Search Results

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

Page 24/148 | < Previous Page | 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31  | Next Page >

  • How to call object's method from constructor?

    - by Kirzilla
    Hello, var Dog = function(name) { this.name = name; this.sayName(); } Dog.prototype.sayName = function() { alert(this.name); } I'm creating new instance of Dog object, but method sayName() is undefined. Why? Or maybe I should do something like (but I can't see difference)... var Dog = function(name) { this.name = name; this.prototype.sayName = function() { alert(this.name); } } Thank you.

    Read the article

  • Insert an element to std::set using constructor

    - by Dave17
    is it possible to insert a new element to std::set like in case of std::list for example: //insert one element named "string" to sublist of mylist std::list< std::list<string> > mylist; mylist.push_back(std::list<string>(1, "string")); Now, mylist has one element of type std::string in its sub-list of type std::list. How can you do the same in if std::set is the sub-set of std::list my list i.e std::list<std::set <string>> mylist; if you can't then why not?

    Read the article

  • Pass an event into a constructor

    - by Vaccano
    I have a class that I want to be able the handle the mouse up event for a grid. I tried to create it with a static method call like this: MyDataBinding.BindObjectsToDataGrid(ListOfObjectsToBind, myGrid.MouseUp); The end goal being that in the method I would assign a delegate to the MouseUp PassedInMouseUp += myMethodThatWillHandleTheMouseUp; Looks good here (to me) but the compiler chokes on the first line. It says that I can only use MouseUp with a += or a -=. Clearly I am going about this the wrong way. How can I get a different class to handle the mouse up with out having to: Pass in the whole grid Expose the method that will be handling the mouse up as a public method. Or, is this just a limitation and I will have to do one of the above?

    Read the article

  • Java - How to pass a Generic parameter as Class<T> to a constructor

    - by Joe Almore
    I have a problem here that still cannot solve, the thing is I have this abstract class: public abstract class AbstractBean<T> { private Class<T> entityClass; public AbstractBean(Class<T> entityClass) { this.entityClass = entityClass; }... Now I have another class that inherits this abstract: @Stateless @LocalBean public class BasicUserBean<T extends BasicUser> extends AbstractBean<T> { private Class<T> user; public BasicUserBean() { super(user); // Error: cannot reference user before supertype contructor has been called. } My question is how can I make this to work?, I am trying to make the class BasicUserBean inheritable, so if I have class PersonBean which inherits BasicUserBean then I could set in the Generic the entity Person which also inherits the entity BasicUser. And it will end up being: @Stateless @LocalBean public class PersonBean extends BasicUserBean<Person> { public PersonBean() { super(Person.class); } ... I just want to inherit the basic functionality from BasicUserBean to all descendants, so I do not have to repeat the same code among all descendants. Thanks!.

    Read the article

  • Javascript object properties access functions in parent constructor?

    - by Bob Spryn
    So I'm using this pretty standard jquery plugin pattern whereby you can grab an api after applying the jquery function to a specific instance. This API is essentially a javascript object with a bunch of methods and data. So I wanted to essentially create some private internal methods for the object only to manipulate data etc, which just doesn't need to be available as part of the API. So I tried this: // API returned with new $.TranslationUI(options, container) $.TranslationUI = function (options, container) { // private function? function monkey(){ console.log("blah blah blah"); } // extend the default settings with the options object passed this.settings = $.extend({},$.TranslationUI.defaultSettings,options); // set a reference for the container dom element this.container = container; // call the init function this.init(); }; The problem I'm running into is that init can't call that function "monkey". I'm not understanding the explanation behind why it can't. Is it because init is a prototype method?($.TranslationUI's prototype is extended with a bunch of methods including init elsewhere in the code) $.extend($.TranslationUI, { prototype: { init : function(){ // doesn't work monkey(); // editing flag this.editing = false; // init event delegates here for // languagepicker $(this.settings.languageSelector, this.container).bind("click", {self: this}, this.selectLanguage); } } }); Any explanations would be helpful. Would love other thoughts on creating private methods with this model too. These particular functions don't HAVE to be in prototype, and I don't NEED private methods protected from being used externally, but I want to know how should I have that requirement in the future.

    Read the article

  • Constructor for an immutable struct

    - by Danvil
    Consider the following simple immutable struct: struct Stash { public int X { get; private set; } public Stash(int _x) { X = _x; } } This is not working, because the compiler wants me to initialize the "backing field" before I can access the property. How can I solve this?

    Read the article

  • Constructor initialising an array of subobjects?

    - by ojw
    Say I have several objects within a class, each of which needs constructing with a different value. I can write something like this: class b { public: b(int num) { // 1 for a.b1, and 2 for a.b2 } }; class a { public: b b1; b b2; a() : b1(1), b2(2) { } }; However, is it possible to do the same thing if those multiple objects are stored in an array? My first attempt at it doesn't compile: class a { public: b bb[2]; a() : bb[0](1), bb[1](2) { } };

    Read the article

  • Object as an array

    - by owca
    I need to create class Dog and PurebredDog extending Dog. Problem is that Dog can be at once single object and array of objects (Dogs and PurebreedDogs : Dog pack[]={new Dog(76589,"As","black",18, "Ann","Kowalsky"), new PurebreedDog(45321,"Labrador","Elf","black",25, "Angus","Mati","Barbara","Smith"), new Dog(102467,"Gamma","brown",89, "Josh","Coke"), new PurebreedDog(9678,"York","Theta","brown",8, "Emka","Figaro","Alice","Cat")}; for(int i=0; i < pack.length; i++) System.out.println(pack[i]+"\n\n"); How to write proper constructor for Dog ?

    Read the article

  • Implicitly invoking parent class initializer

    - by Matt Joiner
    class A(object): def __init__(self, a, b, c): #super(A, self).__init__() super(self.__class__, self).__init__() class B(A): def __init__(self, b, c): print super(B, self) print super(self.__class__, self) #super(B, self).__init__(1, b, c) super(self.__class__, self).__init__(1, b, c) class C(B): def __init__(self, c): #super(C, self).__init__(2, c) super(self.__class__, self).__init__(2, c) C(3) In the above code, the commented out __init__ calls appear to the be the commonly accepted "smart" way to do super class initialization. However in the event that the class hierarchy is likely to change, I have been using the uncommented form, until recently. It appears that in the call to the super constructor for B in the above hierarchy, that B.__init__ is called again, self.__class__ is actually C, not B as I had always assumed. Is there some way in Python-2.x that I can overcome this, and maintain proper MRO when calling super constructors without actually naming the current class?

    Read the article

  • Overriding Constructors in F#

    - by kim3er
    How would I write the following C# code in F#? namespace Shared { public class SharedRegistry : PageRegistry { public SharedRegistry(bool useCache = true) : base(useCache) { // Repositories ForRequestedType<IAddressRepository>().TheDefaultIsConcreteType<SqlAddressRepository>(); ForRequestedType<ISharedEnquiryRepository>().TheDefaultIsConcreteType<SharedEnquiryRepository>(); // Services ForRequestedType<IAddressService>().TheDefaultIsConcreteType<AddressService>(); ForRequestedType<ISharedEnquiryService>().TheDefaultIsConcreteType<SharedEnquiryService>(); } } } As is as far as I have managed, but I can't work out to inherit from PageRegistry at the same time as declaring my own default constructor. type SharedRegistry(useCache: bool) = inherit PageRegistry(useCache) new() = new SharedRegistry(true) Rich

    Read the article

  • By-Name-Parameters for Constructors

    - by hotzen
    Hello, coming from my other question is there a way to get by-name-parameters for constructors working? I need a way to provide a code-block which is executed on-demand/lazy/by-name inside an object and this code-block must be able to access the class-methods as if the code-block were part of the class. Following Testcase fails: package test class ByNameCons(code: => Unit) { def exec() = { println("pre-code") code println("post-code") } def meth() = println("method") def exec2(code2: => Unit) = { println("pre-code") code2 println("post-code") } } object ByNameCons { def main(args: Array[String]): Unit = { val tst = new ByNameCons { println("foo") meth() // knows meth() as code is part of ByNameCons } tst.exec() // ByName fails (executed right as constructor) println("--------") tst.exec2 { // ByName works println("foo") //meth() // does not know meth() as code is NOT part of ByNameCons } } } Output: foo method pre-code post-code -------- pre-code foo post-code

    Read the article

  • Throwing Exception in CTOR and Smart Pointers

    - by David Relihan
    Is it OK to have the following code in my constructor to load an XML document into a member variable - throwing to caller if there are any problems: MSXML2::IXMLDOMDocumentPtr m_docPtr; //member Configuration() { try { HRESULT hr = m_docPtr.CreateInstance(__uuidof(MSXML2::DOMDocument40)); if ( SUCCEEDED(hr)) { m_docPtr->loadXML(CreateXML()); } else { //throw exception to caller } } catch(...) { //throw exception to caller } } Based on Scott Myers RAII implementations in More Effective C++ I believe I am alright in just allowing exceptions to be thrown from CTOR as I am using a smart pointer(IXMLDOMDocumentPtr). Let me know what you think....

    Read the article

  • Returning in a static initializer

    - by Martijn Courteaux
    Hello, This isn't valid code: public class MyClass { private static boolean yesNo = false; static { if (yesNo) { System.out.println("Yes"); return; // The return statement is the problem } System.exit(0); } } This is a stupid example, but in a static class constructor we can't return;. Why? Are there good reasons for this? Does someone know something more about this? So the reason why I should do return is to end constructing there. Thanks

    Read the article

  • Very basic Javascript constructors problem

    - by misha-moroshko
    Hi, In the following JavaScript code main() is called. My question is why the second constructor is called rather than the first one ? What am I missing here ? Thanks !! function AllInputs() { alert("cons 1"); this.radioInputs = []; alert(this); } function AllInputs(radioElement) { alert("cons 2"); this.radioInputs = [radioElement]; alert(this); } AllInputs.prototype.toString = function() { return "[object AllInputs: radioInputs: " + this.radioInputs.length + "]"; } function main() { var result = new AllInputs(); }

    Read the article

  • template class: ctor against function -> new C++ standard

    - by Oops
    Hi in this question: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2779155/template-point2-double-point3-double Dennis and Michael noticed the unreasonable foolishly implemented constructor. They were right, I didn't consider this at that moment. But I found out that a constructor does not help very much for a template class like this one, instead a function is here much more convenient and safe namespace point { template < unsigned int dims, typename T > struct Point { T X[ dims ]; std::string str() { std::stringstream s; s << "{"; for ( int i = 0; i < dims; ++i ) { s << " X" << i << ": " << X[ i ] << (( i < dims -1 )? " |": " "); } s << "}"; return s.str(); } Point<dims, int> toint() { Point<dims, int> ret; std::copy( X, X+dims, ret.X ); return ret; } }; template < typename T > Point< 2, T > Create( T X0, T X1 ) { Point< 2, T > ret; ret.X[ 0 ] = X0; ret.X[ 1 ] = X1; return ret; } template < typename T > Point< 3, T > Create( T X0, T X1, T X2 ) { Point< 3, T > ret; ret.X[ 0 ] = X0; ret.X[ 1 ] = X1; ret.X[ 2 ] = X2; return ret; } template < typename T > Point< 4, T > Create( T X0, T X1, T X2, T X3 ) { Point< 4, T > ret; ret.X[ 0 ] = X0; ret.X[ 1 ] = X1; ret.X[ 2 ] = X2; ret.X[ 3 ] = X3; return ret; } }; int main( void ) { using namespace point; Point< 2, double > p2d = point::Create( 12.3, 34.5 ); Point< 3, double > p3d = point::Create( 12.3, 34.5, 56.7 ); Point< 4, double > p4d = point::Create( 12.3, 34.5, 56.7, 78.9 ); //Point< 3, double > p1d = point::Create( 12.3, 34.5 ); //no suitable user defined conversion exists //Point< 3, int > p1i = p4d.toint(); //no suitable user defined conversion exists Point< 2, int > p2i = p2d.toint(); Point< 3, int > p3i = p3d.toint(); Point< 4, int > p4i = p4d.toint(); std::cout << p2d.str() << std::endl; std::cout << p3d.str() << std::endl; std::cout << p4d.str() << std::endl; std::cout << p2i.str() << std::endl; std::cout << p3i.str() << std::endl; std::cout << p4i.str() << std::endl; char c; std::cin >> c; } has the new C++ standard any new improvements, language features or simplifications regarding this aspect of ctor of a template class? what do you think about the implementation of the combination of namespace, stuct and Create function? many thanks in advance Oops

    Read the article

  • PHP: How to Pass child class __construct() arguments to parent::__construct() ?

    - by none
    I have a class in PHP like so: class ParentClass { function __construct($arg) { // Initialize a/some variable(s) based on $arg } } It has a child class, as such: class ChildClass extends ParentClass { function __construct($arg) { // Let the parent handle construction. parent::__construct($arg); } } What if, for some reason, the ParentClass needs to change to take more than one optional argument, which I would like my Child class to provide "just in case"? Unless I re-code the ChildClass, it will only ever take the one argument to the constructor, and will only ever pass that one argument. Is this so rare or such a bad practice that the usual case is that a ChildClass wouldn't need to be inheriting from a ParentClass that takes different arguments? Essentially, I've seen in Python where you can pass a potentially unknown number of arguments to a function via somefunction(*args) where 'args' is an array/iterable of some kind. Does something like this exist in PHP? Or should I refactor these classes before proceeding?

    Read the article

  • What's the benefit of calling new on an object instance?

    - by Geo
    I'm reading [Programming Perl][1], and I found this code snippet: sub new { my $invocant = shift; my $class = ref($invocant) || $invocant; my $self = { color => "bay", legs => 4, owner => undef, @_, # Override previous attributes }; return bless $self, $class; } With constructors like this one, what's the benefit of calling new on an object instance? I assume that it's what it's for, right? My guess is that if anyone would want to write such a constructor, he would have to add some more code that copies the attributes of the first object to the one about to be created.

    Read the article

  • Can C++ Constructors be templates?

    - by Gokul
    Hi, I have non-template class with a templatized constructor. This code compiles for me. But i remember that somewhere i have referred that constructors cannot be templates. Can someone explain whether this is a valid usage? typedef double Vector; //enum Method {A, B, C, D, E, F}; struct A {}; class Butcher { public: template <class Method> Butcher(Method); private: Vector a, b, c; }; template <> Butcher::Butcher(struct A) : a(2), b(4), c(2) { // a = 0.5, 1; // b = -1, 1, 3, 2; // c = 0, 1; } Thanks, Gokul.

    Read the article

  • Is there anything wrong with taking immediate actions in constructors?

    - by pestaa
    I have classes like this one: class SomeObject { public function __construct($param1, $param2) { $this->process($param1, $param2); } ... } So I can instantly "call" it as some sort of global function just like new SomeObject($arg1, $arg2); which has the benefits of staying concise, being easy to understand, but might break unwritten rules of semantics by not waiting till a method is called. Should I continue to feel bad because of a bad practice, or there's really nothing to worry about? Clarification: I do want an instance of the class. I do use internal methods of the class only. I initialize the object in the constructor, but call the "important" action-taker methods too. I am selfish in the light of these sentences.

    Read the article

  • Static initialization of a struct with class members

    - by JS Bangs
    I have a struct that's defined with a large number of vanilla char* pointers, but also an object member. When I try to statically initialize such a struct, I get a compiler error. typedef struct { const char* pszA; // ... snip ... const char* pszZ; SomeObject obj; } example_struct; // I only want to assign the first few members, the rest should be default example_struct ex = { "a", "b" }; SomeObject has a public default constructor with no arguments, so I didn't think this would be a problem. But when I try to compile this (using VS), I get the following error: error C2248: 'SomeObject::SomeObject' : cannot access private member declared in class 'SomeObject' Any idea why?

    Read the article

  • How to instantiate objects of classes that have dependencies injected?

    - by chester89
    Let's say I have some class with dependency injected: public class SomeBusinessCaller { ILogger logger; public SomeBusinessCaller(ILogger logger) { this.logger = logger; } } My question is, how do I instantiate an object of that class? Let's say I have an implementation for this, called AppLogger. After I say ObjectFactory.For<ILogger>().Use<AppLogger>(); how do I call constructor of SomeBusinessCaller? Am I calling SomeBusinessCaller caller = ObjectFactory.GetInstance<SomeBusinessCaller>(); or there is a different strategy for that?

    Read the article

  • How to stable_sort without copying?

    - by Mehrdad
    Why does stable_sort need a copy constructor? (swap should suffice, right?) Or rather, how do I stable_sort a range without copying any elements? #include <algorithm> class Person { Person(Person const &); // Disable copying public: Person() : age(0) { } int age; void swap(Person &other) { using std::swap; swap(this->age, other.age); } friend void swap(Person &a, Person &b) { a.swap(b); } bool operator <(Person const &other) const { return this->age < other.age; } }; int main() { static size_t const n = 10; Person people[n]; std::stable_sort(people, people + n); }

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31  | Next Page >