Search Results

Search found 3678 results on 148 pages for 'constructor chaining'.

Page 2/148 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

• testing if constructor in constructor chain

  - by Delan Azabani

  I'm attempting to implement a GTK+ inspired widget toolkit for the web in JavaScript. One of the constructor chains goes gtk.widget => gtk.container => gtk.bin => gtk.window Every gtk.widget has a showAll method, which, if and only if the widget is a gtk.container or derivative (such as gtk.bin or gtk.window), will recursively show the children of that widget. Obviously, if it isn't a gtk.container or derivative, we shouldn't do anything because the widget in question can't contain anything. For reference, here is my inheritance function; it's probably not the best, but it's a start: function inherit(target, parent) { target.prototype = new parent; target.prototype.constructor = target; } I know that I can check for the direct constructor like this: if (this.constructor === gtk.container) ... However, this only tests for direct construction and not, say, if the object is a gtk.bin or gtk.window. How can I test whether gtk.container is somewhere up in the constructor chain?

  Read the article

• PHP OOP: Method Chaining

  - by Isis

  I have the following code, <?php class Templater { static $params = array(); public static function assign($name, $value) { self::$params[] = array($name => $value); } public static function draw() { self::$params; } } $test = Templater::assign('key', 'value'); $test = Templater::draw(); print_r($test); How can I alter this script so I could use this? $test = Templater::assign('key', 'value')->assign('key2', 'value2')->draw(); print_r($test);

  Read the article

• jQuery:Problem in Chaining the events.

  - by Shyju

  I have the following javascript function which will load data from a server page to the div This is working fine with the FadeIn/FadeOut effects function ShowModels(manuId) { var div = $("#rightcol"); div.fadeOut('slow',function() { div.load("../Lib/handlers/ModelLookup.aspx?mode=bymanu&mid="+manuId, { symbol: $("#txtSymbol" ).val() }, function() { $(this).fadeIn(); }); }); } Now i want to Show a Loading Message till the div loads the contents from the server page I tried this.But its not working.Can any one help me to debug this ? Thanks in advance function ShowModels(manuId) { var div = $("#rightcol"); var strLoadingMsg="<img src='loading.gif'/><h3>Loading...</h3>"; div.fadeOut('slow',function() { div.load(strLoadingMsg,function(){ div.load("../Lib/handlers/ModelLookup.aspx?mode=bymanu&mid="+manuId, { symbol: $("#txtSymbol" ).val() }, function() { $(this).fadeIn(); }); }); }); } My ultimate requirement is to FadeOut the current content.Show the Loading message.Show the Data coming from server with a FadeIn effect

  Read the article

• Init var without copy constructor

  - by Ockonal

  Hello, I have some class(Window) without copy constructor (it's private). I can't understand how to init var of this class in my own class: class MyClass { Window obj; // Hasn't copy constructor public: void init() { obj = Window(/* constructor params */); // [error] obj(/* constructor params */); // [error] } } Error 1: initializing argument 1 of ‘Window::Window(WindowHandle, const sf::WindowSettings&)’ Error 2: ‘NonCopyable& NonCopyable::operator=(const NonCopyable&)’ is private But it works in this way: Window obj(/* constructor params */);

  Read the article

• Doubt about constructor in JAVA

  - by Harry Joy

  I have few doubts regarding constructor in java Can a constructor be private? If yes then in which condition? Constructor is a method or not? If constructor does not return anything then why we are getting a new Object every time we call it. Whats the default access modifier of a constructor if we did not specify. Thanks & Regards Edit---------- Answer for 1 & 3 are very clear. But still doubt about 2&4 as i'm getting different answers for them.

  Read the article

• C++ Array Initialization in Function Call or Constructor Call

  - by david

  This question is related to the post here. Is it possible to initialize an array in a function call or constructor call? For example, class foo's constructor wants an array of size 3, so I want to call foo( { 0, 0, 0 } ). I've tried this, and it does not work. I'd like to be able to initialize objects of type foo in other objects' constructor initialization lists, or initialize foo's without first creating a separate array. Is this possible?

  Read the article

• Java constructor with large arguments or Java bean getter/setter approach

  - by deelo55

  Hi, I can't decide which approach is better for creating objects with a large number of fields (10+) (all mandatory) the constructor approach of the getter/setter. Constructor at least you enforce that all the fields are set. Java Beans easier to see which variables are being set instead of a huge list. The builder pattern DOES NOT seem suitable here as all the fields are mandatory and the builder requires you put all mandatory parameters in the builder constructor. Thanks, D

  Read the article

• Accessing constructor from abstract base class with reflection

  - by craesh

  Hi! I'm playing around with Java's Reflection. I have an abstract class Base with a constructor. abstract class Base { public Base( String foo ) { // do some magic } } I have some further classes extending Base. They don't contain much logic. I want to instantiate them with Base's constructor, without having to write some proxy contructors in those derived classes. And of course, I want to instantiate those derived classes with Reflection. Say: Class cls = SomeDerivedClass.class; Constructor constr; constr = cls.getConstructor( new Class[] { String.class } ); // will return null Class clsBase = Base.class; constr = clsBase.getConstructor( new Class[] { String.class } ); // ok Base obj = (Base) constr.newInstance( new Object[] { "foo" } ); // will throw InstantiationException because it belongs to an abstract class Any ideas, how I can instantiate a derived class with Base's constructor? Or must I declare those dumb proxy constructors?

  Read the article

• Can a single argument constructor with a default value be subject to implicit type conversion

  - by Richard

  I understand the use of the explicit keyword to avoid the implicit type conversions that can occur with a single argument constructor, or with a constructor that has multiple arguments of which only the first does not have a default value. However, I was wondering, does a single argument constructor with a default value behave the same as one without a default value when it comes to implicit conversions?

  Read the article

• Good style for handling constructor failure of critical object

  - by mtlphil

  I'm trying to decide between two ways of instantiating an object & handling any constructor exceptions for an object that is critical to my program, i.e. if construction fails the program can't continue. I have a class SimpleMIDIOut that wraps basic Win32 MIDI functions. It will open a MIDI device in the constructor and close it in the destructor. It will throw an exception inherited from std::exception in the constructor if the MIDI device cannot be opened. Which of the following ways of catching constructor exceptions for this object would be more in line with C++ best practices Method 1 - Stack allocated object, only in scope inside try block #include <iostream> #include "simplemidiout.h" int main() { try { SimpleMIDIOut myOut; //constructor will throw if MIDI device cannot be opened myOut.PlayNote(60,100); //..... //myOut goes out of scope outside this block //so basically the whole program has to be inside //this block. //On the plus side, it's on the stack so //destructor that handles object cleanup //is called automatically, more inline with RAII idiom? } catch(const std::exception& e) { std::cout << e.what() << std::endl; std::cin.ignore(); return 1; } std::cin.ignore(); return 0; } Method 2 - Pointer to object, heap allocated, nicer structured code? #include <iostream> #include "simplemidiout.h" int main() { SimpleMIDIOut *myOut; try { myOut = new SimpleMIDIOut(); } catch(const std::exception& e) { std::cout << e.what() << std::endl; delete myOut; return 1; } myOut->PlayNote(60,100); std::cin.ignore(); delete myOut; return 0; } I like the look of the code in Method 2 better, don't have to jam my whole program into a try block, but Method 1 creates the object on the stack so C++ manages the object's life time, which is more in tune with RAII philosophy isn't it? I'm still a novice at this so any feedback on the above is much appreciated. If there's an even better way to check for/handle constructor failure in a siatuation like this please let me know.

  Read the article

• Getting the instance when Constructor#newInstance throws?

  - by Shtééf

  I'm working on a simple plugin system, where third party plugins implement a Plugin interface. A directory of JARs is scanned, and the implementing classes are instantiated with Constructor#newInstance. The thing is, these plugins call back into register* methods of the plugin host. These registrations use the Plugin instance as a handle. My problem is how to clean up these registrations if the constructor decides to fail and throw halfway through. InvocationTargetException doesn't seem to have anything on it to get the instance. Is there a way to get at the instance of an exception throwing constructor? P.S.: It's typically strongly advised to users that the constructor not do anything, but in practice people are doing it any ways.

  Read the article

• Issue calling superclass method in subclass constructor

  - by stormin986

  I get a NullPointerException calling a Superclass Method in Subclass Inner Class Constructor... What's the Deal? In my application's main class (subclass of Application), I have a public inner class that simply contains 3 public string objects. In the parent class I declare an object of that inner class. public class MainApplication extends Application { public class Data { public String x; public String y; public String z; } private Data data; MainApplication() { data = new Data() data.x = SuperClassMethod(); } } After I instantiate the object in the constructor, I get a runtime error when I try to assign a value in the inner class with a superclass method. Any idea what's up here?? Can you not call superclass methods in the subclass constructor? ** Edit ** Original question was about inner class member assignment in outer class constructor. Turned out the issue was with calling a superclass method in the class's constructor. It was giving me a null pointer exception. Thus, the question has changed.

  Read the article

• C++ superclass constructor calling rules

  - by levik

  What are the C++ rules for calling the superclass constructor from a subclass one?? For example I know in Java, you must do it as the first line of the subclass constructor (and if you don't an implicit call to a no-arg super constructor is assumed - giving you a compile error if that's missing).

  Read the article

• 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

• 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

• 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

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