Search Results

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

Page 20/41 | < Previous Page | 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27  | Next Page >

• 'Lexical' scoping of type parameters in C#

  - by leppie

  I have 2 scenarios. This fails: class F<X> { public X X { get; set; } } error CS0102: The type 'F' already contains a definition for 'X' This works: class F<X> { class G { public X X { get; set; } } } The only logical explanation is that in the second snippet the type parameter X is out of scope, which is not true... Why should a type parameter affect my definitions in a type? IMO, for consistency, either both should work or neither should work. Any other ideas? PS: I call it 'lexical', but it probably is not not the correct term.

  Read the article

• Scala type inference failure on "? extends" in Java code

  - by oxbow_lakes

  I have the following simple Java code: package testj; import java.util.*; public class Query<T> { private static List<Object> l = Arrays.<Object>asList(1, "Hello", 3.0); private final Class<? extends T> clazz; public static Query<Object> newQuery() { return new Query<Object>(Object.class); } public Query(Class<? extends T> clazz) { this.clazz = clazz; } public <S extends T> Query<S> refine(Class<? extends S> clazz) { return new Query<S>(clazz); } public List<T> run() { List<T> r = new LinkedList<T>(); for (Object o : l) { if (clazz.isInstance(o)) r.add(clazz.cast(o)); } return r; } } I can call this from Java as follows: Query<String> sq = Query.newQuery().refine(String.class); //NOTE NO <String> But if I try and do the same from Scala: val sq = Query.newQuery().refine(classOf[String]) I get the following error: error: type mismatch found :lang.this.class[scala.this.Predef.String] required: lang.this.class[?0] forSome{ type ?0 <: ? } val sq = Query.newQuery().refine(classOf[String]) This is only fixed by the insertion of the correct type parameter! val sq = Query.newQuery().refine[String](classOf[String]) Why can't scala infer this from my argument? Note I am using Scala 2.7

  Read the article

• How to extend this design for a generic converter in java?

  - by Jay

  Here is a small currency converter piece of code: public enum CurrencyType { DOLLAR(1), POUND(1.2), RUPEE(.25); private CurrencyType(double factor) { this.factor = factor; } private double factor; public double getFactor() { return factor; } } public class Currency { public Currency(double value, CurrencyType type) { this.value = value; this.type = type; } private CurrencyType type; private double value; public CurrencyType getCurrencyType() { return type; } public double getCurrencyValue() { return value; } public void setCurrenctyValue(double value){ this.value = value; } } public class CurrencyConversion { public static Currency convert(Currency c1, Currency c2) throws Exception { if (c1 != null && c2 != null) { c2.setCurrenctyValue(c1.getCurrencyValue() * c1.getCurrencyType().getFactor() * c2.getCurrencyType().getFactor()); return c2; } else throw new Exception(); } } I would like to improve this code to make it work for different units of conversion, for example: kgs to pounds, miles to kms, etc etc. Something that looks like this: public class ConversionManager<T extends Convertible> { public T convert(T c1, T c2) { //return null; } } Appreciate your ideas and suggestions.

  Read the article

• Deserialize Stream to List<T> or any other type

  - by Sam

  Attempting to deserialize a stream to List<T> (or any other type) and am failing with the error: The type arguments for method 'Foo.Deserialize<T>(System.IO.Stream)' cannot be inferred from the usage. Try specifying the type arguments explicitly. This fails: public static T Deserialize<T>(this Stream stream) { BinaryFormatter bin = new BinaryFormatter(); return (T)bin.Deserialize(stream); } But this works: public static List<MyClass.MyStruct> Deserialize(this Stream stream) { BinaryFormatter bin = new BinaryFormatter(); return (List<MyClass.MyStruct>)bin.Deserialize(stream); } or: public static object Deserialize(this Stream stream) { BinaryFormatter bin = new BinaryFormatter(); return bin.Deserialize(stream); } Is it possible to do this without casting, e.g. (List<MyStruct>)stream.Deserialize()?

  Read the article

• .NET generic class instance - passing a variable data type

  - by FerretallicA

  As the title suggests, I'm tyring to pass a variable data type to a template class. Something like this: frmExample = New LookupForm(Of Models.MyClass) 'Works fine Dim SelectedType As Type = InstanceOfMyClass.GetType() 'Works fine frmExample = New LookupForm(Of SelectedType) 'Ba-bow! frmExample = New LookupForm(Of InstanceOfMyClass.GetType()) 'Ba-bow! LookupForm<Models.MyClass> frmExample; Type SelectedType = InstanceOfMyClass.GetType(); frmExample = new LookupForm<SelectedType.GetType()>(); //Ba-bow frmExample = new LookupForm<(Type)SelectedType>(); //Ba-bow I'm assuming it's something to do with the template being processed at compile time but even if I'm off the mark there, it wouldn't solve my problem anyway. I can't find any relevant information on using Reflection to instance template classes either. (How) can I create an instance of a dynamically typed repository at runtime?

  Read the article

• How to create a complete generic TreeView like data structure

  - by Nima Rikhtegar

  I want to create a completely generic treeview like structure. some thing like this: public class TreeView<T, K, L> { public T source; public K parent; public List<L> children; } as you can see in this class source, parent and also the children, all have a different generic data type. also i want my tree view to have unlimited number of levels (not just 3). this way when i want to work with my nodes in the code, all of them are going to be strongly typed. not just objects that i need to convert them to their original type. is it possible to create this kind of structure in c#, a treeview which all of its nodes are strongly typed? thanks

  Read the article

• Cast Object to Generic List

  - by CrazyJoe

  I have 3 generict type list. List<Contact> = new List<Contact>(); List<Address> = new List<Address>(); List<Document> = new List<Document>(); And save it on a variable with type object. Now i nedd do Cast Back to List to perfom a foreach, some like this: List<Contact> = (List<Contact>)obj; But obj content change every time, and i have some like this: List<???> = (List<???>)obj; I have another variable holding current obj Type: Type t = typeof(obj); Can i do some thing like that??: List<t> = (List<t>)obj; Obs: I no the current type in the list but i need to cast , and i dont now another form instead: List<Contact> = new List<Contact>(); Help Plz!!!

  Read the article

• Generic extension method returning IEnumerable<T> without using reflection

  - by roosteronacid

  Consider this snippet of code: public static class MatchCollectionExtensions { public static IEnumerable<T> AsEnumerable<T>(this MatchCollection mc) { return new T[mc.Count]; } } And this class: public class Ingredient { public String Name { get; set; } } Is there any way to magically transform a MatchCollection object to a collection of Ingredient? The use-case would look something like this: var matches = new Regex("([a-z])+,?").Matches("tomato,potato,carrot"); var ingredients = matches.AsEnumerable<Ingredient>();

  Read the article

• Uses for static generic classes?

  - by Hightechrider

  What are the key uses of a Static Generic Class in C#? When should they be used? What examples best illustrate their usage? e.g. public static class Example<T> { public static ... } Since you can't define extension methods in them they appear to be somewhat limited in their utility. Web references on the topic are scarce so clearly there aren't a lot of people using them. Here's a couple:- http://ayende.com/Blog/archive/2005/10/05/StaticGenericClass.aspx http://stackoverflow.com/questions/686630/static-generic-class-as-dictionary

  Read the article

• What would be different in Java if Enum declaration didn't have the recursive part

  - by atamur

  Please see http://stackoverflow.com/questions/211143/java-enum-definition and http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3061759/why-in-java-enum-is-declared-as-enume-extends-enume for general discussion. Here I would like to learn what exactly would be broken (not typesafe anymore, or requiring additional casts etc) if Enum class was defined as public class Enum<E extends Enum> I'm using this code for testing my ideas: interface MyComparable<T> { int myCompare(T o); } class MyEnum<E extends MyEnum> implements MyComparable<E> { public int myCompare(E o) { return -1; } } class FirstEnum extends MyEnum<FirstEnum> {} class SecondEnum extends MyEnum<SecondEnum> {} With it I wasn't able to find any benefits in this exact case. PS. the fact that I'm not allowed to do class ThirdEnum extends MyEnum<SecondEnum> {} when MyEnum is defined with recursion is a) not relevant, because with real enums you are not allowed to do that just because you can't extend enum yourself b) not true - pls try it in a compiler and see that it in fact is able to compile w/o any errors PPS. I'm more and more inclined to believe that the correct answer here would be "nothing would change if you remove the recursive part" - but I just can't believe that.

  Read the article

• C# Calling Methods in Generic Classes

  - by aip.cd.aish

  I am extending the ImageBox control from EmguCV. The control's Image property can be set to anything implementing the IImage interface. All of the following implement this interface: Image<Bgr, Byte> Image<Ycc, Byte> Image<Hsv, Byte> Now I want to call the Draw method on the object of the above type (what ever it may be). The problem is when I access the Image property, the return type is IImage. IImage does not implement the Draw method, but all of the above do. I believe I can cast the object of type IImage to one of the above (the right one) and I can access the Draw method. But how do I know what the right one is? If you have a better way of doing this, please suggest that as well.

  Read the article

• How to Work Around Limitations in Generic Type Constraints in C#?

  - by Jose

  Okay I'm looking for some input, I'm pretty sure this is not currently supported in .NET 3.5 but here goes. I want to require a generic type passed into my class to have a constructor like this: new(IDictionary<string,object>) so the class would look like this public MyClass<T> where T : new(IDictionary<string,object>) { T CreateObject(IDictionary<string,object> values) { return new T(values); } } But the compiler doesn't support this, it doesn't really know what I'm asking. Some of you might ask, why do you want to do this? Well I'm working on a pet project of an ORM so I get values from the DB and then create the object and load the values. I thought it would be cleaner to allow the object just create itself with the values I give it. As far as I can tell I have two options: 1) Use reflection(which I'm trying to avoid) to grab the PropertyInfo[] array and then use that to load the values. 2) require T to support an interface like so: public interface ILoadValues { void LoadValues(IDictionary values); } and then do this public MyClass<T> where T:new(),ILoadValues { T CreateObject(IDictionary<string,object> values) { T obj = new T(); obj.LoadValues(values); return obj; } } The problem I have with the interface I guess is philosophical, I don't really want to expose a public method for people to load the values. Using the constructor the idea was that if I had an object like this namespace DataSource.Data { public class User { protected internal User(IDictionary<string,object> values) { //Initialize } } } As long as the MyClass<T> was in the same assembly the constructor would be available. I personally think that the Type constraint in my opinion should ask (Do I have access to this constructor? I do, great!) Anyways any input is welcome.

  Read the article

• Typed DefaultListModel to avoid casting

  - by Thomas R.

  Is there a way in java to have a ListModel that only accepts a certain type? What I'm looking for is something like DefaultListModel<String> oder TypedListModel<String>, because the DefaultListModel only implements addElement(Object obj) and get(int index) which returns Object of course. That way I always have to cast from Object to e.g. String and there is no guarantee that there are only strings in my model, even though I'd like to enforce that. Is this a flaw or am I using list models the wrong way?

  Read the article

• Shallow copying a list with downcasting

  - by Mohit

  I have the class herichary as follows CEntity----CNode---CElement I have a class Nodes : List<Cnode> and Class Elements : List<Element> Node class contain common item common across different project Element class has item specific to a project. I have to shallow copy the element list into the node list (basically down casting the elements to nodes)

  Read the article

• Generic Type Parameter constraints in C# .NET

  - by activwerx

  Consider the following Generic class: public class Custom<T> where T : string { } This produces the following error: 'string' is not a valid constraint. A type used as a constraint must be an interface, a non-sealed class or a type parameter. Is there another way to constrain which types my generic class can use? Also, can I constrain to multiple types? E.G. T can only be string, int or byte

  Read the article

• How to create a generic C free function .

  - by nomemory

  I have some C structures related to a 'list' data structure. They look like this. struct nmlist_element_s { void *data; struct nmlist_element_s *next; }; typedef struct nmlist_element_s nmlist_element; struct nmlist_s { void (*destructor)(void *data); int (*cmp)(const void *e1, const void *e2); unsigned int size; nmlist_element *head; nmlist_element *tail; }; typedef struct nmlist_s nmlist; This way I can have different data types being hold in "nmlist_element-data" . The "constructor" (in terms of OOP) has the following signature: nmlist *nmlist_alloc(void (*destructor)(void *data)); Where "destructor" is specific function that de-allocated "data" (being hold by the nmlist_element). If I want to have a list containing integers as data, my "destructor" would like this: void int_destructor(void *data) { free((int*)data); } Still i find it rather "unfriendly" for me to write a destructor functions for every simple primitive data type. So is there a trick to write something like this ? (for primitives): void "x"_destructor(void *data, "x") { free(("x" *)data); } PS: I am not a macro fan myself, and in my short experience regarding C, i don't use them, unless necessary.

  Read the article

• Is there a way to achieve covariance of generic types in C# 3.5?

  - by nullDev

  This has been introduced in C# 4.0, but is there a way to achieve this in c# 3.5? For e.g., consider the following code: class Base { } class Derived1 : Base { } class Derived2 : Base { } class User<T> where T : Base { } class User1 : User<Derived1> { } Now, I would like to have a list of User<T>, in which I can store User<Derived1> as well as User<Derived2>, but the following code fails to compile in C# 3.5: List<User<Base>> users = new List<User<Base>>(); users.Add(new User1()); Any ideas?

  Read the article

• Extract Generic types from extended Generic

  - by Brigham

  I'm trying to refactor a class and set of subclasses where the M type does extend anything, even though we know it has to be a subclass of a certain type. That type is parametrized and I would like its parametrized types to be available to subclasses that already have values for M. Is there any way to define this class without having to include the redundant K and V generic types in the parameter list. I'd like to be able to have the compiler infer them from whatever M is mapped to by subclasses. public abstract class NewParametrized<K, V, M extends SomeParametrized<K, V>> { public void someMethodThatTakesKAndV(K k1, V v1) { } } In other words, I'd like the class declaration to look something like: public class NewParametrized<M extends SomeParametrized<K, V>> { And K and V's types would be inferred from the definition of M.

  Read the article

• List of objects plus a tag

  - by MC

  I want to store a list of objects, lets say of type Car, but with an additional 'tag' property eg a boolean True/False which does not belong on the Car class. What is the best way to accomplish this? I need to pass the result between methods.

  Read the article

• Constraint Validation

  - by tanuja

  I am using javax.validation.Validator and relevant classes for annotation based validation. Configuration<?> configuration = Validation.byDefaultProvider().configure(); ValidatorFactory factory = configuration.buildValidatorFactory(); Validator validator = factory.getValidator(); Set<ConstraintViolation<ValidatableObject>> constraintViolations = validator.validate(o); for (ConstraintViolation<ValidatableObject> value : constraintViolations) { List< Class< ? extends ConstraintValidator< ? extends Annotation,?>>> list = value.getConstraintDescriptor().getConstraintValidatorClasses(); } I get a compilation error stating: Type mismatch: cannot convert from List< Class< ? extends ConstraintValidator< capture#4-of ?,? to List< Class< ? extends ConstraintValidator< ? extends Annotation,? What am I missing?

  Read the article

• Type-safe mapping from Class<T> to Thing<T>

  - by Joonas Pulakka

  I want to make a map-kind of container that has the following interface: public <T> Thing<T> get(Class<T> clazz); public <T> void put(Class<T> clazz, Thing<T> thing); The interesting point is that the Ts in each Class<T><- Thing<T> pair is the same T, but the container should be able to hold many different types of pairs. Initially I tried a (Hash)Map. But, for instance, Map<Class<T>, Thing<T>> is not right, because then T would be same T for all pairs in that map. Of course, Map<Class<?>, Thing<?>> works, but then I don't have type-safety guarantees so that when I get(String.class), I can't be sure that I get a Thing<String> instance back. Is there a way to accomplish the kind of type safety that I'm looking for?

  Read the article

• Why calling ISet<dynamic>.Contains() compiles, but throws an exception at runtime?

  - by Andrey Breslav

  Please, help me to explain the following behavior: dynamic d = 1; ISet<dynamic> s = new HashSet<dynamic>(); s.Contains(d); The code compiles with no errors/warnings, but at the last line I get the following exception: Unhandled Exception: Microsoft.CSharp.RuntimeBinder.RuntimeBinderException: 'System.Collections.Generic.ISet<object>' does not contain a definition for 'Contains' at CallSite.Target(Closure , CallSite , ISet`1 , Object ) at System.Dynamic.UpdateDelegates.UpdateAndExecuteVoid2[T0,T1](CallSite site, T0 arg0, T1 arg1) at FormulaToSimulation.Program.Main(String[] args) in As far as I can tell, this is related to dynamic overload resolution, but the strange things are (1) If the type of s is HashSet<dynamic>, no exception occurs. (2) If I use a non-generic interface with a method accepting a dynamic argument, no exception occurs. Thus, it looks like this problem is related particularly with generic interfaces, but I could not find out what exactly causes the problem. Is it a bug in the compiler/typesystem, or legitimate behavior?

  Read the article

• C# - Dictionary with generic array as value

  - by alhazen

  In my class, I want to use a dictionary with the following declaration: Dictionary<string, T[]> Since the operations of my class are exactly the same for all generic types, I do not wish to define my class as generic (which means I would have to create a separate instance of my class for each generic type I insert into the dictionary ?). One alternative I'm attempting is to use Dictionary<string, object> instead: public void Add<T>(string str, T value) { // Assuming key already exists var array = (T[]) dictionary[str]; array[0] = value; } However, when iterating over the dictionary, how do I cast the object value back to an array ? foreach(string strKey in dictionary.Keys) { var array = (T[]) dictionary[strKey]; // How to cast here ? //... array[0] = default(T); } Thanks.

  Read the article

• How do I configure StructureMap to use a generic repository?

  - by simonjreid

  I have an interface IGenericRepository<TEntity> where TEntity : IEntity and an implementation GenericRepository<TEntity> where TEntity : Entity. I'm trying to inject a specific IGenericRepository<Section> into a class using StructureMap: ObjectFactory.Initialize(x => { x.For(typeof(IGenericRepository<>)).Use(typeof(GenericRepository<>)); }); But when I try to use ObjectFactory.GetInstance<IGenericRepository<Section>>(); I get: StructureMap Exception Code: 202 No Default Instance defined for PluginFamily System.Data.Common.DbConnection Any ideas why this is or what I'm doing wrong? Thanks in advance, Simon

  Read the article

• Insert into a generic dictionary with possibility of duplicate keys?

  - by Chris Clark

  Is there any reason to favor one of these approaches over the other when inserting into a generic dictionary with the possibility of a key conflict? I'm building an in-memory version of a static collection so in the case of a conflict it doesn't matter whether the old or new value is used. If Not mySettings.ContainsKey(key) Then mySettings.Add(key, Value) End If Versus mySettings(key) = Value And then of course there is this, which is obviously not the right approach: Try mySettings.Add(key, Value) Catch End Try Clearly the big difference here is that the first and second approaches actually do different things, but in my case it doesn't matter. It seems that the second approach is cleaner, but I'm curious if any of you .net gurus have any deeper insight. Thanks!

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27  | Next Page >