Search Results

Search found 23271 results on 931 pages for 'static classes'.

Page 20/931 | < Previous Page | 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27  | Next Page >

  • How do I call a static bool method in main.m

    - by AaronG
    This is Objective-C, in Xcode for the iPhone. I have a method in main.m: int main(int argc, char *argv[]) { NSAutoreleasePool * pool = [[NSAutoreleasePool alloc] init]; //I want to call the method here// int retVal = UIApplicationMain(argc, argv, nil, nil); [pool release]; return retVal; } static BOOL do_it_all () { //code here// } How do I call the do_it_all method from main.m?

    Read the article

  • Howto compile a static library in linux

    - by Summer_More_More_Tea
    Hi folks: I have a question: How to compile a static library in linux with gcc, i.e. I need to compile my source code into a file named out.a. Is it sufficient to simply compile with the command gcc -o out.a out.c? I'm not quite familiar with gcc, hope anyone can give me a hand. Thanks Regards.

    Read the article

  • conflicting declaration when filling a static std::map class member variable

    - by Max
    I have a class with a static std::map member variable that maps chars to a custom type Terrain. I'm attempting to fill this map in the class's implementation file, but I get several errors. Here's my header file: #ifndef LEVEL_HPP #define LEVEL_HPP #include <bitset> #include <list> #include <map> #include <string> #include <vector> #include "libtcod.hpp" namespace yarl { namespace level { class Terrain { // Member Variables private: std::bitset<5> flags; // Member Functions public: explicit Terrain(const std::string& flg) : flags(flg) {} (...) }; class Level { private: static std::map<char, Terrain> terrainTypes; (...) }; } } #endif and here's my implementation file: #include <bitset> #include <list> #include <map> #include <string> #include <vector> #include "Level.hpp" #include "libtcod.hpp" using namespace std; namespace yarl { namespace level { /* fill Level::terrainTypes */ map<char,Terrain> Level::terrainTypes['.'] = Terrain("00001"); // clear map<char,Terrain> Level::terrainTypes[','] = Terrain("00001"); // clear map<char,Terrain> Level::terrainTypes['\''] = Terrain("00001"); // clear map<char,Terrain> Level::terrainTypes['`'] = Terrain("00001"); // clear map<char,Terrain> Level::terrainTypes[178] = Terrain("11111"); // wall (...) } } I'm using g++, and the errors I get are src/Level.cpp:15: error: conflicting declaration ‘std::map, std::allocator yarl::level::Level::terrainTypes [46]’ src/Level.hpp:104: error: ‘yarl::level::Level::terrainTypes’ has a previous declaration as ‘std::map, std::allocator yarl::level::Level::terrainTypes’ src/Level.cpp:15: error: declaration of ‘std::map, std::allocator yarl::level::Level::terrainTypes’ outside of class is not definition src/Level.cpp:15: error: conversion from ‘yarl::level::Terrain’ to non-scalar type ‘std::map, std::allocator ’ requested src/Level.cpp:15: error: ‘yarl::level::Level::terrainTypes’ cannot be initialized by a non-constant expression when being declared I get a set of these for each map assignment line in the implementation file. Anyone see what I'm doing wrong? Thanks for your help.

    Read the article

  • present a static page url as different url which is SEO friendly

    - by Gaurav Sharma
    Hi, I have developed a site, which has some static pages. Like explore, home, feedback. The link for these goes as follows website.com/views/explore.php website.com/index.php website.com/views/feedback.php I want to write a different SEO URL for each of the URL mentioned above. Is it possible ? i.e. for example website.com/views/explore.php should be convereted/visible as website.com/explore website.com/views/feedback.php should be convereted/visible as website.com/give/feedback and so on

    Read the article

  • final and private static

    - by xdevel2000
    I read that doing: public final void foo() {} is equals to: private static void foo() {} both meaning that the method is not overridable! But I don't see the equivalence if a method is private it's automatically not accessible...

    Read the article

  • Static methods on ASP.NET web sites

    - by Grant
    Hi, i was wondering.. if i have a static method on an asp.net web site (plain vanilla), is that accessible by all users of all sessions? I guess what i am saying is the single instance of a method available to each client? or is there 1 instance for all clients for the site..

    Read the article

  • Static Memory allocation & Portability

    - by user332354
    I have read Static Memory Allocation are done during Compile time. Is the 'address allocated' used while generating executables ? Now,I am in doubt that how the memory allocation is handled when the code executable is transferred completely to a new system. I searched for it but I didn't get any answer on Internet.

    Read the article

  • C++, create an instance from a static method

    - by Manux
    Hello, let's say I want my users to use only one class, say SpecialData. Now, this data class would have many methods, and depending on the type of data, the methods do different things, internally, but return externally similar results. Therefore my wanting to have one "public" class and other "private", child classes that would change the behavior of methods, etc... It would be amazingly more simple for some types of data that need to be built to do something like this: SpecialData& sm = SpecialData::new_supermatrix(); and new_supermatrix() would return a SuperMatrix instance, which inherits from most behaviors of SpecialData. my header: static SpecialData& new_supermatrix(); my cpp: SpecialData& SpecialData::new_supermatrix()(){ return SuperMatrix(MATRIX_DEFAULT_MAGNITUDE,1000,1239,FLOAT32,etc...); } The problem is, I get this error, which is probably logical due to the circumstances: invalid initialization of non-const reference of type ‘SpecialData&’ from a temporary of type ‘SpecialData’ So, any ideas?

    Read the article

  • Generating EF Code First model classes from an existing database

    - by Jon Galloway
    Entity Framework Code First is a lightweight way to "turn on" data access for a simple CLR class. As the name implies, the intended use is that you're writing the code first and thinking about the database later. However, I really like the Entity Framework Code First works, and I want to use it in existing projects and projects with pre-existing databases. For example, MVC Music Store comes with a SQL Express database that's pre-loaded with a catalog of music (including genres, artists, and songs), and while it may eventually make sense to load that seed data from a different source, for the MVC 3 release we wanted to keep using the existing database. While I'm not getting the full benefit of Code First - writing code which drives the database schema - I can still benefit from the simplicity of the lightweight code approach. Scott Guthrie blogged about how to use entity framework with an existing database, looking at how you can override the Entity Framework Code First conventions so that it can work with a database which was created following other conventions. That gives you the information you need to create the model classes manually. However, it turns out that with Entity Framework 4 CTP 5, there's a way to generate the model classes from the database schema. Once the grunt work is done, of course, you can go in and modify the model classes as you'd like, but you can save the time and frustration of figuring out things like mapping SQL database types to .NET types. Note that this template requires Entity Framework 4 CTP 5 or later. You can install EF 4 CTP 5 here. Step One: Generate an EF Model from your existing database The code generation system in Entity Framework works from a model. You can add a model to your existing project and delete it when you're done, but I think it's simpler to just spin up a separate project to generate the model classes. When you're done, you can delete the project without affecting your application, or you may choose to keep it around in case you have other database schema updates which require model changes. I chose to add the Model classes to the Models folder of a new MVC 3 application. Right-click the folder and select "Add / New Item..."   Next, select ADO.NET Entity Data Model from the Data Templates list, and name it whatever you want (the name is unimportant).   Next, select "Generate from database." This is important - it's what kicks off the next few steps, which read your database's schema.   Now it's time to point the Entity Data Model Wizard at your existing database. I'll assume you know how to find your database - if not, I covered that a bit in the MVC Music Store tutorial section on Models and Data. Select your database, uncheck the "Save entity connection settings in Web.config" (since we won't be using them within the application), and click Next.   Now you can select the database objects you'd like modeled. I just selected all tables and clicked Finish.   And there's your model. If you want, you can make additional changes here before going on to generate the code.   Step Two: Add the DbContext Generator Like most code generation systems in Visual Studio lately, Entity Framework uses T4 templates which allow for some control over how the code is generated. K Scott Allen wrote a detailed article on T4 Templates and the Entity Framework on MSDN recently, if you'd like to know more. Fortunately for us, there's already a template that does just what we need without any customization. Right-click a blank space in the Entity Framework model surface and select "Add Code Generation Item..." Select the Code groupt in the Installed Templates section and pick the ADO.NET DbContext Generator. If you don't see this listed, make sure you've got EF 4 CTP 5 installed and that you're looking at the Code templates group. Note that the DbContext Generator template is similar to the EF POCO template which came out last year, but with "fix up" code (unnecessary in EF Code First) removed.   As soon as you do this, you'll two terrifying Security Warnings - unless you click the "Do not show this message again" checkbox the first time. It will also be displayed (twice) every time you rebuild the project, so I checked the box and no immediate harm befell my computer (fingers crossed!).   Here's the payoff: two templates (filenames ending with .tt) have been added to the project, and they've generated the code I needed.   The "MusicStoreEntities.Context.tt" template built a DbContext class which holds the entity collections, and the "MusicStoreEntities.tt" template build a separate class for each table I selected earlier. We'll customize them in the next step. I recommend copying all the generated .cs files into your application at this point, since accidentally rebuilding the generation project will overwrite your changes if you leave them there. Step Three: Modify and use your POCO entity classes Note: I made a bunch of tweaks to my POCO classes after they were generated. You don't have to do any of this, but I think it's important that you can - they're your classes, and EF Code First respects that. Modify them as you need for your application, or don't. The Context class derives from DbContext, which is what turns on the EF Code First features. It holds a DbSet for each entity. Think of DbSet as a simple List, but with Entity Framework features turned on.   //------------------------------------------------------------------------------ // <auto-generated> // This code was generated from a template. // // Changes to this file may cause incorrect behavior and will be lost if // the code is regenerated. // </auto-generated> //------------------------------------------------------------------------------ namespace EF_CodeFirst_From_Existing_Database.Models { using System; using System.Data.Entity; public partial class Entities : DbContext { public Entities() : base("name=Entities") { } public DbSet<Album> Albums { get; set; } public DbSet<Artist> Artists { get; set; } public DbSet<Cart> Carts { get; set; } public DbSet<Genre> Genres { get; set; } public DbSet<OrderDetail> OrderDetails { get; set; } public DbSet<Order> Orders { get; set; } } } It's a pretty lightweight class as generated, so I just took out the comments, set the namespace, removed the constructor, and formatted it a bit. Done. If I wanted, though, I could have added or removed DbSets, overridden conventions, etc. using System.Data.Entity; namespace MvcMusicStore.Models { public class MusicStoreEntities : DbContext { public DbSet Albums { get; set; } public DbSet Genres { get; set; } public DbSet Artists { get; set; } public DbSet Carts { get; set; } public DbSet Orders { get; set; } public DbSet OrderDetails { get; set; } } } Next, it's time to look at the individual classes. Some of mine were pretty simple - for the Cart class, I just need to remove the header and clean up the namespace. //------------------------------------------------------------------------------ // // This code was generated from a template. // // Changes to this file may cause incorrect behavior and will be lost if // the code is regenerated. // //------------------------------------------------------------------------------ namespace EF_CodeFirst_From_Existing_Database.Models { using System; using System.Collections.Generic; public partial class Cart { // Primitive properties public int RecordId { get; set; } public string CartId { get; set; } public int AlbumId { get; set; } public int Count { get; set; } public System.DateTime DateCreated { get; set; } // Navigation properties public virtual Album Album { get; set; } } } I did a bit more customization on the Album class. Here's what was generated: //------------------------------------------------------------------------------ // // This code was generated from a template. // // Changes to this file may cause incorrect behavior and will be lost if // the code is regenerated. // //------------------------------------------------------------------------------ namespace EF_CodeFirst_From_Existing_Database.Models { using System; using System.Collections.Generic; public partial class Album { public Album() { this.Carts = new HashSet(); this.OrderDetails = new HashSet(); } // Primitive properties public int AlbumId { get; set; } public int GenreId { get; set; } public int ArtistId { get; set; } public string Title { get; set; } public decimal Price { get; set; } public string AlbumArtUrl { get; set; } // Navigation properties public virtual Artist Artist { get; set; } public virtual Genre Genre { get; set; } public virtual ICollection Carts { get; set; } public virtual ICollection OrderDetails { get; set; } } } I removed the header, changed the namespace, and removed some of the navigation properties. One nice thing about EF Code First is that you don't have to have a property for each database column or foreign key. In the Music Store sample, for instance, we build the app up using code first and start with just a few columns, adding in fields and navigation properties as the application needs them. EF Code First handles the columsn we've told it about and doesn't complain about the others. Here's the basic class: using System.ComponentModel; using System.ComponentModel.DataAnnotations; using System.Web.Mvc; using System.Collections.Generic; namespace MvcMusicStore.Models { public class Album { public int AlbumId { get; set; } public int GenreId { get; set; } public int ArtistId { get; set; } public string Title { get; set; } public decimal Price { get; set; } public string AlbumArtUrl { get; set; } public virtual Genre Genre { get; set; } public virtual Artist Artist { get; set; } public virtual List OrderDetails { get; set; } } } It's my class, not Entity Framework's, so I'm free to do what I want with it. I added a bunch of MVC 3 annotations for scaffolding and validation support, as shown below: using System.ComponentModel; using System.ComponentModel.DataAnnotations; using System.Web.Mvc; using System.Collections.Generic; namespace MvcMusicStore.Models { [Bind(Exclude = "AlbumId")] public class Album { [ScaffoldColumn(false)] public int AlbumId { get; set; } [DisplayName("Genre")] public int GenreId { get; set; } [DisplayName("Artist")] public int ArtistId { get; set; } [Required(ErrorMessage = "An Album Title is required")] [StringLength(160)] public string Title { get; set; } [Required(ErrorMessage = "Price is required")] [Range(0.01, 100.00, ErrorMessage = "Price must be between 0.01 and 100.00")] public decimal Price { get; set; } [DisplayName("Album Art URL")] [StringLength(1024)] public string AlbumArtUrl { get; set; } public virtual Genre Genre { get; set; } public virtual Artist Artist { get; set; } public virtual List<OrderDetail> OrderDetails { get; set; } } } The end result was that I had working EF Code First model code for the finished application. You can follow along through the tutorial to see how I built up to the finished model classes, starting with simple 2-3 property classes and building up to the full working schema. Thanks to Diego Vega (on the Entity Framework team) for pointing me to the DbContext template.

    Read the article

  • CSS and HTML incoherences when declaring multiple classes

    - by Cesco
    I'm learning CSS "seriously" for the first time, but I found the way you deal with multiple CSS classes in CSS and HTML quite incoherent. For example I learned that if I want to declare multiple CSS classes with a common style applied to them, I have to write: .style1, .style2, .style3 { color: red; } Then, if I have to declare an HTML tag that has multiple classes applied to it, I have to write: <div class="style1 style2 style3"></div> And I'm asking why? From my personal point of view it would be more coherent if both could be declared by using a comma to separate each class, or if both could be declared using a space; after all IMHO we're still talking about multiple classes, in both CSS and HTML. I think that it would make more sense if I could write this to declare a div with multiple classes applied: <div class="style1, style2, style3"></div> Am I'm missing something important? Could you explain me if there's a valid reason behind these two different syntaxes?

    Read the article

  • Présentation de ClassObject.js : un framework JavaScript de construction de classes, par Abraham Tewa

    Bonjour, Je vous propose de découvrir un article sur ClassObject, un framework javascript de construction de classes, développé par votre serviteur. Ce framework permet de créer simplement des classes avec des attributs et des méthodes publiques, protégées et privées, statiques (ou non), constantes (ou non), tout en prenant en charge l'héritage. Vous pouvez poster dans cette discussion vos commentaires concernant l'article ClassObject.js : un framework JavaScript de construction de classes Merci à tous....

    Read the article

  • What are the consequences of immutable classes with references to mutable classes?

    - by glenviewjeff
    I've recently begun adopting the best practice of designing my classes to be immutable per Effective Java [Bloch2008]. I have a series of interrelated questions about degrees of mutability and their consequences. I have run into situations where a (Java) class I implemented is only "internally immutable" because it uses references to other mutable classes. In this case, the class under development appears from the external environment to have state. Do any of the benefits (see below) of immutable classes hold true even by only "internally immutable" classes? Is there an accepted term for the aforementioned "internal mutability"? Wikipedia's immutable object page uses the unsourced term "deep immutability" to describe an object whose references are also immutable. Is the distinction between mutability and side-effect-ness/state important? Josh Bloch lists the following benefits of immutable classes: are simple to construct, test, and use are automatically thread-safe and have no synchronization issues do not need a copy constructor do not need an implementation of clone allow hashCode to use lazy initialization, and to cache its return value do not need to be copied defensively when used as a field make good Map keys and Set elements (these objects must not change state while in the collection) have their class invariant established once upon construction, and it never needs to be checked again always have "failure atomicity" (a term used by Joshua Bloch) : if an immutable object throws an exception, it's never left in an undesirable or indeterminate state

    Read the article

  • Dependency injection in constructor, method or just use a static class instead?

    - by gaetanm
    What is the best between: $dispatcher = new Dispatcher($request); $dispatcher->dispatch(); and $dispatcher = new Dispatcher(); $dispatcher->dispatch($request); or even Dispatcher::dispatch($request); Knowing that only one method of this class uses the $request instance. I naturally tend to the last solution because the class have no other states, but by I feel that it may not be the best OOP solution.

    Read the article

  • Unit-Testing functions which have parameters of classes where source code is not accessible

    - by McMannus
    Relating to this question, I have another question regarding unit testing functions in the utility classes: Assume you have function signatures like this: public function void doSomething(InternalClass obj, InternalElement element) where InternalClass and InternalElement are both Classes which source code are not available, because they are hidden in the API. Additionally, doSomething only operates on obj and element. I thought about mocking those classes away but this option is not possible due to the fact that they do not implement an interface at all which I could use for my Mocking classes. However, I need to fill obj with defined data to test doSomething. How can this problem be solved?

    Read the article

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