Search Results

Search found 1008 results on 41 pages for 'generics'.

Page 17/41 | < Previous Page | 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24  | Next Page >

  • Auto convert java source to use generic rather than raw types

    - by Sam
    Is there a way/tool to auto convert Java source code from using raw types to using generic types? I have some legacy code with 677 references to raw types: ArrayList 47 Vector 420 Hashtable 61 Enumeration 64 Class 7 Iterator 78 TOTAL 677 Now I could manually look through the code to infer the generic types and replace, but that is going to take a long time.

    Read the article

  • Java generic Comparable where subclasses can't compare to eachother

    - by dege
    public abstract class MyAbs implements Comparable<MyAbs> This would work but then I would be able to compare class A and B with each other if they both extend MyAbs. What I want to accomplish however is the exact opposite. So does anyone know a way to get the generic type to be the own class? Seemed like such a simple thing at first... Edit: To explain it a little further with an example. Say you have an abstract class animals, then you extend it with Dogs and ants. I wouldn't want to compare ants with Dogs but I however would want to compare one dog with another. The dog might have a variable saying what color it is and that is what I want to use in the compareTo method. However when it comes to ants I would rather want to compare ant's size than their color. Hope that clears it up. Could possibly be a design flaw however.

    Read the article

  • Is there a way to make ToEnum generic

    - by maxfridbe
    I would like to do this but it does not work. bool TryGetEnum<TEnum, TValue>(TValue value, out TEnum myEnum) { if (Enum.IsDefined(typeof(TEnum), value)) { myEnum = (TEnum)value; return true; } return false; } Example usage: MyEnum mye; bool success = this.TryGetEnum<MyEnum,char>('c',out mye);

    Read the article

  • Generic type in generic collection

    - by Brian Triplett
    I have generic type that looks like: public class GenericClass<T, U> where T : IComparable<T> { // Class definition here } I then have a collection of these instances. What is the cleanest way to pass through the type constraints? public class GenericCollection<V> where V : GenericClass<T, U> // This won't compile { private GenericClass<T, U>[] entries; public V this[index] { get{ return this.entries[index]; } } } Is there perhaps a better way to design this? I think that specifying GenericCollection<T, U, V> where V : GenericClass<T, U> seems awkward. Might be my only option though....

    Read the article

  • adhoc struct/class in C#?

    - by acidzombie24
    Currently i am using reflection with sql. I find if i want to make a specialize query it is easiest to get the results by creating a new class inheriting from another and adding the 2 members/columns for my specialized query. Then due to reflections in the lib in my c# code i can write foreach(var v in list) { v.AnyMember and v.MyExtraMember) Now instead of having the class scattered around or modifying my main DB.cs file can i define a class inside a function? I know i can create an anonymous object by writing new {name=val, name2=...}; but i need a to pass this class in a generic function func(query, args);

    Read the article

  • How do I assert that two arbitrary type objects are equivalent, without requiring them to be equal?

    - by Tomas Lycken
    To accomplish this (but failing to do so) I'm reflecting over properties of an expected and actual object and making sure their values are equal. This works as expected as long as their properties are single objects, i.e. not lists, arrays, IEnumerable... If the property is a list of some sort, the test fails (on the Assert.AreEqual(...) inside the for loop). public void WithCorrectModel<TModelType>(TModelType expected, string error = "") where TModelType : class { var actual = _result.ViewData.Model as TModelType; Assert.IsNotNull(actual, error); Assert.IsInstanceOfType(actual, typeof(TModelType), error); foreach (var prop in typeof(TModelType).GetProperties()) { Assert.AreEqual(prop.GetValue(expected, null), prop.GetValue(actual, null), error); } } If dealing with a list property, I would get the expected results if I instead used CollectionAssert.AreEquivalent(...) but that requires me to cast to ICollection, which in turn requries me to know the type listed, which I don't (want to). It also requires me to know which properties are list types, which I don't know how to. So, how should I assert that two objects of an arbitrary type are equivalent? Note: I specifically don't want to require them to be equal, since one comes from my tested object and one is built in my test class to have something to compare with.

    Read the article

  • Retrieving the type of a Collection

    - by nevets1219
    So I have something like the following in Java: private List<SomeType>variable; // ....variable is instantiated as so ... variable = new ArrayList<SomeType>(); // there's also a getter public List<SomeType> getVariable() { /* code */ } What I would like to be able to do is figure out that variable is a collection of SomeType programmatically. I read here that I can determine that from the method getVariable() but is there any way to tell directly from variable? I have been able to retrieve SomeType from the getter method based on the information in the link. I have also been successful in retrieving all the fields of the surrounding class via SurroundingClass.getClass().getDeclaredFields() but this doesn't tell me that it is List<SomeType>.

    Read the article

  • To Reference A Generic Method With A Lambda Expression

    - by SDReyes
    It is possible to reference a generic method using a Lambda Expression Object? For example, having: TheObject: public abstract class LambdaExpression : Expression TheMethod (an extension method of LINQ): public static TSource Last<TSource>( this IEnumerable<TSource> source ) I'm trying to create an instance of TheObject, that references to TheMethod. How do you do such thing?

    Read the article

  • Define Default constructor Structuremap in a Generic Repository

    - by Ricky
    Hello guys, I have a generic IRepository that has 2 constructors, one have none parameters, other has the datacontext as parameter. I want to define to structuremap to aways in this case use the parameterless constructor. I want a way to create a parameterless contructor, other solutions that I have seen, they create a new Datacontext and pass it to the constructor that has parameters.

    Read the article

  • Discover generic types

    - by vittore
    Thanks @dtb for help, he advised really need piece of code for generic service locator static class Locator { private static class LocatorEntry<T> where T : ... { public static IDataManager<T> instance; } public static void Register<T>(IDataManager<T> instance) where T : ... { LocatorEntry<T>.instance = instance; } public static IDataManager<T> GetInstance<T>() where T : ... { return LocatorEntry<T>.instance; } } However in my previous version I used reflection on assembly to discover a hundred of DataManager's I want to write an method discover like the following void Discover() { var pManager = new ProtocolSQLDataManager(); Register(pManager); var rManager = new ResultSQLDataManager(); Register(rManager); var gType = typeof(ISQLDataAccessManager<>); foreach (Type type in Assembly.GetExecutingAssembly().GetTypes()) { if (type.IsSubclassOf(gType) && !type.IsAbstract)) { var manager = Activator.CreateInstance(type); // put something here in order to make next line of code works Register<T>(manager); } } } How to cast type to appropriate type in order to make Register working( and call appropriate Register ?

    Read the article

  • Casting Between Data Types in C#

    - by Jimbo
    I have (for example) an object of type A that I want to be able to cast to type B (similar to how you can cast an int to a float) Data types A and B are my own. Is it possible to define the rules by which this casting occurs? Example int a = 1; float b = (float)a; int c = (int)b;

    Read the article

  • How to pass an IronPython instance method to a (C#) function parameter of type `Func<Foo>`

    - by Daren Thomas
    I am trying to assign an IronPython instance method to a C# Func<Foo> parameter. In C# I would have a method like: public class CSharpClass { public void DoSomething(Func<Foo> something) { var foo = something() } } And call it from IronPython like this: class IronPythonClass: def foobar(): return Foo() CSharpClass().DoSomething(foobar) But I'm getting the following error: TypeError: expected Func[Foo], got instancemethod

    Read the article

  • VS2010 Implement Generic Interface expansion doesn't use specified type

    - by TJB
    Using the release version of Visual Studio 2010 I think there's a difference in the "Implement Interface" expansion from VS2008 If I speicify an interface and implement it in a class as so: public interface IRepository<T> where T : IModel { T Get<T>(int id); void Update<T>(); int Add<T>(T item); } public class MockRepository : IRepository<MockUser> { // ... } Then use the "Implement Interface" expansion and get this: public class MockRepository : IRepository<MockUser> { public T Get<T>(int id) { throw new NotImplementedException(); } public void Update<T>() { throw new NotImplementedException(); } public int Add<T>(T item) { throw new NotImplementedException(); } } Instead of what I expected public class MockRepository : IRepository<MockUser> { public MockUser Get<MockUser>(int id) { throw new NotImplementedException(); } public void Update<MockUser>() { throw new NotImplementedException(); } public int Add<MockUser>(MockUser item) { throw new NotImplementedException(); } } The IDE uses the type variable name from the generic interface definition T instead of the specified concrete type MockUser. Is this a bug? Or is something new just for VS2010 / .Net 4.0?

    Read the article

  • Class hierarchy problem (with generic's variance!)

    - by devoured elysium
    The problem: class StatesChain : IState, IHasStateList { private TasksChain tasks = new TasksChain(); ... public IList<IState> States { get { return _taskChain.Tasks; } } IList<ITask> IHasTasksCollection.Tasks { get { return _taskChain.Tasks; } <-- ERROR! You can't do this in C#! I want to return an IList<ITask> from an IList<IStates>. } } Assuming the IList returned will be read-only, I know that what I'm trying to achieve is safe (or is it not?). Is there any way I can accomplish what I'm trying? I wouldn't want to try to implement myself the TasksChain algorithm (again!), as it would be error prone and would lead to code duplication. Maybe I could just define an abstract Chain and then implement both TasksChain and StatesChain from there? Or maybe implementing a Chain<T> class? How would you approach this situation? The Details: I have defined an ITask interface: public interface ITask { bool Run(); ITask FailureTask { get; } } and a IState interface that inherits from ITask: public interface IState : ITask { IState FailureState { get; } } I have also defined an IHasTasksList interface: interface IHasTasksList { List<Tasks> Tasks { get; } } and an IHasStatesList: interface IHasTasksList { List<Tasks> States { get; } } Now, I have defined a TasksChain, that is a class that has some code logic that will manipulate a chain of tasks (beware that TasksChain is itself a kind of ITask!): class TasksChain : ITask, IHasTasksList { IList<ITask> tasks = new List<ITask>(); ... public List<ITask> Tasks { get { return _tasks; } } ... } I am implementing a State the following way: public class State : IState { private readonly TaskChain _taskChain = new TaskChain(); public State(Precondition precondition, Execution execution) { _taskChain.Tasks.Add(precondition); _taskChain.Tasks.Add(execution); } public bool Run() { return _taskChain.Run(); } public IState FailureState { get { return (IState)_taskChain.Tasks[0].FailureTask; } } ITask ITask.FailureTask { get { return FailureState; } } } which, as you can see, makes use of explicit interface implementations to "hide" FailureTask and instead show FailureState property. The problem comes from the fact that I also want to define a StatesChain, that inherits both from IState and IHasStateList (and that also imples ITask and IHasTaskList, implemented as explicit interfaces) and I want it to also hide IHasTaskList's Tasks and only show IHasStateList's States. (What is contained in "The problem" section should really be after this, but I thought puting it first would be way more reader friendly). (pff..long text) Thanks!

    Read the article

  • How can I make the C# compiler infer these type parameters automatically?

    - by John Feminella
    I have some code that looks like the following. First I have some domain classes and some special comparators for them. public class Fruit { public int Calories { get; set; } public string Name { get; set; } } public class FruitEqualityComparer : IEqualityComparer<Fruit> { // ... } public class BasketEqualityComparer : IEqualityComparer<IEnumerable<Fruit>> { // ... } Next, I have a helper class called ConstraintChecker. It has a simple BaseEquals method that makes sure some simple base cases are considered: public static class ConstraintChecker { public static bool BaseEquals(T lhs, T rhs) { bool sameObject = l == r; bool leftNull = l == null; bool rightNull = r == null; return sameObject && !leftNull && !rightNull; } There's also a SemanticEquals method which is just a BaseEquals check and a comparator function that you specify. public static bool SemanticEquals<T>(T lhs, T rhs, Func<T, T, bool> f) { return BaseEquals(lhs, rhs) && f(lhs, rhs); } And finally there's a SemanticSequenceEquals method which accepts two IEnumerable<T> instances to compare, and an IEqualityComparer instance that will get called on each pair of elements in the list via Enumerable.SequenceEquals. public static bool SemanticSequenceEquals<T, U, V>(U lhs, U rhs, V comparator) where U : IEnumerable<T> where V : IEqualityComparer<T> { return SemanticEquals(lhs, rhs, (l, r) => lhs.SequenceEqual(rhs, comparator)); } } // end of ConstraintChecker The point of SemanticSequenceEquals is that you don't have to define two comparators whenever you want to compare both IEnumerable<T> and T instances; now you can just specify an IEqualityComparer<T> and it will also handle lists when you invoke SemanticSequenceEquals. So I could get rid of the BasketEqualityComparer class, which would be nice. But there's a problem. The C# compiler can't figure out the types involved when you invoke SemanticSequenceEquals: return ConstraintChecker.SemanticSequenceEquals(lhs, rhs, new FruitEqualityComparer()); If I specify them explicitly, it works: return ConstraintChecker.SemanticSequenceEquals< Fruit, IEnumerable<Fruit>, IEqualityComparer<Fruit> > (lhs, rhs, new FruitEqualityComparer()); What can I change here so that I don't have to write the type parameters explicitly?

    Read the article

  • What is the "Dispatcher" design pattern?

    - by Ben Farmer
    What is the "dispatcher" pattern and how would I implement it in code? I have a property bag of generic objects and would like to have the retrieval delegated to a generic method. Currently, I have properties looking for a specific key in the bag. For example: private Dictionary<String, Object> Foo { get; set; } private const String WidgetKey = "WIDGETKEY"; public Widget? WidgetItem { get { return Foo.ContainsKey(WidgetKey) ? Foo[WidgetKey] as Widget: null; } set { if (Foo.ContainsKey(WidgetKey)) Foo[WidgetKey] = value; else Foo.Add(WidgetKey, value); } } It was suggested that this could be more generic with the "dispatcher" pattern, but I've been unable to find a good description or example. I'm looking for a more generic way to handle the property bag store/retrieve.

    Read the article

  • C# BinarySearch breaks when inheriting from something that implements IComparable<T>?

    - by Ender
    In .NET the BinarySearch algorithm (in Lists, Arrays, etc.) appears to fail if the items you are trying to search inherit from an IComparable instead of implementing it directly: List<B> foo = new List<B>(); // B inherits from A, which implements IComparable<A> foo.Add(new B()); foo.BinarySearch(new B()); // InvalidOperationException, "Failed to compare two elements in the array." Where: public abstract class A : IComparable<A> { public int x; public int CompareTo(A other) { return x.CompareTo(other.x); } } public class B : A {} Is there a way around this? Implementing CompareTo(B other) in class B doesn't seem to work.

    Read the article

  • How to define generic super type for static factory method?

    - by Esko
    If this has already been asked, please link and close this one. I'm currently prototyping a design for a simplified API of a certain another API that's a lot more complex (and potentially dangerous) to use. Considering the related somewhat complex object creation I decided to use static factory methods to simplify the API and I currently have the following which works as expected: public class Glue<T> { private List<Type<T>> types; private Glue() { types = new ArrayList<Type<T>>(); } private static class Type<T> { private T value; /* some other properties, omitted for simplicity */ public Type(T value) { this.value = value; } } public static <T> Glue<T> glueFactory(String name, T first, T second) { Glue<T> g = new Glue<T>(); Type<T> firstType = new Glue.Type<T>(first); Type<T> secondType = new Glue.Type<T>(second); g.types.add(firstType); g.types.add(secondType); /* omitted complex stuff */ return g; } } As said, this works as intended. When the API user (=another developer) types Glue<Horse> strongGlue = Glue.glueFactory("2HP", new Horse(), new Horse()); he gets exactly what he wanted. What I'm missing is that how do I enforce that Horse - or whatever is put into the factory method - always implements both Serializable and Comparable? Simply adding them to factory method's signature using <T extends Comparable<T> & Serializable> doesn't necessarily enforce this rule in all cases, only when this simplified API is used. That's why I'd like to add them to the class' definition and then modify the factory method accordingly. PS: No horses (and definitely no ponies!) were harmed in writing of this question.

    Read the article

  • [Java] Force an unchecked call

    - by François Cassistat
    Hello, Sometimes, when using Java reflection or some special storing operation into Object, you end up with unchecked warnings. I got used to it and when I can't do anything about it, I document why one call is unchecked and why it should be considered as safe. But, for the first time, I've got an error about a unchecked call. This function : public <K,V extends SomeClass & SomeOtherClass<K>> void doSomethingWithSomeMap (Map map, V data); I thought that calling it this way : Map someMap = ...; SomeClass someData = ...; doSomethingWithSomeMap(someMap, someData); would give me an unchecked call warning. Jikes does a warning, but javac gives me an error : Error: <K,V>doSomethingWithSomeMap(java.util.Map<K,V>,V) in SomeClass cannot be applied to (java.util.Map,SomeClass) Any way to force it to compile with a warning? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Setting generic type at runtime

    - by destroyer of evil
    I have a class public class A<T> { public static string B(T obj) { return TransformThisObjectToAString(obj); } } I can call the static function like this just fine on a known/specified type: string s= A<KnownType>.B(objectOfKnownType); How do I make this call, if I don't know T beforehand, rather I have a variable of type Type that holds the type. If I do this: Type t= typeof(string); string s= A<t>.B(someStringObject); I get this compiler error: Cannot implicitly convert type 't' to 'object'

    Read the article

  • Why does this work?

    - by Fizz
    Why does this work? I'm not complaining, just want to know. void Test() { int a = 1; int b = 2; What<int>(a, b); // Why does this next line work? What(a, b); } void What<T>(T a, T b) { }

    Read the article

  • Implementing IComparer<T> For IComparer<DictionaryEntry>

    - by Phil Sandler
    I am using the ObservableSortedDictionary from Dr. WPF. The constructor looks like this: public ObservableSortedDictionary(IComparer<DictionaryEntry> comparer) I am really struggling to create an implementation that satisfies the constructor and works. My current code (that won't compile) is: public class TimeCreatedComparer<T> : IComparer<T> { public int Compare(T x, T y) { var myclass1 = (IMyClass)((DictionaryEntry)x).Value; var myclass2 = (IMyClass)((DictionaryEntry)y).Value; return myclass1.TimeCreated.CompareTo(myclass2.TimeCreated); } } It says I can't cast from T to DictionaryEntry. If I cast directly to IMyClass, it compiles, but I get a runtime error saying I can't cast from DictionaryEntry to IMyClass. At runtime, x and y are instances of DictionaryEntry, which each have the correct IMyClass as their Value.

    Read the article

  • C#: How to remove items from the collection of a IDictionary<E, ICollection<T>> with LINQ?

    - by Rosarch
    Here is what I am trying to do: private readonly IDictionary<float, ICollection<IGameObjectController>> layers; foreach (ICollection<IGameObjectController> layerSet in layers.Values) { foreach (IGameObjectController controller in layerSet) { if (controller.Model.DefinedInVariant) { layerSet.Remove(controller); } } } Of course, this doesn't work, because it will cause a concurrent modification exception. (Is there an equivalent of Java's safe removal operation on some iterators?) How can I do this correctly, or with LINQ?

    Read the article

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