Search Results

Search found 1494 results on 60 pages for 'prototypal inheritance'.

Page 21/60 | < Previous Page | 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28  | Next Page >

  • inheritance from the django user model results in error when changing password

    - by Jerome
    I inherited form the django user model like so: from django.db import models from django.contrib.auth.models import User, UserManager from django.utils.translation import ugettext_lazy as _ class NewUserModel(User): custom_field_1 = models.CharField(_('custom field 1'), max_length=250, null=True, blank=True) custom_field_2 = models.CharField(_('custom field 2'), max_length=250, null=True, blank=True) objects = UserManager() When i go to the admin and add an entry into this model, it saves fine, but below the "Password" field where it has this text "Use '[algo]$[salt]$[hexdigest]' or use the change password form.", if i click on the "change password form' link, it produces this error Truncated incorrect DOUBLE value: '7/password' What can i do to fix this?

    Read the article

  • Using inheritance with multiple files in Ruby

    - by Preethi Jain
    I am new to Ruby . I have a question with respect to using Inheritence in Ruby . I have a class called as Doggy inside a file named Doggy.rb class Doggy def bark puts "Vicky is barking" end end I have written another class named Puppy in another file named puppy.rb class Puppy < Doggy end puts Doggy.new.bark I am getting this Error: Puppy.rb:1:in `<main>': uninitialized constant Doggy (NameError) Is it mandatory to have these classes (Doggy and Puppy ) inside a single file only? Edited As per the suggestions , i have tried using require and require_relative as shown , but still i am getting below Error Puppy.rb:1:in `<main>': uninitialized constant Doggy (NameError) class Puppy < Doggy end require_relative 'Doggy.rb' puts Doggy.new.bark

    Read the article

  • ASP.NET configuration inheritance

    - by NowYouHaveTwoProblems
    I have an ASP.NET application that defines a custom configuration section in web.config. Recently I had a customer who wanted to deploy two instances of the application (for testing in addition to an existing production application). The configuration chosen by the customer was: foo.com - production application foo.com/Testing - test application In this case, the ASP.NET configuration engine decided to apply the settings at foo.com/web.config to foo.com/Testing/web.config. Thankfully this caused a configuration error because the section was redefined at the second level rather than giving the false impression that the two web applications were isolated. What I would like to do is to specify that my configuration section is not inherited and must be re-defined for any web application that requires it but I haven't been able to find a way to do this. My web.config ends up something like this <configuration> <configSections> <section name="MyApp" type="MyApp.ConfigurationSection"/> </configSections> <MyApp setting="value" /> <NestedSettingCollection> <Item key="SomeKey" value="SomeValue" /> <Item key="SomeOtherKey" value="SomeOtherValue" /> </NestedSettingCollection> </MyApp> </configuration>

    Read the article

  • NSString inheritance

    - by Stef
    Hi, I'm doing an useless thing for my first step in Obj-C @interface String : NSString { int m_isnull; } - (id) init; - (int) isNull; @end @implementation String - (id) init { self = [super init]; m_isnull=1; return self; } - (int) isNull { return m_isnull; } @end test : String *a; a=@"ok"; Works fine, but just 2 little questions 1) When I'm compiling I have this warning warning: incompatible Objective-C types assigning 'struct NSString *', expected 'struct String *' I don't know how to avoid it !? 2) a=@"ok" is a fastest way to initialize a string, but when I'm debugging, I don't stop by at my init constructor why ?

    Read the article

  • enable_shared_from_this and inheritance

    - by DeadMG
    I've got a type which inherits from enable_shared_from_this<type>, and another type that inherits from this type. Now I can't use the shared_from_this method because it returns the base type and in a specific derived class method I need the derived type. Is it valid to just construct a shared_ptr from this directly? Edit: In a related question, how can I move from an rvalue of type shared_ptr<base> to a type of shared_ptr<derived>? I used dynamic_cast to verify that it really was the correct type, but now I can't seem to accomplish the actual move.

    Read the article

  • Objects with inheritance memory storage

    - by nikitas350
    Say that i have some classes like this example. class A { int k, m; public: A(int a, int b) { k = a; m = b; } }; class B { int k, m; public: B() { k = 2; m = 3; } }; class C : private A, private B { int k, m; public: C(int a, int b) : A(a, b) { k = b; m = a; } }; Now, in a class C object, are the variables stored in a specific way? I know what happens in a POD object, but this is not a POD object...

    Read the article

  • C# Generics Multiple Inheritance Problem

    - by Ciemnl
    Can any one help me with this syntax issue with C#? I have no idea how to do it. class SomeClass<T> : SomeOtherClass<T> where T : ISomeInterface , IAnotherInterface { ... } I want SomeClass to inherit from SomeOtherClass and IAnotherInterface and for T to inherit ISomeInterface only It seems the problem is that the where keyword screws everything up so that the compiler thinks both ISomeInterface and IAnotherInterface should both be inherited by T. This problem is very annoying and I think the solution is some kind of parenthesis but I have tried and failed finding one that works. Also, switching around the order of the two items inherited from SomeClass does not work because the class inherited always has to come before any interfaces. I couldn't find any solutions on the MSDN C# generics pages and I can't beleive I'm the first person to have this problem. Thanks, any help is much appreciated!

    Read the article

  • How to get the path of a derived class from an inherited method?

    - by Jacco
    How to get the path of the current class, from an inherited method? I have the following: <?php // file: /parentDir/class.php class Parent { protected function getDir() { return dirname(__FILE__); } } ?> and <?php // file: /childDir/class.php class Child extends Parent { public function __construct() { echo $this->getDir(); } } $tmp = new Child(); // output: '/parentDir' ?> The __FILE__ constant always points to the source-file of the file it is in, regardless of inheritance. I would like to get the name of the path for the derived class. Is there any elegant way of doing this? I could do something along the lines of $this->getDir(__FILE__); but that would mean that I have to repeat myself quite often. I'm looking for a method that puts all the logic in the parent class, if possible. Update: Accepted solution (by Palantir): <?php // file: /parentDir/class.php class Parent { protected function getDir() { $reflector = new ReflectionClass(get_class($this)); return dirname($reflector->getFileName()); } } ?>

    Read the article

  • ActiveRecord table inheritence using set_table_names

    - by Jinyoung Kim
    Hi, I'm using ActiveRecord in Ruby on Rails. I have a table named documents(Document class) and I want to have another table data_documents(DataDocument) class which is effectively the same except for having different table name. In other words, I want two tables with the same behavior except for table name. class DataDocument < Document #set_table_name "data_documents" self.table_name = "data_documents" end My solution was to use class inheritance as above, yet this resulted in inconsistent SQL statement for create operation where there are both 'documents' table and 'data_documents' table. Can you figure out why and how I can make it work? >> DataDocument.create(:did=>"dd") ActiveRecord::StatementInvalid: Mysql::Error: Unknown column 'data_documents.did' in 'where clause': SELECT `documents`.id FROM `documents` WHERE (`data_documents`.`did` = BINARY 'dd') LIMIT 1 from /Users/lifidea/.gem/ruby/1.8/gems/activerecord-2.3.2/lib/active_record/connection_adapters/abstract_adapter.rb:212:in `log' from /Users/lifidea/.gem/ruby/1.8/gems/activerecord-2.3.2/lib/active_record/connection_adapters/mysql_adapter.rb:320:in `execute' from /Users/lifidea/.gem/ruby/1.8/gems/activerecord-2.3.2/lib/active_record/connection_adapters/mysql_adapter.rb:595:in `select' from /Users/lifidea/.gem/ruby/1.8/gems/activerecord-2.3.2/lib/active_record/connection_adapters/abstract/database_statements.rb:7:in `select_all_without_query_cache' from /Users/lifidea/.gem/ruby/1.8/gems/activerecord-2.3.2/lib/active_record/connection_adapters/abstract/query_cache.rb:62:in `select_all'

    Read the article

  • EF4 and multiple abstract levels

    - by Cedric
    I need to use inheritance with EF4 and the TPH model created from DB. I created a new projet to test simples classes. There is my class model: There is my table in SQL SERVER 2008 : VEHICLE ID : int PK Owner : varchar(50) Consumption : float FirstCirculationDate : date Type : varchar(50) Discriminator : varchar(10) I added a condition in my EDMX on the Discriminator field to differentiate the Scooter, Car, Motorbike and Bike entities. MotorizedVehicle and Vehicle are Abstract. But when I compile, this error appears : Error 3032: Problem in mapping fragments starting at lines 78, 85:EntityTypes EF4InheritanceModel.Scooter, EF4InheritanceModel.Motorbike, EF4InheritanceModel.Car, EF4InheritanceModel.Bike are being mapped to the same rows in table Vehicle. Mapping conditions can be used to distinguish the rows that these types are mapped to. Edit : To Ladislav : I try it and error change to become it for all of my entities : Error 3034: Problem in mapping fragments starting at lines 72, 86:An entity is mapped to different rows within the same table. Ensure these two mapping fragments do not map two groups of entities with overlapping keys to two distinct groups of rows. To Henk (with Ladislay suggestion) : There are all of mappings details : What's wrong ? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Accessing Static Methods on a Generic class in c#

    - by mrlane
    Hello, I have the following situation in code, which I suspect may be a bit dodgey: I have a class: abstract class DataAccessBase<T> : IDataAccess where T : AnotherAbstractClass This class DataAccessBase also has a static factory method which creates instances of derived classes of itself using an enum value in a which statement to decide which derived type to create: static IDataAccess CreateInstance(TypeToCreateEnum) Now, the types derived from DataAccessBase<T> are themselves NOT generic, they specify a type for T: class PoLcZoneData : DataAccessBase<PoLcZone> // PoLcZone is derived from AnotherAbstractClass So far I am not sure if this is pushing the limits of good use of generics, but what I am really concerned about is how to access the static CreateInstance() method in the first place: The way I am doing this at the moment is to simply pass any type T where T : AnotherAbstractClass. In particular I am passing AnotherAbstractClass itself. This allows compilation just fine, but it does seem to me that passing any type to a generic class just to get at the statics is a bit dodgey. I have actually simplified the situation somewhat as DataAccessBase<T> is the lower level in the inheritance chain, but the static factory methods exists in a middle tier with classes such as PoLcZoneData being the most derived on the only level that is not generic. What are peoples thoughts on this arrangement?

    Read the article

  • Best approach for a multi-tab ASP.NET AJAX control?

    - by NovaJoe
    Looking for some implementation advice: I have a page that has a 3-tab ajaxToolkit:TabContainer. The purpose of the page is to expose a calculator that has two basic inputs: geo-location and date. The three tabs are labeled "City and State", "Postal Code", and "GPS Coordinates". The layout of each tab container is the same for each tab, with the exception of the location section; the location section changes because each type of location has different inputs. For example, to specify city/state, there will be three fields: city, country, and state (country and state will use cascading drop-down lists). But Postal code requires only one field (which will validate via regular expression for allowed countries). See the example design mockup: So, what I WOULD LIKE to do (in order to minimize duplicate code), is to have a common control that contains the layout and structure of the calculator without specifying anything about the location section. Then, I'd like to be able to pull in each of the unique location controls based on what tab is selected. The tab structure exists at the page level, not in a control. Any advice? I was looking at templated controls (see MSDN article here), but I'm not convinced that it's the right solution. If I HAVE to create three separate controls with similar layouts and common elements, then that's what I have to do. But REALLY, I'd prefer a more elegant, inheritance-based solution. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • How do I so a select input for a STI column in a Rails model?

    - by James A. Rosen
    I have a model with single-table inheritance on the type column: class Pet < ActiveRecord::Base TYPES = [Dog, Cat, Hamster] validates_presence_of :name end I want to offer a <select> dropdown on the new and edit pages: <% form_for @model do |f| %> <%= f.label :name %> <%= f.text_input :name %> <%= f.label :type %> <%= f.select :type, Pet::TYPES.map { |t| [t.human_name, t.to_s] } %> <% end %> That gives me the following error: ActionView::TemplateError (wrong argument type String (expected Module)) I read a suggestion to use an alias for the field #type since Ruby considers that a reserved word that's the same as #class. I tried both class Pet < ActiveRecord::Base ... alias_attribute :klass, :type end and class Pet < ActiveRecord::Base ... def klass self.type end def klass=(k) self.type = k end end Neither worked. Any suggestions? Oddly, it works fine on my machine (MRI 1.8.6 on RVM), but fails on the staging server (MRI 1.8.7 not on RVM).

    Read the article

  • Getting the name of a child class in the parent class (static context)

    - by Benoit Myard
    Hi everybody, I'm building an ORM library with reuse and simplicity in mind; everything goes fine except that I got stuck by a stupid inheritance limitation. Please consider the code below: class BaseModel { /* * Return an instance of a Model from the database. */ static public function get (/* varargs */) { // 1. Notice we want an instance of User $class = get_class(parent); // value: bool(false) $class = get_class(self); // value: bool(false) $class = get_class(); // value: string(9) "BaseModel" $class = __CLASS__; // value: string(9) "BaseModel" // 2. Query the database with id $row = get_row_from_db_as_array(func_get_args()); // 3. Return the filled instance $obj = new $class(); $obj->data = $row; return $obj; } } class User extends BaseModel { protected $table = 'users'; protected $fields = array('id', 'name'); protected $primary_keys = array('id'); } class Section extends BaseModel { // [...] } $my_user = User::get(3); $my_user->name = 'Jean'; $other_user = User::get(24); $other_user->name = 'Paul'; $my_user->save(); $other_user->save(); $my_section = Section::get('apropos'); $my_section->delete(); Obviously, this is not the behavior I was expecting (although the actual behavior also makes sense).. So my question is if you guys know of a mean to get, in the parent class, the name of child class.

    Read the article

  • Encapsulate update method inside of object or have method which accepts an object to update

    - by Tom
    Hi, I actually have 2 questions related to each other: I have an object (class) called, say MyClass which holds data from my database. Currently I have a list of these objects ( List < MyClass ) that resides in a singleton in a "communal area". I feel it's easier to manage the data this way and I fail to see how passing a class around from object to object is beneficial over a singleton (I would be happy if someone can tell me why). Anyway, the data may change in the database from outside my program and so I have to update the data every so often. To update the list of the MyClass I have a method called say, Update, written in another class which accepts a list of MyClass. This updates all the instances of MyClass in the list. However would it be better instead to encapulate the Update() method inside the MyClass object, so instead I would say foreach(MyClass obj in MyClassList) { obj.update(); } What is a better implementation and why? The update method requires a XML reader. I have written an XML reader class which is basically a wrapper over the standard XML reader the language natively provides which provides application specific data collection. Should the XML reader class be in anyway in the "inheritance path" of the MyClass object - the MyClass objects inherits from the XML reader because it uses a few methods. I can't see why it should. I don't like the idea of declaring an instance of the XML Reader class inside of MyClass and an MyClass object is meant to be a simple "record" from the database and I feel giving it loads of methods, other object instances is a bit messy. Perhaps my XML reader class should be static but C#'s native XMLReader isn't static.? Any comments would be greatly appreciated Thanks Thomas

    Read the article

  • How to model has_many with polymorphism?

    - by Daniel Abrahamsson
    I've run into a situation that I am not quite sure how to model. Suppose I have a User class, and a user has many services. However, these services are quite different, for example a MailService and a BackupService, so single table inheritance won't do. Instead, I am thinking of using polymorphic associations together with an abstract base class: class User < ActiveRecord::Base has_many :services end class Service < ActiveRecord::Base validates_presence_of :user_id, :implementation_id, :implementation_type belongs_to :user belongs_to :implementation, :polymorphic = true delegate :common_service_method, :name, :to => :implementation end #Base class for service implementations class ServiceImplementation < ActiveRecord::Base validates_presence_of :user_id, :on => :create has_one :service, :as => :implementation has_one :user, :through => :service after_create :create_service_record #Tell Rails this class does not use a table. def self.abstract_class? true end #Default name implementation. def name self.class.name end protected #Sets up a service object def create_service_record service = Service.new(:user_id => user_id) service.implementation = self service.save! end end class MailService < ServiceImplementation #validations, etc... def common_service_method puts "MailService implementation of common service method" end end #Example usage MailService.create(..., :user_id => user.id) BackupService.create(...., :user_id => user.id) user.services.each do |s| puts "#{user.name} is using #{s.name}" end #Daniel is using MailService, Daniel is using BackupService So, is this the best solution? Or even a good one? How have you solved this kind of problem?

    Read the article

  • The new operator in C# isn't overriding base class member

    - by Dominic Zukiewicz
    I am confused as to why the new operator isn't working as I expected it to. Note: All classes below are defined in the same namespace, and in the same file. This class allows you to prefix any content written to the console with some provided text. public class ConsoleWriter { private string prefix; public ConsoleWriter(string prefix) { this.prefix = prefix; } public void Write(string text) { Console.WriteLine(String.Concat(prefix,text)); } } Here is a base class: public class BaseClass { protected static ConsoleWriter consoleWriter = new ConsoleWriter(""); public static void Write(string text) { consoleWriter.Write(text); } } Here is an implemented class: public class NewClass : BaseClass { protected new static ConsoleWriter consoleWriter = new ConsoleWriter("> "); } Now here's the code to execute this: class Program { static void Main(string[] args) { BaseClass.Write("Hello World!"); NewClass.Write("Hello World!"); Console.Read(); } } So I would expect the output to be Hello World! > Hello World! But the output is Hello World Hello World I do not understand why this is happening. Here is my thought process as to what is happening: The CLR calls the BaseClass.Write() method The CLR initialises the BaseClass.consoleWriter member. The method is called and executed with the BaseClass.consoleWriter variable Then The CLR calls the NewClass.Write() The CLR initialises the NewClass.consoleWriter object. The CLR sees that the implementation lies in BaseClass, but the method is inherited through The CLR executes the method locally (in NewClass) using the NewClass.consoleWriter variable I thought this is how the inheritance structure works? Please can someone help me understand why this is not working?

    Read the article

  • using STI and ActiveRecordBase<> with full FindAll

    - by oillio
    Is it possible to use generic support with single table inheritance, and still be able to FindAll of the base class? As a bonus question, will I be able to use ActiveRecordLinqBase< as well? I do love those queries. More detail: Say I have the following classes defined: public interface ICompany { int ID { get; set; } string Name { get; set; } } [ActiveRecord("companies", DiscriminatorColumn="type", DiscriminatorType="String", DiscriminatorValue="NA")] public abstract class Company<T> : ActiveRecordBase<T>, ICompany { [PrimaryKey] private int Id { get; set; } [Property] public String Name { get; set; } } [ActiveRecord(DiscriminatorValue="firm")] public class Firm : Company<Firm> { [Property] public string Description { get; set; } } [ActiveRecord(DiscriminatorValue="client")] public class Client : Company<Client> { [Property] public int ChargeRate { get; set; } } This works fine for most cases. I can do things like: var x = Client.FindAll(); But sometimes I want all of the companies. If I was not using generics I could do: var x = (Company[]) FindAll(Company); Client a = (Client)x[0]; Firm b = (Firm)x[1]; Is there a way to write a FindAll that returns an array of ICompany's that can then be typecast into their respective types? Something like: var x = (ICompany[]) FindAll(Company<ICompany>); Client a = (Client)x[0]; Or maybe I am going about implementing the generic support all wrong?

    Read the article

  • Specifying different initial values for fields in inherited models (django)

    - by Shawn Chin
    Question : What is the recommended way to specify an initial value for fields if one uses model inheritance and each child model needs to have different default values when rendering a ModelForm? Take for example the following models where CompileCommand and TestCommand both need different initial values when rendered as ModelForm. # ------ models.py class ShellCommand(models.Model): command = models.Charfield(_("command"), max_length=100) arguments = models.Charfield(_("arguments"), max_length=100) class CompileCommand(ShellCommand): # ... default command should be "make" class TestCommand(ShellCommand): # ... default: command = "make", arguments = "test" I am aware that one can used the initial={...} argument when instantiating the form, however I would rather store the initial values within the context of the model (or at least within the associated ModelForm). My current approach What I'm doing at the moment is storing an initial value dict within Meta, and checking for it in my views. # ----- forms.py class CompileCommandForm(forms.ModelForm): class Meta: model = CompileCommand initial_values = {"command":"make"} class TestCommandForm(forms.ModelForm): class Meta: model = TestCommand initial_values = {"command":"make", "arguments":"test"} # ------ in views FORM_LOOKUP = { "compile": CompileCommandFomr, "test": TestCommandForm } CmdForm = FORM_LOOKUP.get(command_type, None) # ... initial = getattr(CmdForm, "initial_values", {}) form = CmdForm(initial=initial) This feels too much like a hack. I am eager for a more generic / better way to achieve this. Suggestions appreciated. Other attempts I have toyed around with overriding the constructor for the submodels: class CompileCommand(ShellCommand): def __init__(self, *args, **kwargs): kwargs.setdefault('command', "make") super(CompileCommand, self).__init__(*args, **kwargs) and this works when I try to create an object from the shell: >>> c = CompileCommand(name="xyz") >>> c.save() <CompileCommand: 123> >>> c.command 'make' However, this does not set the default value when the associated ModelForm is rendered, which unfortunately is what I'm trying to achieve. Update 2 (looks promising) I now have the following in forms.py which allow me to set Meta.default_initial_values without needing extra code in views. class ModelFormWithDefaults(forms.ModelForm): def __init__(self, *args, **kwargs): if hasattr(self.Meta, "default_initial_values"): kwargs.setdefault("initial", self.Meta.default_initial_values) super(ModelFormWithDefaults, self).__init__(*args, **kwargs) class TestCommandForm(ModelFormWithDefaults): class Meta: model = TestCommand default_initial_values = {"command":"make", "arguments":"test"}

    Read the article

  • Javascript Getting Objects to Fallback to One Another

    - by Ian
    Here's a ugly bit of Javascript it would be nice to find a workaround. Javascript has no classes, and that is a good thing. But it implements fallback between objects in a rather ugly way. The foundational construct should be to have one object that, when a property fails to be found, it falls back to another object. So if we want a to fall back to b we would want to do something like: a = {sun:1}; b = {dock:2}; a.__fallback__ = b; then a.dock == 2; But, Javascript instead provides a new operator and prototypes. So we do the far less elegant: function A(sun) { this.sun = sun; }; A.prototype.dock = 2; a = new A(1); a.dock == 2; But aside from elegance, this is also strictly less powerful, because it means that anything created with A gets the same fallback object. What I would like to do is liberate Javascript from this artificial limitation and have the ability to give any individual object any other individual object as its fallback. That way I could keep the current behavior when it makes sense, but use object-level inheritance when that makes sense. My initial approach is to create a dummy constructor function: function setFallback(from_obj, to_obj) { from_obj.constructor = function () {}; from_obj.constructor.prototype = to_obj; } a = {sun:1}; b = {dock:2}; setFallback(a, b); But unfortunately: a.dock == undefined; Any ideas why this doesn't work, or any solutions for an implementation of setFallback? (I'm running on V8, via node.js, in case this is platform dependent)

    Read the article

  • OOP design issue: Polymorphism

    - by Graham Phillips
    I'm trying to solve a design issue using inheritance based polymorphism and dynamic binding. I have an abstract superclass and two subclasses. The superclass contains common behaviour. SubClassA and SubClassB define some different methods: SubClassA defines a method performTransform(), but SubClassB does not. So the following example 1 var v:SuperClass; 2 var b:SubClassB = new SubClassB(); 3 v = b; 4 v.performTransform(); would cause a compile error on line 4 as performTransform() is not defined in the superclass. We can get it to compile by casting... (v as SubClassA).performTransform(); however, this will cause a runtime exception to be thrown as v is actually an instance of SubClassB, which also does not define performTransform() So we can get around that by testing the type of an object before casting it: if( typeof v == SubClassA) { (cast v to SubClassA).performTransform(); } That will ensure that we only call performTransform() on v's that are instances of SubClassA. That's a pretty inelegant solution to my eyes, but at least its safe. I have used interface based polymorphism (interface meaning a type that can't be instantiated and defines the API of classes that implement it) in the past, but that also feels clunky. For the above case, if SubClassA and SubClassB implemented ISuperClass that defined performTransform, then they would both have to implement performTransform(). If SubClassB had no real need for a performTransform() you would have to implement an empty function. There must be a design pattern out there that addresses the issue.

    Read the article

  • How am i overriding this C++ inherited member function without the virtual keyword being used?

    - by Gary Willoughby
    I have a small program to demonstrate simple inheritance. I am defining a Dog class which is derived from Mammal. Both classes share a simple member function called ToString(). How is Dog overriding the implementation in the Mammal class, when i'm not using the virtual keyword? (Do i even need to use the virtual keyword to override member functions?) mammal.h #ifndef MAMMAL_H_INCLUDED #define MAMMAL_H_INCLUDED #include <string> class Mammal { public: std::string ToString(); }; #endif // MAMMAL_H_INCLUDED mammal.cpp #include <string> #include "mammal.h" std::string Mammal::ToString() { return "I am a Mammal!"; } dog.h #ifndef DOG_H_INCLUDED #define DOG_H_INCLUDED #include <string> #include "mammal.h" class Dog : public Mammal { public: std::string ToString(); }; #endif // DOG_H_INCLUDED dog.cpp #include <string> #include "dog.h" std::string Dog::ToString() { return "I am a Dog!"; } main.cpp #include <iostream> #include "dog.h" using namespace std; int main() { Dog d; std::cout << d.ToString() << std::endl; return 0; } output I am a Dog! I'm using MingW on Windows via Code::Blocks.

    Read the article

  • Failed to specialize function template

    - by citizencane
    This is homework, although it's already submitted with a different approach. I'm getting the following from Visual Studio 2008 error C2893: Failed to specialize function template 'void std::sort(_RanIt,_RanIt,_Pr)' The code is as follows main.cpp Database<> db; db.loadDatabase(); db.sortDatabase(sort_by_title()); Database.cpp void Database<C>::sortDatabase(const sort_by &s) { std::sort(db_.begin(), db_.end(), s); } And the function objects are defined as struct sort_by : public std::binary_function<const Media *, const Media *, bool> { virtual bool operator()(const Media *l, const Media *r) const = 0; }; struct sort_by_title : public sort_by { bool operator()(const Media *l, const Media *r) const { ... } }; ... What's the cure here? [Edit] Sorry, maybe I should have made the inheritance clear template <typename C = std::vector<Media *> > class Database : public IDatabase<C> [/Edit]

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28  | Next Page >