Search Results

Search found 3493 results on 140 pages for 'constructor'.

Page 2/140 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

• In Java, is it possible for a super constructor invocation actually invoke a constructor in the calling class?

  - by John Assymptoth

  Super constructor invocation definition: [Primary.] [NonWildTypeArguments] super ( ArgumentListopt ) ; A super constructor call can be prefixed by an Primary expression. Example (taken from JLS): class Outer { class Inner{ } } class ChildOfInner extends Outer.Inner { ChildOfInner() { (new Outer()).super(); // (new Outer()) is the Primary } } Does a Primary expression exist that makes the call to super() the invocation of a constructor of the calling class? Or Java prevents that?

  Read the article

• How to XML configure Spring bean for constructor injection when bean has varargs constructor

  - by hamletdarcy

  Is there a way to write a Spring bean in XML so that it uses constructor injection when that constructor has a varargs parameter type? IE, is there a way to specify an array the way you can specify a list? For instance: class MyClass { MyClass(String... args) { // rest omitted } }

  Read the article

• why Cannot invoke super constructor from enum constructor ?

  - by hilal

  public enum A { A(1); private A(int i){ } private A(){ super(); // compile - error // Cannot invoke super constructor from enum constructor A() } } and here is the hierarchy of enum A extends from abstract java.lang.Enum extends java.lang.Object Class c = Class.forName("/*path*/.A"); System.out.println(c.getSuperclass().getName()); System.out.println(Modifier.toString(c.getSuperclass().getModifiers()).contains("abstract")); System.out.println(c.getSuperclass().getSuperclass().getName());

  Read the article

• Simple Constructor With Initializer List? - C++

  - by Alex

  Hi all, below I've included my h file, and my problem is that the compiler is not liking my simple exception class's constructor's with initializer lists. It also is saying that string is undeclared identifier, even though I have #include <string> at the top of the h file. Do you see something I am doing wrong? For further explanation, this is one of my domain classes that I'm integrating into a wxWidgets GUI application on Windows. Thanks! Time.h #pragma once #include <string> #include <iostream> // global constants for use in calculation const int HOURS_TO_MINUTES = 60; const int MINUTES_TO_HOURS = 100; class Time { public: // default Time class constructor // initializes all vars to default values Time(void); // ComputeEndTime computes the new delivery end time // params - none // preconditions - vars will be error-free // postconditions - the correct end time will be returned as an int // returns an int int ComputeEndTime(); // GetStartTime is the getter for var startTime // params - none // returns an int int GetStartTime() { return startTime; } // GetEndTime is the getter for var endTime // params - none // returns an int int GetEndTime() { return endTime; } // GetTimeDiff is the getter for var timeDifference // params - none // returns a double double GetTimeDiff() { return timeDifference; } // SetStartTime is the setter for var startTime // params - an int // returns void void SetStartTime(int s) { startTime = s; } // SetEndTime is the setter for var endTime // params - an int // returns void void SetEndTime(int e) { endTime = e; } // SetTimeDiff is the setter for var timeDifference // params - a double // returns void void SetTimeDiff(double t) { timeDifference = t; } // destructor for Time class ~Time(void); private: int startTime; int endTime; double timeDifference; }; class HourOutOfRangeException { public: // param constructor // initializes message to passed paramater // preconditions - param will be a string // postconditions - message will be initialized // params a string // no return type HourOutOfRangeException(string pMessage) : message(pMessage) {} // GetMessage is getter for var message // params none // preconditions - none // postconditions - none // returns string string GetMessage() { return message; } // destructor ~HourOutOfRangeException() {} private: string message; }; class MinuteOutOfRangeException { public: // param constructor // initializes message to passed paramater // preconditions - param will be a string // postconditions - message will be initialized // params a string // no return type MinuteOutOfRangeException(string pMessage) : message(pMessage) {} // GetMessage is getter for var message // params none // preconditions - none // postconditions - none // returns string string GetMessage() { return message; } // destructor ~MinuteOutOfRangeException() {} private: string message; }; class PercentageOutOfRangeException { public: // param constructor // initializes message to passed paramater // preconditions - param will be a string // postconditions - message will be initialized // params a string // no return type PercentageOutOfRangeException(string pMessage) : message(pMessage) {} // GetMessage is getter for var message // params none // preconditions - none // postconditions - none // returns string string GetMessage() { return message; } // destructor ~PercentageOutOfRangeException() {} private: string message; }; class StartEndException { public: // param constructor // initializes message to passed paramater // preconditions - param will be a string // postconditions - message will be initialized // params a string // no return type StartEndException(string pMessage) : message(pMessage) {} // GetMessage is getter for var message // params none // preconditions - none // postconditions - none // returns string string GetMessage() { return message; } // destructor ~StartEndException() {} private: string message; };

  Read the article

• Passing array into constructor to use on JList

  - by OVERTONE

  I know the title sound confusing and thats because it is. its a bit long so try too stay with me. this is the layout i have my code designed variables constructor methods. im trying too fill a Jlist full on names. i want too get those names using a method. so here goes. in my variables i have my JList. its called contactNames; i also have an array which stores 5 strings which are the contacts names; heres the code for that anyway String contact1; String contact2; String contact3; String contact4; String contact5; String[] contactListNames; JList contactList; simple enough. then in my constructor i have the Jlist defined to fill itself with the contents of the array fillContactList(); JList contactList = new JList(contactListNames); that method fillContactList() is coming up shortly. notice i dont have the array defined in the constructor. so heres my first question. can i do that? define the array to contain something in te constructor rather than filling it fromt the array. now heres where stuff gets balls up. ive created three different methods all of which havent worked. basically im trying to fill the array with all of them. this is the simplest one. it doesnt set the Jlist, it doesnt do anything compilicated. all it trys too do is fill the array one bit at a time public void fillContactList() { for(int i = 0;i<3;i++) { try { String contact; System.out.println(" please fill the list at index "+ i); Scanner in = new Scanner(System.in); contact = in.next(); contactListNames[i] = contact; in.nextLine(); } catch(Exception e) { e.printStackTrace(); } } } unfortunately this doesnt qwork. i get the print out to fill it at index 0; i input something and i get a nice big stack trace starting at contactListNames[i] = contact; so my two questions in short are how i define an array in a constructor. and why cant i fill the array from that method. ************************888 **************************888 stack trace by request please fill the list at index 0 overtone java.lang.NullPointerException please fill the list at index 1 at project.AdminMessages.fillContactList(AdminMessages.java:408) at project.AdminMessages.<init>(AdminMessages.java:88) at project.AdminUser.createAdminMessages(AdminUser.java:32) at project.AdminUser.<init>(AdminUser.java:18) at project.AdminUser.main(AdminUser.java:47) it was a null poiinter exception

  Read the article

• Conversion constructor vs. conversion operator: precedence

  - by GRB

  Reading some questions here on SO about conversion operators and constructors got me thinking about the interaction between them, namely when there is an 'ambiguous' call. Consider the following code: class A; class B { public: B(){} B(const A&) //conversion constructor { cout << "called B's conversion constructor" << endl; } }; class A { public: operator B() //conversion operator { cout << "called A's conversion operator" << endl; return B(); } }; int main() { B b = A(); //what should be called here? apparently, A::operator B() return 0; } The above code displays "called A's conversion operator", meaning that the conversion operator is called as opposed to the constructor. If you remove/comment out the operator B() code from A, the compiler will happily switch over to using the constructor instead (with no other changes to the code). My questions are: Since the compiler doesn't consider B b = A(); to be an ambiguous call, there must be some type of precedence at work here. Where exactly is this precedence established? (a reference/quote from the C++ standard would be appreciated) From an object-oriented philosophical standpoint, is this the way the code should behave? Who knows more about how an A object should become a B object, A or B? According to C++, the answer is A -- is there anything in object-oriented practice that suggests this should be the case? To me personally, it would make sense either way, so I'm interested to know how the choice was made. Thanks in advance

  Read the article

• LINQtoSQL Custom Constructor off Partial Class?

  - by sah302

  Hi all, I read this question here: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/82409/is-there-a-way-to-override-the-empty-constructor-in-a-class-generated-by-linqtosq Typically my constructor would look like: public User(String username, String password, String email, DateTime birthday, Char gender) { this.Id = Guid.NewGuid(); this.DateCreated = this.DateModified = DateTime.Now; this.Username = username; this.Password = password; this.Email = email; this.Birthday = birthday; this.Gender = gender; } However, as read in that question, you want to use partial method OnCreated() instead to assign values and not overwrite the default constructor. Okay so I got this : partial void OnCreated() { this.Id = Guid.NewGuid(); this.DateCreated = this.DateModified = DateTime.Now; this.Username = username; this.Password = password; this.Email = email; this.Birthday = birthday; this.Gender = gender; } However, this gives me two errors: Partial Methods must be declared private. Partial Methods must have empty method bodies. Alright I change it to Private Sub OnCreated() to remove both of those errors. However I am still stuck with...how can I pass it values as I would with a normal custom constructor? Also I am doing this in VB (converted it since I know most know/prefer C#), so would that have an affect on this?

  Read the article

• Constructor or Assignment Operator

  - by ju

  Can you help me is there definition in C++ standard that describes which one will be called constructor or assignment operator in this case: #include <iostream> using namespace std; class CTest { public: CTest() : m_nTest(0) { cout << "Default constructor" << endl; } CTest(int a) : m_nTest(a) { cout << "Int constructor" << endl; } CTest(const CTest& obj) { m_nTest = obj.m_nTest; cout << "Copy constructor" << endl; } CTest& operatorint rhs) { m_nTest = rhs; cout << "Assignment" << endl; return *this; } protected: int m_nTest; }; int _tmain(int argc, _TCHAR* argv[]) { CTest b = 5; return 0; } Or is it just a matter of compiler optimization?

  Read the article

• Constructor being called again?

  - by Halo

  I have this constructor; public UmlDiagramEntity(ReportElement reportElement, int pageIndex, Controller controller) { super(reportElement.getX1(), reportElement.getY1(), reportElement.getX2(), reportElement.getY2()); setLayout(null); this.pageIndex = pageIndex; this.controller = controller; reportElements = reportElement.getInternalReportElements(); components = new ArrayList<AbstractEntity>(); changedComponentIndex = -1; PageListener p = new PageListener(); this.addMouseMotionListener(p); this.addMouseListener(p); setPage(); } And I have an update method in the same class; @Override public void update(ReportElement reportElement) { if (changedComponentIndex == -1) { super.update(reportElement); } else { reportElements = reportElement.getInternalReportElements(); if (components.size() == reportElements.size()) { if (!isCommitted) { if (reportElement.getType() == ReportElementType.UmlRelation) { if (checkInvolvementAndSet(changedComponentIndex)) { anchorEntity(changedComponentIndex); } else { resistChanges(changedComponentIndex); } return; } } ..................goes on When I follow the flow from the debugger, I see that when update is called, somewhere in the method, the program goes into the constructor and executes it all over again (super, pageIndex, etc.). Why does it go to the constructor :D I didn't tell it to go there. I can make a deeper analysis and see where it goes to the constructor if you want. By the way, changedComponentIndex is a static variable.

  Read the article

• Java Constructor Style (Check parameters aren't null)

  - by Peter

  What are the best practices if you have a class which accepts some parameters but none of them are allowed to be null? The following is obvious but the exception is a little unspecific: public class SomeClass { public SomeClass(Object one, Object two) { if (one == null || two == null) { throw new IllegalArgumentException("Parameters can't be null"); } //... } } Here the exceptions let you know which parameter is null, but the constructor is now pretty ugly: public class SomeClass { public SomeClass(Object one, Object two) { if (one == null) { throw new IllegalArgumentException("one can't be null"); } if (two == null) { throw new IllegalArgumentException("two can't be null"); } //... } Here the constructor is neater, but now the constructor code isn't really in the constructor: public class SomeClass { public SomeClass(Object one, Object two) { setOne(one); setTwo(two); } public void setOne(Object one) { if (one == null) { throw new IllegalArgumentException("one can't be null"); } //... } public void setTwo(Object two) { if (two == null) { throw new IllegalArgumentException("two can't be null"); } //... } } Which of these styles is best? Or is there an alternative which is more widely accepted? Cheers, Pete

  Read the article

• C++: Constructor/destructor unresolved when not inline?

  - by Anamon

  In a plugin-based C++ project, I have a TmpClass that is used to exchange data between the main application and the plugins. Therefore the respective TmpClass.h is included in the abstract plugin interface class that is included by the main application project, and implemented by each plugin. As the plugins work on STL vectors of TmpClass instances, there needs to be a default constructor and destructor for the TmpClass. I had declared these in TmpClass.h: class TmpClass { TmpClass(); ~TmpClass(); } and implemented them in TmpClass.cpp. TmpClass::~TmpClass() {} TmpClass::TmpClass() {} However, when compiling plugins this leads to the linker complaining about two unresolved externals - the default constructor and destructor of TmpClass as required by the std::vector<TmpClass> template instantiation - even though all other functions I declare in TmpClass.h and implement in TmpClass.cpp work. As soon as I remove the (empty) default constructor and destructor from the .cpp file and inline them into the class declaration in the .h file, the plugins compile and work. Why is it that the default constructor and destructor have to be inline for this code to compile? Why does it even maatter? (I'm using MSVC++8).

  Read the article

• Calling base class constructor

  - by The Void

  In the program below, is the line Derived(double y): Base(), y_(y) correct/allowed? That is, does it follow ANSI rules? #include <iostream> class Base { public: Base(): x_(0) { std::cout << "Base default constructor called" << std::endl; } Base(int x): x_(x) { std::cout << "Base constructor called with x = " << x << std::endl; } void display() const { std::cout << x_ << std::endl; } protected: int x_; }; class Derived: public Base { public: Derived(): Base(1), y_(1.2) { std::cout << "Derived default constructor called" << std::endl; } Derived(double y): Base(), y_(y) { std::cout << "Derived constructor called with y = " << y << std::endl; } void display() const { std::cout << Base::x_ << ", " << y_ << std::endl; } private: double y_; }; int main() { Base b1; b1.display(); Derived d1; d1.display(); std::cout << std::endl; Base b2(-9); b2.display(); Derived d2(-8.7); d2.display(); return 0; }

  Read the article

• Java: design problem with final-value and empty constructor

  - by HH

  $ javac InitInt.java InitInt.java:7: variable right might not have been initialized InitInt(){} ^ 1 error $ cat InitInt.java import java.util.*; import java.io.*; public class InitInt { private final int right; // Design Problem? // I feel the initialization problem is just due to bad style. InitInt(){} InitInt{ // Still the error, "may not be initialized" // How to initialise it? if(snippetBuilder.length()>(charwisePos+25)){ right=charwisePos+25; }else{ right=snippetBuilder.length()-1; } } public static void main(String[] args) { InitInt test = new InitInt(); System.out.println(test.getRight()); } public int getRight(){return right;} } Partial Solutions and Suggestions use "this" to access methods in the class, instead of creating empty constructor change final to non-final with final field value: initialize all final values in every constructor remove the empty constructor, keep your code simple and clean

  Read the article

• C# ArrayList calling on a constructor class

  - by EvanRyan

  I'm aware that an ArrayList is probably not the way to go with this particular situation, but humor me and help me lose this headache. I have a constructor class like follows: class Peoples { public string LastName; public string FirstName; public Peoples(string lastName, string firstName) { LastName = lastName; FirstName = firstName; } } And I'm trying to build an ArrayList to build a collection by calling on this constructor. However, I can't seem to find a way to build the ArrayList properly when I use this constructor. I have figured it out with an Array, but not an ArrayList. I have been messing with this to try to build my ArrayList: ArrayList people = new ArrayList(); people[0] = new Peoples("Bar", "Foo"); people[1] = new Peoples("Quirk", "Baz"); people[2] = new Peopls("Get", "Gad"); My indexing is apparently out of range according to the exception I get.

  Read the article

• Spring overloaded constructor injection

  - by noob

  This is the code : public class Triangle { private String color; private int height; public Triangle(String color,int height){ this.color = color; this.height = height; } public Triangle(int height ,String color){ this.color = color; this.height = height; } public void draw() { System.out.println("Triangle is drawn , + "color:"+color+" ,height:"+height); } } The Spring config-file is : <bean id="triangle" class="org.tester.Triangle"> <constructor-arg value="20" /> <constructor-arg value="10" /> </bean> Is there any specific rule to determine which constructor will be called by Spring ?

  Read the article

• c++ Using const in a copy constructor?

  - by Anton

  I have never written copy constructor, so in order to avoid pain i wanted to know if what i have coded is legit. It compiles but i am not sure that it works as a copy constructor should. Also do i have to use const in the copy constructor or i can simply drop it. (What i dont like about const is that the compiler cries if i use some non const functions). //EditNode.h class EditNode { explicit EditNode(QString elementName); EditNode(const EditNode &src); } //EditNodeContainer.h class EditNodeContainer : public EditNode { explicit EditNodeContainer(QString elementName); EditNodeContainer(const EditNodeContainer &src); } //EditNodeContainer.cpp EditNodeContainer::EditNodeContainer(QString elementName):EditNode(elementName) { } //This seems to compile but not sure if it works EditNodeContainer::EditNodeContainer(const EditNodeContainer &src):EditNode(src) { } //the idea whould be to do something like this EditNodeContainer *container1 = new EditNodeContainer("c1"); EditNodeContainer *copyContainer = new EditNodeContainer(container1);

  Read the article

• Java: design problem with private-final-int-value and empty constructor

  - by HH

  $ javac InitInt.java InitInt.java:7: variable right might not have been initialized InitInt(){} ^ 1 error $ cat InitInt.java import java.util.*; import java.io.*; public class InitInt { private final int right; //DUE to new Klowledge: Design Problem //I think having an empty constructor like this // is an design problem, shall I remove it? What do you think? // When to use an empty constructor? InitInt(){} public static void main(String[] args) { InitInt test = new InitInt(); System.out.println(test.getRight()); } public int getRight(){return right;} } Initialization problem with Constructor InitInt{ // Still the error, "may not be initialized" // How to initialise it? if(snippetBuilder.length()>(charwisePos+25)){ right=charwisePos+25; }else{ right=snippetBuilder.length()-1; } }

  Read the article

• C++ method chaining including class constructor

  - by jena

  Hello, I'm trying to implement method chaining in C++, which turns out to be quite easy if the constructor call of a class is a separate statement, e.g: Foo foo; foo.bar().baz(); But as soon as the constructor call becomes part of the method chain, the compiler complains about expecting ";" in place of "." immediately after the constructor call: Foo foo().bar().baz(); I'm wondering now if this is actually possible in C++. Here is my test class: class Foo { public: Foo() { } Foo& bar() { return *this; } Foo& baz() { return *this; } }; I also found an example for "fluent interfaces" in C++ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluent_interface#C.2B.2B) which seems to be exactly what I'm searching for. However, I get the same compiler error for that code. Thanks in advance for any hint. Best, Jean

  Read the article

• Would this constructor be acceptable practice?

  - by Robb

  Let's assume I have a c++ class that have properly implemented a copy constructor and an overloaded = operator. By properly implemented I mean they are working and perform a deep copy: Class1::Class1(const Class1 &class1) { // Perform copy } Class1& Class1::operator=(const Class1 *class1) { // perform copy return *this; } Now lets say I have this constructor as well: Class1::Class1(Class1 *class1) { *this = *class1; } My question is would the above constructor be acceptable practice? This is code that i've inherited and maintaining.

  Read the article

• Constructor return value

  - by Ivan Gromov

  Could you tell me what is wrong with my class constructor? Code: CVector::CVector (int size_) { if (size_ > 0) { this->size = size_; this->data = new double[size]; for (int i = 0; i < size; i++) { (*this)(i) = i; } } cout << "constructor end" << endl; return; } Usage example: tvector = CVector(6); I get an access violation after "constructor end" output.

  Read the article

• Why Java cannot find my constructor?

  - by Roman

  Well, maybe it is a stupid question, but I cannot resolve this problem. In my ServiceBrowser class I have this line: ServiceResolver serviceResolver = new ServiceResolver(ifIndex, serviceName, regType, domain); And compiler complains about it. It says: cannot find symbol symbol : constructor ServiceResolver(int,java.lang.String,java.lang.String,java.lang.String) This is strange, because I do have a constructor in the ServiceResolver: public void ServiceResolver(int ifIndex, String serviceName, String regType, String domain) { this.ifIndex = ifIndex; this.serviceName = serviceName; this.regType = regType; this.domain = domain; } ADDED: I removed void from the constructor and it works! Why?

  Read the article

• variadic constructors

  - by FredOverflow

  Are variadic constructors supposed to hide the implicitly generated ones, i.e. the default constructor and the copy constructor? struct Foo { template<typename... Args> Foo(Args&&... x) { std::cout << "inside the variadic constructor\n"; } }; int main() { Foo a; Foo b(a); } Somehow I was expecting this to print nothing after reading this answer, but it prints inside the variadic constructor twice on g++ 4.5.0 :( Is this behavior correct?

  Read the article

• Accessing the Private Constructor

  - by harigm

  I am java developer, went for an interview. I have been asked a question about the Private constructor 1) Can I access a Private Constructor of a Class and Instantiate the class. I was thinking and gave the answer directly--- "NO" But its wrong, can any one help Why NO? and How we can achieve this

  Read the article

• Call a constructor from variable arguments with PHP

  - by zneak

  Hello guys, I have a function that takes variadic arguments, that I obtain from func_get_args(). This function needs to call a constructor with those arguments. However, I don't know how to do it. With call_user_func, you can call functions with an array of arguments, but how would you call a constructor from it? I can't just pass the array of arguments to it; it must believe I've called it "normally". Thank you!

  Read the article

• Calling assignment operator in copy constructor

  - by stas

  Are there some drawbacks of such implementation of copy-constructor? Foo::Foo(const Foo& i_foo) { *this = i_foo; } As I remember, it was recommend in some book to call copy constructor from assignment operator and use well-known swap trick, but I don't remember, why...

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >