Search Results

Search found 15815 results on 633 pages for 'visual inheritance'.

Page 194/633 | < Previous Page | 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201  | Next Page >

  • C++ Dynamic object construction

    - by Rajesh Subramanian
    I have a base class, class Msg { ParseMsg() { ParseMsgData(); ParseTrailer(); } virtual void ParseMsgData() = 0; ParseTrailer(); }; and derived classes, class InitiateMsg { void ParseMsgData() { ... } }; class ReadOperationMsg { void ParseMsgData() { ... } }; class WriteOperationMsg { void ParseMsgData() { ... } }; and the scenario is below, void UsageFunction(string data) { Msg* msg = ParseHeader(data); ParseMsg } Msg* ParseHeader(string data) { Msg *msg = NULL; .... switch() { case 1: msg = new InitiateMsg(); break; case 2: msg = new ReadOperationMsg{(); break; case 3: msg = new WriteOperationMsg{(); break; .... } return msg; } based on the data ParseHeader method will decide which object has to be created, So I have implemented ParseHeader function outside the class where I am using. How can I make the ParseHeader function inside the Msg class and then use it? In C# the same is achieved by defining ParseHeader method as static with in class and use it from outside,

    Read the article

  • Consequences in PHP of implementing an interface through two different routes?

    - by Daniel Bingham
    What are the consequences of implementing the same interface through two different routes in PHP, are there any? What I mean, is something like this: interface baseInterface {} abstract class baseClass implements baseInterface { } interface myInterface extends baseInterface {} class myClass extends baseClass implements myInterface {} In this case myClass implements baseInterface from two different parents - myInterface and baseClass. Are there any consequences to this? My instinct is that PHP should handle this fine, but I just want to make sure. What exactly does PHP do in this case? Does it just check to see that the necessary functions are implemented for the interface each time it discovers it and call it a day or does it do something more?

    Read the article

  • Generics and Derived Classes .NET 3.5

    - by Achilles
    Consider the following where class "Circle" inherits from "Shape": dim objListOfCircles as new List(of Circle) DrawShapes(objListOfCirlces) Private sub DrawShapes(byref objListOfShapes as List(of Shape)) for each objShape as Shape in objListOfShapes objShape.Draw() next end sub I can't get this to work. What is the explaination as to why this doesn't work?

    Read the article

  • C# private (hidden) base class

    - by Loadmaster
    It is possible to make a C# base class accessible only within the library assembly it's compiled into, while making other subclasses that inherit from it public? For example: using System.IO; class BaseOutput: Stream // Hidden base class { protected BaseOutput(Stream o) { ... } ...lots of common methods... } public class MyOutput: BaseOutput // Public subclass { public BaseOutput(Stream o): base(o) { ... } public override int Write(int b) { ... } } Here I'd like the BaseOutput class to be inaccessible to clients of my library, but allow the subclass MyOutput to be completely public. I know that C# does not allow base classes to have more restrictive access than subclasses, but is there some other legal way of achieving the same effect?

    Read the article

  • Should downcasting be avoided while using a class hierarchy in C++?

    - by neuviemeporte
    Let's say I'm writing an application which works with projects, and exposes different functionality depending on the type of the project. I have a hierarchy of classes for the different types of projects: class AbstractProject { }; class ProjectA : public AbstractProject { }; class ProjectB : public AbstractProject { }; class ProjectC : public AbstractProject { }; Now, I was planning to have an AbstractProject *_currentProject pointer as a member in the application's main class, pop up a dialog box on startup and based on the selection, do: _currentProject = new ProjectB(); // e.g. Later, I'll have to downcast the pointer to the specific type to utilize the functionality specific to different Project-s. Somehow this makes me feel uneasy. Is there a Better Way of doing this?

    Read the article

  • Determine an object's class returned by a factory method (Error: function does not take 1 arguments

    - by tzippy
    I have a factorymethod that either returns an object of baseclass or one that is of derivedclass (a derived class of baseclass). The derived class has a method virtual void foo(int x) that takes one argument. baseclass however has virtual void foo() without an argument. In my code, a factory method returns a pointer of type bar that definetly points to an object of class derivedclass. However since this is only known at runtime I get a compiler error saying that foo() does not take an argument. Can I cast this pointer to a pointer of type derivedclass? std::auto_ptr<baseclass> bar = classfactory::CreateBar(); //returns object of class derivedclass bar->foo(5); class baseclass { public: virtual void foo(); } class derivedclass : public baseclass { public: virtual void foo(int x); }

    Read the article

  • How to access base (super) class in Delphi?

    - by Niyoko Yuliawan
    In C# i can access base class by base keyword, and in java i can access it by super keyword. How to do that in delphi? suppose I have following code: type TForm3 = class(TForm) private procedure _setCaption(Value:String); public property Caption:string write _setCaption; //adding override here gives error end; implementation procedure TForm3._setCaption(Value: String); begin Self.Caption := Value; //it gives stack overflow end;

    Read the article

  • Call overidden method in Dojo

    - by nomind
    In dojo, one cannot call a overidden superclass method outside of the same method in the derived class (for which there is this.inherited(), other than that one can call using class_name.function_name.apply). This feature is no longer there because of some refactoring and dojo guys are not going to put it back because they are not convinced about a good enough case for this. Please read this mail thread for details. Isn't there a good enough case for this functionality? Why or why not?

    Read the article

  • Compile time type determination in C++

    - by dicroce
    A coworker recently showed me some code that he found online. It appears to allow compile time determination of whether a type has an "is a" relationship with another type. I think this is totally awesome, but I have to admit that I'm clueless as to how this actually works. Can anyone explain this to me? template<typename BaseT, typename DerivedT> inline bool isRelated(const DerivedT&) { DerivedT derived(); char test(const BaseT&); // sizeof(test()) == sizeof(char) char (&test(...))[2]; // sizeof(test()) == sizeof(char[2]) struct conversion { enum { exists = (sizeof(test(derived())) == sizeof(char)) }; }; return conversion::exists; } Once this function is defined, you can use it like this: #include <iostream> class base {}; class derived : public base {}; class unrelated {}; int main() { base b; derived d; unrelated u; if( isRelated<base>( b ) ) std::cout << "b is related to base" << std::endl; if( isRelated<base>( d ) ) std::cout << "d is related to base" << std::endl; if( !isRelated<base>( u ) ) std::cout << "u is not related to base" << std::endl; }

    Read the article

  • Base form controls not visible in child form

    - by Kildareflare
    Hello I'm using C#.Net and have a base form that is inherited by several forms. Until yesterday, when the child (derived) form was opened in the designer the base forms controls would be displayed and shown as locked. Now, however the form is simply blank. None of the base forms controls are visible in the designer. Everything compiles, builds and runs OK. Has anyone else seen this? I've tried placing a call to the base forms InitializeComponent method in the derived forms OnLoad method but to no avail.

    Read the article

  • How to access the backing field of a base class using fluent nhibernate?

    - by Akk
    How do i set the Access Strategy in the mapping class to point to the base _photos field? public class Content { private IList<Photo> _photos; public Content() { _photos = new List<Photo>(); } public virtual IEnumerable<Photo> Photos { get { return _photos; } } public virtual void AddPhoto() {...} } public class Article : Content { public string Body {get; set;} } I am currently using the following to try and locate the backing field but an exception is thrown as it cannot be found. public class ArticleMap : ClassMap<Article> { HasManyToMany(x => x.Photos) .Access.CamelCaseField(Prefix.Underscore) //_photos //... } i tried moving the backing field _photos directly into the class and the access works. So how can i access the backing field of the base class?

    Read the article

  • Generics in a bidirectional association

    - by Verhoevenv
    Let's say I have two classes A and B, with B a subtype of A. This is only part of a richer type hierarchy, obviously, but I don't think that's relevant. Assume A is the root of the hierarchy. There is a collection class C that keeps track of a list of A's. However, I want to make C generic, so that it is possible to make an instance that only keeps B's and won't accept A's. class A(val c: C[A]) { c.addEntry(this) } class B(c: C[A]) extends A(c) class C[T <: A]{ val entries = new ArrayBuffer[T]() def addEntry(e: T) { entries += e } } object Generic { def main(args : Array[String]) { val c = new C[B]() new B(c) } } The code above obviously give the error 'type mismatch: found C[B], required C[A]' on the new B(c) line. I'm not sure how this can be fixed. It's not possible to make C covariant in T (like C[+T <: A]) because the ArrayBuffer is non-variantly typed in T. It's not possible to make the constructor of B require a C[B] because C can't be covariant. Am I barking up the wrong tree here? I'm a complete Scala newbie, so any ideas and tips might be helpful. Thank you! EDIT: Basically, what I'd like to have is that the compiler accepts both val c = new C[B]() new B(c) and val c = new C[A]() new B(c) but would reject val c = new C[B]() new A(c) It's probably possible to relax the typing of the ArrayBuffer in C to be A instead of T, and thus in the addEntry method as well, if that helps.

    Read the article

  • Dynamic Object Not Creating for Privately Inherited Class.

    - by mahesh
    Hi, What is the reason for the following code that does not let me to create object. class base { public: void foo() { cout << "base::foo()"; } }; class derived : private base { public: void foo() { cout << "deived::foo()"; } }; void main() { base *d = new derived(); d->foo(); } It Gives me error : " 'type cast' : conversion from 'derived *' to 'base *' exists, but is inaccessible" Thanks in advance :)

    Read the article

  • How can one enforce calling a base class function after derived class constructor?

    - by Mike Elkins
    I'm looking for a clean C++ idiom for the following situation: class SomeLibraryClass { public: SomeLibraryClass() { /* start initialization */ } void addFoo() { /* we are a collection of foos */ } void funcToCallAfterAllAddFoos() { /* Making sure this is called is the issue */ } }; class SomeUserClass : public SomeLibraryClass { public: SomeUserClass() { addFoo(); addFoo(); addFoo(); // SomeUserClass has three foos. } }; class SomeUserDerrivedClass : public SomeUserClass { public: SomeUserDerrivedClass() { addFoo(); // This one has four foos. } }; So, what I really want is for SomeLibraryClass to enforce the calling of funcToCallAfterAllAddFoos at the end of the construction process. The user can't put it at the end of SomeUserClass::SomeUserClass(), that would mess up SomeUserDerrivedClass. If he puts it at the end of SomeUserDerrivedClass, then it never gets called for SomeUserClass. To further clarify what I need, imagine that /* start initialization */ acquires a lock, and funcToCallAfterAllAddFoos() releases a lock. The compiler knows when all the initializations for an object are done, but can I get at that information by some nice trick?

    Read the article

  • question about class derivation in c++?

    - by jack22
    hi, i want to know some things about class derivation in c++ so i have super class x and an inherited class y and i did this class x{ public:a; private:b; protected:c; } class y:public x{ public:d; } in this case how y can access a,b,and c and by how i mean(public,protected,private) the second case: class x{ public:a; private:b; protected:c; } class y:private x{ public:d; } the same question? the third case: class x{ public:a; private:b; protected:c; } class y:private x{ public:d; } again the same question? sorry i think i wrote too much bye

    Read the article

  • Does string inherits from Object in Javascript?

    - by Morgan Cheng
    Is Object the base class of all objects in Javascript, just like other language such as Java & C#? I tried below code in Firefox with Firebug installed. var t = new Object(); var s1 = new String('str'); var s2 = 'str'; console.log(typeof t); console.log(typeof s1); console.log(typeof s2); The console output is object object string So, s1 and s2 are of diffeent type?

    Read the article

  • Reading a Text file in xcode

    - by Nicolaj Zefting
    First off, I'm a complete beginner. This might be a stupid question, but here it goes: I'm currently working on an App than contains Latin texts that the users can view and read. I'm using Xcode 4 with the storybord function. Theway the app is built: user selects author - then the book - then app shows the text. I am kind of confused because i need to have various text files, depending on the users choice.

    Read the article

  • C++ Problem: Class Promotion using derived class

    - by Michael Fitzpatrick
    I have a class for Float32 that is derived from Float32_base class Float32_base { public: // Constructors Float32_base(float x) : value(x) {}; Float32_base(void) : value(0) {}; operator float32(void) {return value;}; Float32_base operator =(float x) {value = x; return *this;}; Float32_base operator +(float x) const { return value + x;}; protected: float value; } class Float32 : public Float32_base { public: float Tad() { return value + .01; } } int main() { Float32 x, y, z; x = 1; y = 2; // WILL NOT COMPILE! z = (x + y).Tad(); // COMPILES OK z = ((Float32)(x + y)).Tad(); } The issue is that the + operator returns a Float32_base and Tad() is not in that class. But 'x' and 'y' are Float32's. Is there a way that I can get the code in the first line to compile without having to resort to a typecast like I did on the next line?

    Read the article

  • What's an elegant solution to get the property values from two classes (that have the same property

    - by SlipToFall
    Essentially I have to deal with a poorly implemented web service. They have two classes that don't derive from a parent class, but have the same properties (Ughh...). So it looks like this in my web service proxy class file: public partial class Product1 { public int Quantity; public int Price; } public partial class Product2 { public int Quantity; public int Price; } So what's the best way to grab the values from known properties without duplicating the code and casting to their respective classes? I know I probably could use reflection, but that can get ugly. If there is an easier less crazier way to do it (maybe in the new c# features?) please let me know.

    Read the article

  • "Overriding" instance variables in subtype: Possible risks?

    - by sebastiangeiger
    Say I had a class SuperClass and two subclasses SubClassA and SubClassB that inherit from SuperClass. abstract class SuperClass{ ... List someList; ... } class SubClassA extends SuperClass{ ... List<String> someList; ... } class SubClassB extends SuperClass{ ... List<Integer> someList; ... } That way it is convenient because I can get someList.size() in Superclass and have Typesafety in the Subclasses. The problem is that it does not "feel" right, can you think of potential hazards this apporach has that I am not aware of?

    Read the article

  • Calling base Text method on custom TextBox

    - by The Demigeek
    I'm trying to create a CurrencyTextBox that inherits from TextBox. I'm seeing some really weird behavior that I just don't understand. After lots of testing, I think I can summarize as follows: In the class code, when I access base.Text (to get the textbox's text), I'm actually getting the return value of my overridden Text property. I thought the base keyword would ensure that the underlying object's methods get called. To demonstrate: public class cTestTextBox : System.Windows.Forms.TextBox { string strText = ""; public cTestTextBox() { SetVal("AAA"); base.Text = "TEST"; } public override string Text { get { string s = strText; s = "++" + s + "++"; return s; } } public void SetVal(string val) { strText = val; } } Place this control on a form and set a breakpoint on the constructor. Run the app. Hover your mouse over the base.Text expression. Note that the tooltip shows you the value of the overridden property, not the base property. Execute the SetVal() statement and again hover your mouse over the base.Text expression. Note that the tooltop shows you the value of the overridden property, not the base property. How do I reliably access the Text property of the textbox from which I'm inheriting?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201  | Next Page >