_list in a way that the default constructor could not. Is this a legitimate form of instantiation, or should I just use functions or static/class methods? And if it works, why aren't custom constructors used more often?

    Read the article

  • Constructors with inheritance in c++

    - by Crystal
    If you have 3 classes, with the parent class listed first shape- 2d shapes, 3d shapes - circle, sphere When you write your constructor for the circle class, would you ever just initialize the parent Shape object and then your current object, skipping the middle class. It seems to me you could have x,y coordinates for Shape and initialize those in the constructor, and initialize a radius in the circle or sphere class, but in 2d or 3d shape classes, I wouldn't know what to put in the constructor since it seems like it would be identical to shape. So is something like this valid Circle::Circle(int x, int y, int r) : Shape(x, y), r(r) {} I get a compile error of: illegal member initialization: 'Shape' is not a base or member So I wasn't sure if my code was legal or best practice even. Or if instead you'd have the middle class just do what the top level Shape class does TwoDimensionalShape::TwoDimensionalShape(int x, int y) : Shape (x, y) {} and then in the Circle class Circle::Circle(int x, int y, int r) : TwoDimensionalShape(x, y), r(r) {}

    Read the article

  • LINQ .Cast() extension method fails but (type)object works.

    - by Ben Robinson
    To convert between some LINQ to SQL objects and DTOs we have created explicit cast operators on the DTOs. That way we can do the following: DTOType MyDTO = (LinqToSQLType)MyLinq2SQLObj; This works well. However when you try to cast using the LINQ .Cast() extension method it trows an invalid cast exception saying cannot cast type Linq2SQLType to type DTOType. i.e. the below does not work List<DTO.Name> Names = dbContact.tNames.Cast<DTO.Name>() .ToList(); But the below works fine: DAL.tName MyDalName = new DAL.tName(); DTO.Name MyDTOName = (DTO.Name)MyDalName; and the below also works fine List<DTO.Name> Names = dbContact.tNames.Select(name => (DTO.Name)name) .ToList(); Why does the .Cast() extension method throw an invalid cast exception? I have used the .Cast() extension method in this way many times in the past and when you are casting something like a base type to a derived type it works fine, but falls over when the object has an explicit cast operator.

    Read the article

  • How to make the constructor for the following exercise in c++?

    - by user40630
    This is the exercise I?m trying to solve. It's from C++, How to program book from Deitel and it's my homework. (Card Shuffling and Dealing) Create a program to shuffle and deal a deck of cards. The program should consist of class Card, class DeckOfCards and a driver program. Class Card should provide: a) Data members face and suit of type int. b) A constructor that receives two ints representing the face and suit and uses them to initialize the data members. c) Two static arrays of strings representing the faces and suits. d) A toString function that returns the Card as a string in the form “face of suit.” You can use the + operator to concatenate strings. Class DeckOfCards should contain: a) A vector of Cards named deck to store the Cards. b) An integer currentCard representing the next card to deal. c) A default constructor that initializes the Cards in the deck. The constructor should use vector function push_back to add each Card to the end of the vector after the Card is created and initialized. This should be done for each of the 52 Cards in the deck. d) A shuffle function that shuffles the Cards in the deck. The shuffle algorithm should iterate through the vector of Cards. For each Card, randomly select another Card in the deck and swap the two Cards. e) A dealCard function that returns the next Card object from the deck. f) A moreCards function that returns a bool value indicating whether there are more Cards to deal. The driver program should create a DeckOfCards object, shuffle the cards, then deal the 52 cards. The problem I'm facing is that I don't know exactly how to make the constructor for the second class. See description commented in the code bellow. #include <iostream> #include <vector> using namespace std; /* * */ //Class card. No problems here. class Card { public: Card(int, int); string toString(); private: int suit, face; static string faceNames[13]; static string suitNames[4]; }; string Card::faceNames[13] = {"Ace","Two","Three","Four","Five","Six","Seven","Eight","Nine","Ten","Queen","Jack","King"}; string Card::suitNames[4] = {"Diamonds","Clubs","Hearts","Spades"}; string Card::toString() { return faceNames[face]+" of "+suitNames[suit]; } Card::Card(int f, int s) :face(f), suit(s) { } /*The problem begins here. This class should create(when and object for it is created) a copy of the vector deck, right? But how exactly are these vector cards be initialized? I'll explain better in the constructor definition bellow.*/ class DeckOfCards { public: DeckOfCards(); void shuffleCards(); Card dealCard(); bool moreCards(); private: vector<Card> deck(52); int currentCard; }; int main(int argc, char** argv) { return 0; } DeckOfCards::DeckOfCards() { //This is where I'm stuck. I can't figure out how to set each of the 52 cards of the vector deck to have a specific suit and face every one of them, by using only the constructor of the Card class. //What you see bellow was one of my attempts to solve this problem but I blocked pretty soon in the middle of it. for(int i=0; i<deck.size(); i++) { deck[i]//....There is no function to set them. They must be set when initialized. But how?? } } For easier reading: http://pastebin.com/pJeXMH0f

    Read the article

  • Java constructor using generic types

    - by user37903
    I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around Java generic types. Here's a simple piece of code that in my mind should work, but I'm obviously doing something wrong. Eclipse reports this error in BreweryList.java: The method initBreweryFromObject() is undefined for the type <T> The idea is to fill a Vector with instances of objects that are a subclass of the Brewery class, so the invocation would be something like: BreweryList breweryList = new BreweryList(BrewerySubClass.class, list); BreweryList.java package com.beerme.test; import java.util.Vector; public class BreweryList<T extends Brewery> extends Vector<T> { public BreweryList(Class<T> c, Object[] j) { super(); for (int i = 0; i < j.length; i++) { T item = c.newInstance(); // initBreweryFromObject() is an instance method // of Brewery, of which <T> is a subclass (right?) c.initBreweryFromObject(); // "The method initBreweryFromObject() is undefined // for the type <T>" } } } Brewery.java package com.beerme.test; public class Brewery { public Brewery() { super(); } protected void breweryMethod() { } } BrewerySubClass.java package com.beerme.test; public class BrewerySubClass extends Brewery { public BrewerySubClass() { super(); } public void androidMethod() { } } I'm sure this is a complete-generics-noob question, but I'm stuck. Thanks for any tips!

    Read the article

  • Keyword 'this'(Me) is not available calling the base constructor

    - by serhio
    In the inherited class I use the base constructor, but can't use class's members calling this base constructor. In this example I have a PicturedLabel that knows it's own color and has a image. A TypedLabel : PictureLabel knows it's type but uses the base color. The (base)image that uses TypedLabel should be colored with the (base)color, however, I can't obtain this color: Error: Keyword 'this' is not available in the current context A workaround? /// base class public class PicturedLabel : Label { PictureBox pb = new PictureBox(); public Color LabelColor; public PicturedLabel() { // initialised here in a specific way LabelColor = Color.Red; } public PicturedLabel(Image img) : base() { pb.Image = img; this.Controls.Add(pb); } } public enum LabelType { A, B } /// derived class public class TypedLabel : PicturedLabel { public TypedLabel(LabelType type) : base(GetImageFromType(type, this.LabelColor)) //Error: Keyword 'this' is not available in the current context { } public static Image GetImageFromType(LabelType type, Color c) { Image result = new Bitmap(10, 10); Rectangle rec = new Rectangle(0, 0, 10, 10); Pen pen = new Pen(c); Graphics g = Graphics.FromImage(result); switch (type) { case LabelType.A: g.DrawRectangle(pen, rec); break; case LabelType.B: g.DrawEllipse(pen, rec); break; } return result; } }

    Read the article

  • Member initialization while using delegated constructor

    - by Anton
    I've started trying out the C++11 standard and i found this question which describes how to call your ctor from another ctor in the same class to avoid having a init method or the like. Now i'm trying the same thing with code that looks like this: hpp: class Tokenizer { public: Tokenizer(); Tokenizer(std::stringstream *lines); virtual ~Tokenizer() {}; private: std::stringstream *lines; }; cpp: Tokenizer::Tokenizer() : expected('=') { } Tokenizer::Tokenizer(std::stringstream *lines) : Tokenizer(), lines(lines) { } But this is giving me the error: In constructor ‘config::Tokenizer::Tokenizer(std::stringstream*)’: /path/Tokenizer.cpp:14:20: error: mem-initializer for ‘config::Tokenizer::lines’ follows constructor delegation I've tried moving the Tokenizer() part first and last in the list but that didn't help. What's the reason behind this and how should i fix it? I've tried moving the lines(lines) to the body with this->lines = lines; instead and it works fine. But i would really like to be able to use the initializer list. Thanks in advance!

    Read the article

  • How to avoid using this in a constructor

    - by Paralife
    I have this situation: interface MessageListener { void onMessageReceipt(Message message); } class MessageReceiver { MessageListener listener; public MessageReceiver(MessageListener listener, other arguments...) { this.listener = listener; } loop() { Message message = nextMessage(); listener.onMessageReceipt(message); } } and I want to avoid the following pattern: (Using the this in the Client constructor) class Client implements MessageListener { MessageReceiver receiver; MessageSender sender; public Client(...) { receiver = new MessageReceiver(this, other arguments...); sender = new Sender(...); } . . . @Override public void onMessageReceipt(Message message) { if(Message.isGood()) sender.send("Congrtulations"); else sender.send("Boooooooo"); } } The reason why i need the above functionality is because i want to call the sender inside the onMessageReceipt() function, for example to send a reply. But I dont want to pass the sender into a listener, so the only way I can think of is containing the sender in a class that implements the listener, hence the above resulting Client implementation. Is there a way to achive this without the use of 'this' in the constructor? It feels bizare and i dont like it, since i am passing myself to an object(MessageReceiver) before I am fully constructed. On the other hand, the MessageReceiver is not passed from outside, it is constructed inside, but does this 'purifies' the bizarre pattern? I am seeking for an alternative or an assurance of some kind that this is safe, or situations on which it might backfire on me.

    Read the article

  • java - powermock whenNew doesnt seem to work, calls the actual constructor

    - by user1331243
    I have two final classes that are used in my unit test. I am trying to use whenNew on the constructor of a final class, but I see that it calls the actual constructor. The code is @PrepareForTest({A.class, B.class, Provider.class}) @Test public void testGetStatus() throws Exception { B b = mock(B.class); when(b.getStatus()).thenReturn(1); whenNew(B.class).withArguments(anyString()).thenReturn(b); Provider p = new Provider(); int val = p.getStatus(); assertTrue((val == 1)); } public class Provider { public int getStatus() { B b = new B("test"); return b.getStatus(); } } public final class A { private void init() { // ...do soemthing } private static A a; private A() { } public static A getInstance() { if (a == null) { a = new A(); a.init(); } return a; } } public final class B { public B() { } public B(String s) { this(A.getInstance(), s); } public B(A a, String s) { } public int getStatus() { return 0; } } On debug, I find that its the actual class B instance created and not the mock instance that is returned for new usage and assertion fails. Any pointers on how to get this working. Thanks

    Read the article

  • Constructor initializer list: code from the C++ Primer, chapter 16

    - by Alexandros Gezerlis
    Toward the end of Chapter 16 of the "C++ Primer" I encountered the following code (I've removed a bunch of lines): class Sales_item { public: // default constructor: unbound handle Sales_item(): h() { } private: Handle<Item_base> h; // use-counted handle }; My problem is with the Sales_item(): h() { } line. For the sake of completeness, let me also quote the parts of the Handle class template that I think are relevant to my question (I think I don't need to show the Item_base class): template <class T> class Handle { public: // unbound handle Handle(T *p = 0): ptr(p), use(new size_t(1)) { } private: T* ptr; // shared object size_t *use; // count of how many Handles point to *ptr }; I would have expected something like either: a) Sales_item(): h(0) { } which is a convention the authors have used repeatedly in earlier chapters, or b) Handle<Item_base>() if the intention was to invoke the default constructor of the Handle class. Instead, what the book has is Sales_item(): h() { }. My gut reaction is that this is a typo, since h() looks suspiciously similar to a function declaration. On the other hand, I just tried compiling under g++ and running the example code that uses this class and it seems to be working correctly. Any thoughts?

    Read the article

  • Java NullPointerException In the constructor's class

    - by AndreaF
    I have made a Java class where I have defined a constructor and some methods but I get a NullPointer Exception, and I don't know how I could fix It. public class Job { String idJob; int time; int timeRun; Job j1; List<Job> startBeforeStart; List<Job> restricted; Job(String idJob, int time){ this.idJob=idJob; this.time=time; } public boolean isRestricted() { return restricted.size() != 0; } public void startsBeforeStartOf(Job job){ startBeforeStart.add(job); job.restricted.add(this); } public void startsAfterStartOf(Job job){ job.startsBeforeStartOf(this); } public void checkRestrictions(){ if (!isRestricted()){ System.out.println("+\n"); } else{ Iterator<Job> itR = restricted.iterator(); while(itR.hasNext()){ Job j1 = itR.next(); if(time>timeRun){ System.out.println("-\n"); time--; } else { restricted.remove(j1); } } } } @Override public boolean equals(Object obj) { return obj instanceof Job && ((Job) obj).idJob.equals(idJob); } public void run() { timeRun++; } } PS Looking in a forum a user says that to fix the error I should make an ArrayList inside the constructor (without modify the received parameters that should remain String id and int time), but I haven't understand what He mean.

    Read the article

  • Calling an Overridden Method from a Parent-Class Constructor

    - by Vaibhav Bajpai
    I tried calling an overridden method from a constructor of a parent class and noticed different behavior across languages. C++ - echoes A.foo() class A{ public: A(){foo();} virtual void foo(){cout<<"A.foo()";} }; class B : public A{ public: B(){} void foo(){cout<<"B.foo()";} }; int main(){ B *b = new B(); } Java - echoes B.foo() class A{ public A(){foo();} public void foo(){System.out.println("A.foo()");} } class B extends A{ public void foo(){System.out.println("B.foo()");} } class Demo{ public static void main(String args[]){ B b = new B(); } } C# - echoes B.foo() class A{ public A(){foo();} public virtual void foo(){Console.WriteLine("A.foo()");} } class B : A{ public override void foo(){Console.WriteLine("B.foo()");} } class MainClass { public static void Main (string[] args) { B b = new B(); } } I realize that in C++ objects are created from top-most parent going down the hierarchy, so when the constructor calls the overridden method, B does not even exist, so it calls the A' version of the method. However, I am not sure why I am getting different behavior in Java and C#.

    Read the article

  • Dynamically register constructor methods in an AbstractFactory at compile time using C++ templates

    - by Horacio
    When implementing a MessageFactory class to instatiate Message objects I used something like: class MessageFactory { public: static Message *create(int type) { switch(type) { case PING_MSG: return new PingMessage(); case PONG_MSG: return new PongMessage(); .... } } This works ok but every time I add a new message I have to add a new XXX_MSG and modify the switch statement. After some research I found a way to dynamically update the MessageFactory at compile time so I can add as many messages as I want without need to modify the MessageFactory itself. This allows for cleaner and easier to maintain code as I do not need to modify three different places to add/remove message classes: #include <stdio.h> #include <stdlib.h> #include <string.h> #include <inttypes.h> class Message { protected: inline Message() {}; public: inline virtual ~Message() { } inline int getMessageType() const { return m_type; } virtual void say() = 0; protected: uint16_t m_type; }; template<int TYPE, typename IMPL> class MessageTmpl: public Message { enum { _MESSAGE_ID = TYPE }; public: static Message* Create() { return new IMPL(); } static const uint16_t MESSAGE_ID; // for registration protected: MessageTmpl() { m_type = MESSAGE_ID; } //use parameter to instanciate template }; typedef Message* (*t_pfFactory)(); class MessageFactory· { public: static uint16_t Register(uint16_t msgid, t_pfFactory factoryMethod) { printf("Registering constructor for msg id %d\n", msgid); m_List[msgid] = factoryMethod; return msgid; } static Message *Create(uint16_t msgid) { return m_List[msgid](); } static t_pfFactory m_List[65536]; }; template <int TYPE, typename IMPL> const uint16_t MessageTmpl<TYPE, IMPL >::MESSAGE_ID = MessageFactory::Register( MessageTmpl<TYPE, IMPL >::_MESSAGE_ID, &MessageTmpl<TYPE, IMPL >::Create); class PingMessage: public MessageTmpl < 10, PingMessage > {· public: PingMessage() {} virtual void say() { printf("Ping\n"); } }; class PongMessage: public MessageTmpl < 11, PongMessage > {· public: PongMessage() {} virtual void say() { printf("Pong\n"); } }; t_pfFactory MessageFactory::m_List[65536]; int main(int argc, char **argv) { Message *msg1; Message *msg2; msg1 = MessageFactory::Create(10); msg1->say(); msg2 = MessageFactory::Create(11); msg2->say(); delete msg1; delete msg2; return 0; } The template here does the magic by registering into the MessageFactory class, all new Message classes (e.g. PingMessage and PongMessage) that subclass from MessageTmpl. This works great and simplifies code maintenance but I still have some questions about this technique: Is this a known technique/pattern? what is the name? I want to search more info about it. I want to make the array for storing new constructors MessageFactory::m_List[65536] a std::map but doing so causes the program to segfault even before reaching main(). Creating an array of 65536 elements is overkill but I have not found a way to make this a dynamic container. For all message classes that are subclasses of MessageTmpl I have to implement the constructor. If not it won't register in the MessageFactory. For example commenting the constructor of the PongMessage: class PongMessage: public MessageTmpl < 11, PongMessage > { public: //PongMessage() {} /* HERE */ virtual void say() { printf("Pong\n"); } }; would result in the PongMessage class not being registered by the MessageFactory and the program would segfault in the MessageFactory::Create(11) line. The question is why the class won't register? Having to add the empty implementation of the 100+ messages I need feels inefficient and unnecessary.

    Read the article

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

< Previous Page | 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  | Next Page >