Search Results

Search found 3390 results on 136 pages for 'func delegate'.

Page 2/136 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • JQuery Delegate and using traveral options in function

    - by Brian
    I am having trouble figuring out how to use the JQuery delegate function to do what I require. Basically, I need to allow users to add Panels (i.e. divs) to a form dynamically by selecting a button. Then when a user clicks a button within a given Panel, I want to be able to to something to that Panel (like change the color in this example). Unfortunately, it seems that references to the JQuery traversing functions don't work in this instance. Can anybody explain how to achieve this effect? Is there anyway to bind a different delegate to the each panel as its added. $('.addPanels').delegate('*', 'click', function() { $(this).parent.css('background-color', 'black'); $('.placeholder').append('Add item'); }); <div class="addPanels"> <div class="panel"> <a href="#" class="addLink">Add item</a> text</div> <div class="placeholder"/> </div> </div>

    Read the article

  • Can you get a Func<T> (or similar) from a MethodInfo object?

    - by Dan Tao
    I realize that, generally speaking, there are performance implications of using reflection. (I myself am not a fan of reflection at all, actually; this is a purely academic question.) Suppose there exists some class that looks like this: public class MyClass { public string GetName() { return "My Name"; } } Bear with me here. I know that if I have an instance of MyClass called x, I can call x.GetName(). Furthermore, I could set a Func<string> variable to x.GetName. Now here's my question. Let's say I don't know the above class is called MyClass; I've got some object, x, but I have no idea what it is. I could check to see if that object has a GetName method by doing this: MethodInfo getName = x.GetType().GetMethod("GetName"); Suppose getName is not null. Then couldn't I furthermore check if getName.ReturnType == typeof(string) and getName.GetParameters().Length == 0, and at this point, wouldn't I be quite certain that the method represented by my getName object could definitely be cast to a Func<string>, somehow? I realize there's a MethodInfo.Invoke, and I also realize I could always create a Func<string> like: Func<string> getNameFunc = () => getName.Invoke(x, null); I guess what I'm asking is if there's any way to go from a MethodInfo object to the actual method it represents, incurring the performance cost of reflection in the process, but after that point being able to call the method directly (via, e.g., a Func<string> or something similar) without a performance penalty. What I'm envisioning might look something like this: // obviously this would throw an exception if GetActualInstanceMethod returned // something that couldn't be cast to a Func<string> Func<string> getNameFunc = (Func<string>)getName.GetActualInstanceMethod(x); (I realize that doesn't exist; I'm wondering if there's anything like it.) If what I'm asking doesn't make sense, or if I'm being unclear, I'll be happy to attempt to clarify.

    Read the article

  • .delegate equivalent of an existing .hover method in jQuery 1.4.2

    - by kim3er
    I have an event handler bound to the hover event using the .hover method, which is below: $(".nav li").hover(function () { $(this).addClass("hover"); }, function () { $(this).removeClass("hover"); }); It is important to note, that I require both functions within the handler to ensure synchronisation. Is it possible to rewrite the function using .delegate, as the following does not work? $(".nav").delegate("li", "hover", function () { $(this).addClass("hover"); }, function () { $(this).removeClass("hover"); }); Rich

    Read the article

  • .delegate equivalent of an existing .live method in jQuery 1.4.2

    - by kim3er
    I have an event handler bound to the hover event using the .live method, which is below: $(".nav li").hover(function () { $(this).addClass("hover"); }, function () { $(this).removeClass("hover"); }); It is important to note, that I require both functions within the handler to ensure synchronisation. Is it possible to rewrite the function using .delegate, as the following does not work? $(".nav").delegate("li", "hover", function () { $(this).addClass("hover"); }, function () { $(this).removeClass("hover"); }); Rich

    Read the article

  • how to set a tableview delegate

    - by dubbeat
    Hi, I'm trying to use a tableview without using a nib and without using a UITableViewController. I have added a UITableView instance to a UIViewController Like So mytable = [[UITableView alloc] initWithFrame:CGRectMake(22, 207, 270, 233)]; [mytable setDelegate:self]; [self.view mytable]; Also I have added the following table view methods to my UIViewController (cut for brevities sake) - (UITableViewCell *)tableView:(UITableView *)tableView cellForRowAtIndexPath:(NSIndexPath *)indexPath - (CGFloat)tableView:(UITableView *)tableView heightForRowAtIndexPath:(NSIndexPath *)indexPath - (NSInteger)tableView:(UITableView *)tableView numberOfRowsInSection:(NSInteger)section { - (void)tableView:(UITableView *)tableView didSelectRowAtIndexPath:(NSIndexPath *)indexPath { I am getting a warning saying that my UIViewController does not implement UITableView delegate protocol. Whats the correct way to tell the table view where its delegate methods are? (This is my first attempt at trying to use a UITableView without selecting the UITableTableview controller from the new file options)

    Read the article

  • C#/.NET Little Wonders: The Predicate, Comparison, and Converter Generic Delegates

    - by James Michael Hare
    Once again, in this series of posts I look at the parts of the .NET Framework that may seem trivial, but can help improve your code by making it easier to write and maintain. The index of all my past little wonders posts can be found here. In the last three weeks, we examined the Action family of delegates (and delegates in general), the Func family of delegates, and the EventHandler family of delegates and how they can be used to support generic, reusable algorithms and classes. This week I will be completing my series on the generic delegates in the .NET Framework with a discussion of three more, somewhat less used, generic delegates: Predicate<T>, Comparison<T>, and Converter<TInput, TOutput>. These are older generic delegates that were introduced in .NET 2.0, mostly for use in the Array and List<T> classes.  Though older, it’s good to have an understanding of them and their intended purpose.  In addition, you can feel free to use them yourself, though obviously you can also use the equivalents from the Func family of delegates instead. Predicate<T> – delegate for determining matches The Predicate<T> delegate was a very early delegate developed in the .NET 2.0 Framework to determine if an item was a match for some condition in a List<T> or T[].  The methods that tend to use the Predicate<T> include: Find(), FindAll(), FindLast() Uses the Predicate<T> delegate to finds items, in a list/array of type T, that matches the given predicate. FindIndex(), FindLastIndex() Uses the Predicate<T> delegate to find the index of an item, of in a list/array of type T, that matches the given predicate. The signature of the Predicate<T> delegate (ignoring variance for the moment) is: 1: public delegate bool Predicate<T>(T obj); So, this is a delegate type that supports any method taking an item of type T and returning bool.  In addition, there is a semantic understanding that this predicate is supposed to be examining the item supplied to see if it matches a given criteria. 1: // finds first even number (2) 2: var firstEven = Array.Find(numbers, n => (n % 2) == 0); 3:  4: // finds all odd numbers (1, 3, 5, 7, 9) 5: var allEvens = Array.FindAll(numbers, n => (n % 2) == 1); 6:  7: // find index of first multiple of 5 (4) 8: var firstFiveMultiplePos = Array.FindIndex(numbers, n => (n % 5) == 0); This delegate has typically been succeeded in LINQ by the more general Func family, so that Predicate<T> and Func<T, bool> are logically identical.  Strictly speaking, though, they are different types, so a delegate reference of type Predicate<T> cannot be directly assigned to a delegate reference of type Func<T, bool>, though the same method can be assigned to both. 1: // SUCCESS: the same lambda can be assigned to either 2: Predicate<DateTime> isSameDayPred = dt => dt.Date == DateTime.Today; 3: Func<DateTime, bool> isSameDayFunc = dt => dt.Date == DateTime.Today; 4:  5: // ERROR: once they are assigned to a delegate type, they are strongly 6: // typed and cannot be directly assigned to other delegate types. 7: isSameDayPred = isSameDayFunc; When you assign a method to a delegate, all that is required is that the signature matches.  This is why the same method can be assigned to either delegate type since their signatures are the same.  However, once the method has been assigned to a delegate type, it is now a strongly-typed reference to that delegate type, and it cannot be assigned to a different delegate type (beyond the bounds of variance depending on Framework version, of course). Comparison<T> – delegate for determining order Just as the Predicate<T> generic delegate was birthed to give Array and List<T> the ability to perform type-safe matching, the Comparison<T> was birthed to give them the ability to perform type-safe ordering. The Comparison<T> is used in Array and List<T> for: Sort() A form of the Sort() method that takes a comparison delegate; this is an alternate way to custom sort a list/array from having to define custom IComparer<T> classes. The signature for the Comparison<T> delegate looks like (without variance): 1: public delegate int Comparison<T>(T lhs, T rhs); The goal of this delegate is to compare the left-hand-side to the right-hand-side and return a negative number if the lhs < rhs, zero if they are equal, and a positive number if the lhs > rhs.  Generally speaking, null is considered to be the smallest value of any reference type, so null should always be less than non-null, and two null values should be considered equal. In most sort/ordering methods, you must specify an IComparer<T> if you want to do custom sorting/ordering.  The Array and List<T> types, however, also allow for an alternative Comparison<T> delegate to be used instead, essentially, this lets you perform the custom sort without having to have the custom IComparer<T> class defined. It should be noted, however, that the LINQ OrderBy(), and ThenBy() family of methods do not support the Comparison<T> delegate (though one could easily add their own extension methods to create one, or create an IComparer() factory class that generates one from a Comparison<T>). So, given this delegate, we could use it to perform easy sorts on an Array or List<T> based on custom fields.  Say for example we have a data class called Employee with some basic employee information: 1: public sealed class Employee 2: { 3: public string Name { get; set; } 4: public int Id { get; set; } 5: public double Salary { get; set; } 6: } And say we had a List<Employee> that contained data, such as: 1: var employees = new List<Employee> 2: { 3: new Employee { Name = "John Smith", Id = 2, Salary = 37000.0 }, 4: new Employee { Name = "Jane Doe", Id = 1, Salary = 57000.0 }, 5: new Employee { Name = "John Doe", Id = 5, Salary = 60000.0 }, 6: new Employee { Name = "Jane Smith", Id = 3, Salary = 59000.0 } 7: }; Now, using the Comparison<T> delegate form of Sort() on the List<Employee>, we can sort our list many ways: 1: // sort based on employee ID 2: employees.Sort((lhs, rhs) => Comparer<int>.Default.Compare(lhs.Id, rhs.Id)); 3:  4: // sort based on employee name 5: employees.Sort((lhs, rhs) => string.Compare(lhs.Name, rhs.Name)); 6:  7: // sort based on salary, descending (note switched lhs/rhs order for descending) 8: employees.Sort((lhs, rhs) => Comparer<double>.Default.Compare(rhs.Salary, lhs.Salary)); So again, you could use this older delegate, which has a lot of logical meaning to it’s name, or use a generic delegate such as Func<T, T, int> to implement the same sort of behavior.  All this said, one of the reasons, in my opinion, that Comparison<T> isn’t used too often is that it tends to need complex lambdas, and the LINQ ability to order based on projections is much easier to use, though the Array and List<T> sorts tend to be more efficient if you want to perform in-place ordering. Converter<TInput, TOutput> – delegate to convert elements The Converter<TInput, TOutput> delegate is used by the Array and List<T> delegate to specify how to convert elements from an array/list of one type (TInput) to another type (TOutput).  It is used in an array/list for: ConvertAll() Converts all elements from a List<TInput> / TInput[] to a new List<TOutput> / TOutput[]. The delegate signature for Converter<TInput, TOutput> is very straightforward (ignoring variance): 1: public delegate TOutput Converter<TInput, TOutput>(TInput input); So, this delegate’s job is to taken an input item (of type TInput) and convert it to a return result (of type TOutput).  Again, this is logically equivalent to a newer Func delegate with a signature of Func<TInput, TOutput>.  In fact, the latter is how the LINQ conversion methods are defined. So, we could use the ConvertAll() syntax to convert a List<T> or T[] to different types, such as: 1: // get a list of just employee IDs 2: var empIds = employees.ConvertAll(emp => emp.Id); 3:  4: // get a list of all emp salaries, as int instead of double: 5: var empSalaries = employees.ConvertAll(emp => (int)emp.Salary); Note that the expressions above are logically equivalent to using LINQ’s Select() method, which gives you a lot more power: 1: // get a list of just employee IDs 2: var empIds = employees.Select(emp => emp.Id).ToList(); 3:  4: // get a list of all emp salaries, as int instead of double: 5: var empSalaries = employees.Select(emp => (int)emp.Salary).ToList(); The only difference with using LINQ is that many of the methods (including Select()) are deferred execution, which means that often times they will not perform the conversion for an item until it is requested.  This has both pros and cons in that you gain the benefit of not performing work until it is actually needed, but on the flip side if you want the results now, there is overhead in the behind-the-scenes work that support deferred execution (it’s supported by the yield return / yield break keywords in C# which define iterators that maintain current state information). In general, the new LINQ syntax is preferred, but the older Array and List<T> ConvertAll() methods are still around, as is the Converter<TInput, TOutput> delegate. Sidebar: Variance support update in .NET 4.0 Just like our descriptions of Func and Action, these three early generic delegates also support more variance in assignment as of .NET 4.0.  Their new signatures are: 1: // comparison is contravariant on type being compared 2: public delegate int Comparison<in T>(T lhs, T rhs); 3:  4: // converter is contravariant on input and covariant on output 5: public delegate TOutput Contravariant<in TInput, out TOutput>(TInput input); 6:  7: // predicate is contravariant on input 8: public delegate bool Predicate<in T>(T obj); Thus these delegates can now be assigned to delegates allowing for contravariance (going to a more derived type) or covariance (going to a less derived type) based on whether the parameters are input or output, respectively. Summary Today, we wrapped up our generic delegates discussion by looking at three lesser-used delegates: Predicate<T>, Comparison<T>, and Converter<TInput, TOutput>.  All three of these tend to be replaced by their more generic Func equivalents in LINQ, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t understand what they do or can’t use them for your own code, as they do contain semantic meanings in their names that sometimes get lost in the more generic Func name.   Tweet Technorati Tags: C#,CSharp,.NET,Little Wonders,delegates,generics,Predicate,Converter,Comparison

    Read the article

  • linq delegate function checking from objects

    - by Philip
    I am trying to find the list of objects which can be replaced. Class Letter{ int ID; string Name; string AdvCode; int isDeleted; } Class Replacers{ int ID; string MainAdvCode; string ReplacesAdvCode; } example data: Replacers 0 455 400 1 955 400 2 955 455 such that if a Letter has and Advcode of 455 and another has a code of 400 the 400 gets marked for deletion. And then if another Letter has a 955 then the 455 gets marked for deletion and the 400 (which is already marked) is marked for deletion. The problem is with my current code the 400 and 455 is marking itself for deletion?!?!? Public class Main{ List<Letter> Letters; List<Replacers> replaces; //select the ones to replace the replacements aka the little guys //check if the replacements replacer exists if yes mark deleted var filterMethodReplacements = new Func<Letter, bool>(IsAdvInReplacements);//Working var filterMethodReplacers = new Func<Letter, bool>(IsAdvInReplacers);//NOT WORKING???? var resReplacements=letters.Where(filterMethodReplacements);//working foreach (Letter letter in resReplacements) { //select the Replacers aka the ones that contain the little guys var resReplacers = letters.Where(filterMethodReplacers); if (resReplacers != null) letter.isDeleted = 1; } } } private bool IsAdvInReplacements(Letter letter) { return (from a in Replacables where a.ReplaceAdvCode == letter.AdvCode select a).Any(); } private bool IsAdvInReplacers(Letter letter) { //?????????????????????????????? return (from a in Replacables where a.MainAdvCode == letter.AdvCode select a).Any(); } }

    Read the article

  • Recursion in the form of a Recursive Func&lt;T, T&gt;

    - by ToStringTheory
    I gotta admit, I am kind of surprised that I didn’t realize I could do this sooner.  I recently had a problem which required a recursive function call to come up with the answer.  After some time messing around with a recursive method, and creating an API that I was not happy with, I was able to create an API that I enjoy, and seems intuitive. Introduction To bring it to a simple example, consider the summation to n: A mathematically identical formula is: In a .NET function, this can be represented by a function: Func<int, int> summation = x => x*(x+1)/2 Calling summation with an input integer will yield the summation to that number: var sum10 = summation(4); //sum10 would be equal to 10 But what if I wanted to get a second level summation…  First some to n, and then use that argument as the input to the same function, to find the second level summation: So as an easy example, calculate the summation to 3, which yields 6.  Then calculate the summation to 6 which yields 21. Represented as a mathematical formula - So what if I wanted to represent this as .NET functions.  I can always do: //using the summation formula from above var sum3 = summation(3); //sets sum3 to 6 var sum3_2 = summation(sum3); //sets sum3 to 21 I could always create a while loop to perform the calculations too: Func<int, int> summation = x => x*(x+1)/2; //for the interests of a smaller example, using shorthand int sumResultTo = 3; int level = 2; while(level-- > 0) { sumResultTo = summation(sumResultTo); } //sumResultTo is equal to 21 now. Or express it as a for-loop, method calls, etc…  I really didn’t like any of the options that I tried.  Then it dawned on me – since I was using a Func<T, T> anyways, why not use the Func’s output from one call as the input as another directly. Some Code So, I decided that I wanted a recursion class.  Something that I would be generic and reusable in case I ever wanted to do something like this again. It is limited to only the Func<T1, T2> level of Func, and T1 must be the same as T2. The first thing in this class is a private field for the function: private readonly Func<T, T> _functionToRecurse; So, I since I want the function to be unchangeable, I have defined it as readonly.  Therefore my constructor looks like: public Recursion(Func<T, T> functionToRecurse) { if (functionToRecurse == null) { throw new ArgumentNullException("functionToRecurse", "The function to recurse can not be null"); } _functionToRecurse = functionToRecurse; } Simple enough.  If you have any questions, feel free to post them in the comments, and I will be sure to answer them. Next, I want enough. If be able to get the result of a function dependent on how many levels of recursion: private Func<T, T> GetXLevel(int level) { if (level < 1) { throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException("level", level, "The level of recursion must be greater than 0"); } if (level == 1) return _functionToRecurse; return _GetXLevel(level - 1, _functionToRecurse); } So, if you pass in 1 for the level, you get just the Func<T,T> back.  If you say that you want to go deeper down the rabbit hole, it calls a method which accepts the level it is at, and the function which it needs to use to recurse further: private Func<T, T> _GetXLevel(int level, Func<T, T> prevFunc) { if (level == 1) return y => prevFunc(_functionToRecurse(y)); return _GetXLevel(level - 1, y => prevFunc(_functionToRecurse(y))); } That is really all that is needed for this class. If I exposed the GetXLevel function publicly, I could use that to get the function for a level, and pass in the argument..  But I wanted something better.  So, I used the ‘this’ array operator for the class: public Func<T,T> this[int level] { get { if (level < 1) { throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException("level", level, "The level of recursion must be greater than 0"); } return this.GetXLevel(level); } } So, using the same example above of finding the second recursion of the summation of 3: var summator = new Recursion<int>(x => (x * (x + 1)) / 2); var sum_3_level2 = summator[2](3); //yields 21 You can even find just store the delegate to the second level summation, and use it multiple times: var summator = new Recursion<int>(x => (x * (x + 1)) / 2); var sum_level2 = summator[2]; var sum_3_level2 = sum_level2(3); //yields 21 var sum_4_level2 = sum_level2(4); //yields 55 var sum_5_level2 = sum_level2(5); //yields 120 Full Code Don’t think I was just going to hold off on the full file together and make you do the hard work…  Copy this into a new class file: public class Recursion<T> { private readonly Func<T, T> _functionToRecurse; public Recursion(Func<T, T> functionToRecurse) { if (functionToRecurse == null) { throw new ArgumentNullException("functionToRecurse", "The function to recurse can not be null"); } _functionToRecurse = functionToRecurse; } public Func<T,T> this[int level] { get { if (level < 1) { throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException("level", level, "The level of recursion must be greater than 0"); } return this.GetXLevel(level); } } private Func<T, T> GetXLevel(int level) { if (level < 1) { throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException("level", level, "The level of recursion must be greater than 0"); } if (level == 1) return _functionToRecurse; return _GetXLevel(level - 1, _functionToRecurse); } private Func<T, T> _GetXLevel(int level, Func<T, T> prevFunc) { if (level == 1) return y => prevFunc(_functionToRecurse(y)); return _GetXLevel(level - 1, y => prevFunc(_functionToRecurse(y))); } } Conclusion The great thing about this class, is that it can be used with any function with same input/output parameters.  I strived to find an implementation that I found clean and useful, and I finally settled on this.  If you have feedback – good or bad, I would love to hear it!

    Read the article

  • VB.NET - Send [Delegate] through the classes to set AddressOf

    - by sv88erik
    How can I put AddressOf, from another class? I get this error 'AddressOf' operand must be the name of a method (without parentheses). " Is there an Eval () function in VB.NET? Or how does one do this? Public Shared Property e As UserControl Public Shared Sub SetButton(ByVal button As String, ByVal Objekt As [Delegate]) Dim errorbuttom1 As Button = e.FindName("errorButton1") AddHandler errorbuttom1.Click, AddressOf Objekt End Sub

    Read the article

  • C# Delegate Invoke Required Issue

    - by Goober
    Scenario I have a C# windows forms application that has a number of processes. These processes run on separate threads and all communicate back to the Main Form class with updates to a log window and a progress bar. I'm using the following code below, which up until now has worked fine, however, I have a few questions. Code delegate void SetTextCallback(string mxID, string text); public void UpdateLog(string mxID, string text) { if (txtOutput.InvokeRequired) { SetTextCallback d = new SetTextCallback(UpdateLog); this.BeginInvoke(d, new object[] { mxID, text }); } else { UpdateProgressBar(text); } } Question Will, calling the above code about 10 times a second, repeatedly, give me errors, exceptions or generally issues?.....Or more to the point, should it give me any of these problems? Occasionally I get OutofMemory Exceptions and the program always seems to crash around this bit of code......

    Read the article

  • iPhone: Sharing protocol/delegate code

    - by pion
    I have the following code protocol snippets: @protocol FooDelegate; @interface Foo : UIViewController { id delegate; } ... @protocol FooDelegate ... // method 1 ... // method 2 ... @end Also, the following code which implements FooDelegate: @interface Bar1 : UIViewController { ... } @interface Bar2 : UITableViewController { ... } It turns out the implementation of FooDelegate is the same on both Bar1 and Bar2 classes. I currently just copy FooDelegate implementation code from Bar1 to Bar2. How do I structure/implement in such a way that Bar1 and Bar2 share the same code in a single code base (not as currently with 2 copies) since they are the same? Thanks in advance for your help.

    Read the article

  • Traditional loop versus Action delegate in C#

    - by emddudley
    After learning about the Action delegate in C# I've been looking for ways I can best use it in my code. I came up with this pattern: Action<string> DoSomething = (lSomething) => { // Do something }; DoSomething("somebody"); DoSomething("someone"); DoSomething("somewhere"); If I were to have used a traditional loop, it would look something like this: List<string> lSomeList = new List<string>(); lSomeList.Add("somebody"); lSomeList.Add("someone"); lSomeList.Add("somewhere"); foreach (string lSomething in lSomeList) { // Do something } Are there any appreciable differences between the two? To me they look equally easy to understand and maintain, but are there some other criteria I might use to distinguish when one might be preferred over the other?

    Read the article

  • SKProductsRequest delegate methods are never called.

    - by coneybeare
    This used to work for me but is now not working anymore and I can't figure out why. I have in-app purchase setup in my app. I confirmed that I have a correct set of product identifiers, matched by corresponding in-app purchase items in itunesconnect. The call goes out to Apple view [productRequest start], but I never get a response back, despite setting the delegate to myself. What am I missing? NSLog(@"productIdentifiersSet: %@", productIdentifiersSet); if ([productIdentifiersSet count]) { SKProductsRequest *productRequest = [[SKProductsRequest alloc] initWithProductIdentifiers:productIdentifiersSet]; [productRequest setDelegate:self]; [productRequest start]; } ……… - (void)productsRequest:(SKProductsRequest *)request didReceiveResponse:(SKProductsResponse *)response { <never called> } - (void)requestDidFinish:(SKRequest *)request { <never called> } - (void)request:(SKRequest *)request didFailWithError:(NSError *)error { <never called> }

    Read the article

  • Function like C# properties?

    - by alan2here
    I was directed here from SO as a better stack exchange site for this question. I've been thinking about the neatness and expression of C# properties over functions, although they only currently work where no parameters are used, and wondered. Is is possible, and if so why not, to have a stand alone function like C# property. For example: public class test { private byte n = 4; public test() { func = 2; byte n2 = func; func; } private byte func { get { return n; } set { n = value; } func { n++; } } } edit: Sorry for the vagueness first time round. I'm going to add some info and motivation. The 'n++' here is just a simple example, a placeholder, it's not intended to be representative of the actual code that would be used. I'm also looking at this from the point of view of looking at the property command as is, not in the context of using it for 'get_xyz' and 'set_xyz' member functions, which is certainly useful, but of instead comparing it more abstractly to functions and other programic elements. A 'get' property can be used instead of a function that takes no parameters, and syntactically they are perhaps only aesthetically, but as I see it noticeably nicer. However, properties also add the potential for an extra layer of polymorphism, one that relates to the 'func = 4;' getting, 'int n = func;' setting or 'func;' function like context in which they are used as well as the more common parameter based polymorphism. Potentially allowing for a lot of expression and contextual information reguarding how other would use your functions. As in many places uses and definitions would remain the same, it shouldn't break existing code. private byte func { get { } get bool { } set { } func { } func(bool) { } func(byte, myType) { } // etc... } So a read only function would look like this: private byte func { get { } } A normal function like this: private void func { func { } } A function with parameter polymorphism like this: private byte func { func(bool) { } func(byte, myType) { } } And a function that could return a value, or just compute, depending on the context it is used, that also has more conventional parameter polymorphism as well, like so: private byte func { get { } func(bool) { } func(byte, myType) { } }

    Read the article

  • C#: Delegate syntax?

    - by Rosarch
    I'm developing a game. I want to have game entities each have their own Damage() function. When called, they will calculate how much damage they want to do: public class CombatantGameModel : GameObjectModel { public int Health { get; set; } /// <summary> /// If the attack hits, how much damage does it do? /// </summary> /// <param name="randomSample">A random value from [0 .. 1]. Use to introduce randomness in the attack's damage.</param> /// <returns>The amount of damage the attack does</returns> public delegate int Damage(float randomSample); public CombatantGameModel(GameObjectController controller) : base(controller) {} } public class CombatantGameObject : GameObjectController { private new readonly CombatantGameModel model; public new virtual CombatantGameModel Model { get { return model; } } public CombatantGameObject() { model = new CombatantGameModel(this); } } However, when I try to call that method, I get a compiler error: /// <summary> /// Calculates the results of an attack, and directly updates the GameObjects involved. /// </summary> /// <param name="attacker">The aggressor GameObject</param> /// <param name="victim">The GameObject under assault</param> public void ComputeAttackUpdate(CombatantGameObject attacker, CombatantGameObject victim) { if (worldQuery.IsColliding(attacker, victim, false)) { victim.Model.Health -= attacker.Model.Damage((float) rand.NextDouble()); // error here Debug.WriteLine(String.Format("{0} hits {1} for {2} damage", attacker, victim, attackTraits.Damage)); } } The error is: 'Damage': cannot reference a type through an expression; try 'HWAlphaRelease.GameObject.CombatantGameModel.Damage' instead What am I doing wrong?

    Read the article

  • Moving delegate-related function to a different thread

    - by Chris
    Hello everybody. We are developing a library in C# that communicates with the serial port. We have a function that is given to a delegate. The problem is that we want it to be run in a different thread. We tried creating a new thread (called DatafromBot) but keep using it as follows (first line): comPort.DataReceived += new SerialDataReceivedEventHandler(comPort_DataReceived); DatafromBot = new Thread(comPort_DataReceived); DatafromBot.Start(); comPort_DataReceived is defined as: Thread DatafromBot; public void comPort_DataReceived(object sender, SerialDataReceivedEventArgs e) { ... } The following errors occur: Error 3 The best overloaded method match for 'System.Threading.Thread.Thread(System.Threading.ThreadStart)' has some invalid arguments C:...\IR52cLow\CommunicationManager.cs 180 27 IR52cLow Error 4 Argument '1': cannot convert from 'method group' to 'System.Threading.ThreadStart' C:...\IR52cLow\CommunicationManager.cs 180 38 IR52cLow Any ideas of how we should convert this to get it to compile? Please note that comPort.DataReceived (pay attention to "." instead of "_") lies within a system library and cannot be modified. Thanks for your time! Chris

    Read the article

  • Uses of Action delegate in C#

    - by Biswanath
    I was working with the Action Delgates in C# in the hope of learning more about them and thinking where they might be useful. Has anybody used the Action Delgate, and if so why? or could you give some examples where it might be useful?

    Read the article

  • C# event or delegate or other solution?

    - by user295734
    Looking for some help or programmng ideas or mayeb there is some pattern that would help. Have an application that needs to fire alot of events sequentially, it could up to 100 or more unique events, it will be dynamic depeneding on the situation. Trying to find the best practice for doing this. My main idea right now is to create a list of objects iterate thru them, and fire each event. This seems wrong, or bad practice. Or maybe have one object and pass a list or params into one event? Or am I missing some feature in .NET that i could be using or implementing?

    Read the article

  • Problem with anonymouse delegate within foreach

    - by geting
    public Form1() { InitializeComponent(); Collection<Test> tests = new Collection<Test>(); tests.Add(new Test("test1")); tests.Add(new Test("test2")); foreach (Test test in tests) { Button button = new Button(); button.Text = test.name; button.Click+=new EventHandler((object obj, EventArgs arg)=>{ this.CreateTest(test); }); this.flowLayoutPanel1.Controls.Add(button); } } public void CreateTest(Test test) { MessageBox.Show(test.name); } } when i click the button witch text is 'test1', the messagebox will show 'test2',but my expect is 'test1'. So ,would anyone please tell me why or what`s wrong with my code.

    Read the article

  • How can I pass in a params of Expression<Func<T, object>> to a method?

    - by Pure.Krome
    Hi folks, I have the following two methods :- public static IQueryable<T> IncludeAssociations<T>(this IQueryable<T> source, params string[] associations) { ... } public static IQueryable<T> IncludeAssociations<T>(this IQueryable<T> source, params Expression<Func<T, object>>[] expressions) { ... } Now, when I try and pass in a params of Expression<Func<T, object>>[], it always calls the first method (the string[]' and of course, that value isNULL`) Eg. Expression<Func<Order, object>> x1 = x => x.User; Expression<Func<Order, object>> x2 = x => x.User.Passport; var foo = _orderRepo .Find() .IncludeAssociations(new {x1, x2} ) .ToList(); Can anyone see what I've done wrong? Why is it thinking my params are a string? Can I force the type, of the 2x variables?

    Read the article

  • Avoiding EXC_BAD_ACCESS when using the delegate pattern

    - by Kenny Winker
    A have a view controller, and it creates a "downloader" object, which has a reference to the view controller (as a delegate). The downloader calls back the view controller if it successfully downloads the item. This works fine as long as you stay on the view, but if you navigate away before the download is complete I get EXC_BAD_ACCESS. I understand why this is happening, but is there any way to check if an object is still allocated? I tried to test using delegate != nil, and [delegate respondsToSelector:], but it chokes. if (!self.delegate || ![self.delegate respondsToSelector:@selector(downloadComplete:)]) { // delegate is gone, go away quietly [self autorelease]; return; } else { // delegate is still around [self.delegate downloadComplete:result]; } I know I could, a) have the downloader objects retain the view controller b) keep an array of downloaders in the view controller, and set their delegate values to nil when I deallocate the view controller. But I wonder if there is an easier way, where I just test if the delegate address contains a valid object?

    Read the article

  • Typesafe fire-and-forget asynchronous delegate invocation in C#

    - by LBushkin
    I recently found myself needing a typesafe "fire-and-forget" mechanism for running code asynchronously. Ideally, what I would want to do is something like: var myAction = (Action)(() => Console.WriteLine("yada yada")); myAction.FireAndForget(); // async invocation Unfortunately, the obvious choice of calling BeginInvoke() without a corresponding EndInvoke() does not work - it results in a slow resource leak (since the asyn state is held by the runtime and never released ... it's expecting an eventual call to EndInvoke(). I also can't run the code on the .NET thread pool because it may take a very long time to complete (it's advised to only run relatively short-lived code on the thread pool) - this makes it impossible to use the ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(). Initially, I only needed this behavior for methods whose signature matches Action, Action<...>, or Func<...>. So I put together a set of extension methods (see listing below) that let me do this without running into the resource leak. There are overloads for each version of Action/Func. Unfortunately, I now want to port this code to .NET 4 where the number of generic parameters on Action and Func have been increased substantially. Before I write a T4 script to generate these, I was also hoping to find a simpler more elegant way to do this. Any ideas are welcome. public static class AsyncExt { public static void FireAndForget( this Action action ) { action.BeginInvoke(OnActionCompleted, action); } public static void FireAndForget<T1>( this Action<T1> action, T1 arg1 ) { action.BeginInvoke(arg1, OnActionCompleted<T1>, action); } public static void FireAndForget<T1,T2>( this Action<T1,T2> action, T1 arg1, T2 arg2 ) { action.BeginInvoke(arg1, arg2, OnActionCompleted<T1, T2>, action); } public static void FireAndForget<TResult>(this Func<TResult> func, TResult arg1) { func.BeginInvoke(OnFuncCompleted<TResult>, func); } public static void FireAndForget<T1,TResult>(this Func<T1, TResult> action, T1 arg1) { action.BeginInvoke(arg1, OnFuncCompleted<T1,TResult>, action); } // more overloads of FireAndForget<..>() for Action<..> and Func<..> private static void OnActionCompleted( IAsyncResult result ) { var action = (Action)result.AsyncState; action.EndInvoke(result); } private static void OnActionCompleted<T1>( IAsyncResult result ) { var action = (Action<T1>)result.AsyncState; action.EndInvoke( result ); } private static void OnActionCompleted<T1,T2>(IAsyncResult result) { var action = (Action<T1,T2>)result.AsyncState; action.EndInvoke(result); } private static void OnFuncCompleted<TResult>( IAsyncResult result ) { var func = (Func<TResult>)result.AsyncState; func.EndInvoke( result ); } private static void OnFuncCompleted<T1,TResult>(IAsyncResult result) { var func = (Func<T1, TResult>)result.AsyncState; func.EndInvoke(result); } // more overloads of OnActionCompleted<> and OnFuncCompleted<> }

    Read the article

  • Does delegate chaining have to start with a null Delegate?

    - by MCS
    In CLR via C#, Jeffrey Richter gives the following example of delegate chaining (pg. 406): internal delegate void Feedback(Int 32 value); Feedback fb1 = new Feedback(method1); // in the book, these methods Feedback fb2 = new Feedback(method2); // have different names Feedback fb3 = new Feedback(method3); Feedback fbChain = null; fbChain = (Feedback) Delegate.Combine(fbChain, fb1); fbChain = (Feedback) Delegate.Combine(fbChain, fb2); fbChain = (Feedback) Delegate.Combine(fbChain, fb3); Why does the first call to Delegate.Combine have to pass in a null Delegate? Here's how I would have thought it should be written: Feedback fbChain = (Feedback) Delegate.Combine(fb1, fb2); fbChain = (Feedback) Delegate.Combine(fbchain, fb3);

    Read the article

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