Search Results

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

Page 24/41 | < Previous Page | 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31  | Next Page >

  • How to call implemented method of generic enum in Java?

    - by Justin Wiseman
    I am trying pass an enum into a method, iterate over that enums values, and call the method that that enum implements on all of those values. I am getting compiler errors on the part "value.getAlias()". It says "The method getAlias() is undefined for the type E" I have attempted to indicate that E implements the HasAlias interface, but it does not seem to work. Is this possible, and if so, how do I fix the code below to do what I want? The code below is only meant to show my process, it is not my intention to just print the names of the values in an enum, but to demonstate my problem. public interface HasAlias{ String getAlias(); }; public enum Letters implements HasAlias { A("The letter A"), B("The letter B"); private final String alias; public String getAlias(){return alias;} public Letters(String alias) { this.alias = alias; } } public enum Numbers implements HasAlias { ONE("The number one"), TWO("The number two"); private final String alias; public String getAlias(){return alias;} public Letters(String alias) { this.alias = alias; } } public class Identifier { public <E extends Enum<? extends HasAlias>> void identify(Class<E> enumClass) { for(E value : enumClass.getEnumConstants()) { System.out.println(value.getAlias()); } } }

    Read the article

  • Java: using generic wildcards with subclassing

    - by gibberish
    Say I have a class Foo, a class A and some subclass B of A. Foo accepts A and its sublclasses as the generic type. A and B both require a Foo instance in their constructor. I want A's Foo to be of type A , and B's Foo to be of type B or a superclass of B. So in effect, So I only want this: Foo<X> bar = new Foo<X>; new B(bar); to be possible if X is either A, B, or a both subclass of A and superclass of B. So far this is what I have: class Foo<? extends A>{ //construct } class A(Foo<A> bar){ //construct } class B(Foo<? super B> bar){ super(bar); //construct } The call to super(...) doesn't work, because <A> is stricter than <? super B>. Is it somehow possible to use the constructor (or avoid code duplication by another means) while enforcing these types? Edit: Foo keeps a collection of elements of the generic parameter type, and these elements and Foo have a bidirectional link. It should therefore not be possible to link an A to a Foo.

    Read the article

  • Is converting this ArrayList to a Generic List efficient?

    - by Greg
    The code I'm writing receives an ArrayList from unmanaged code, and this ArrayList will always contain one or more objects of type Grid_Heading_Blk. I've considered changing this ArrayList to a generic List, but I'm unsure if the conversion operation will be so expensive as to nullify the benefits of working with the generic list. Currently, I'm just running a foreach (Grid_Heading_Blk in myArrayList) operation to work with the ArrayList contents after passing the ArrayList to the class that will use it. Should I convert the ArrayList to a generic typed list? And if so, what is the most efficient way of doing so?

    Read the article

  • C# - implementing GetEnumerator() for a collection inherited from List<string>

    - by Vojtech
    Hi, I am trying to implement FilePathCollection. Its items would be simple file names (without a path - such as "image.jpg"). Once the collection is used via foreach cycle, it should return the full path created by concatenating with "baseDirectory". How can I do that? public class FilePathCollection : List<string> { string baseDirectory; public FileCollection(string baseDirectory) { this.baseDirectory = baseDirectory; } new public System.Collections.IEnumerator GetEnumerator() { foreach (string value in this._list) //this does not work because _list is private yield return baseDirectory + value; } } Thanks in advance! :-)

    Read the article

  • How to infer the type of a derived class in base class?

    - by enzi
    I want to create a method that allows me to change arbitrary properties of classes that derive from my base class, the result should look like this: SetPropertyValue("size.height", 50); – where size is a property of my derived class and height is a property of size. I'm almost done with my implementation but there's one final obstacle that I want to solve before moving on, to describe this I will first have to explain my implementation a bit: Properties that can be modified are decorated with an attribute There's a method in my base class that searches for all derived classes and their decorated properties For each property I generate a "property modifier", a class that contains 2 delegates: one to set and one to get the value of the property. Property Modifiers are stored in a dictionary, with the name of the property as key In my base class, there is another dictionary that contains all property-modifier-dictionaries, with the Type of the respective class as key. What the SetPropertyValue method does is this: Get the correct property-modifier-dictionary, using the concrete type of the derived class (<- yet to solve) Get the property modifier of the property to change (e.g. of the property size) Use the get or set delegate to modify the property's value Some example code to clarify further: private static Dictionary<RuntimeTypeHandle, object> EditableTypes; //property-modifier-dictionary protected void SetPropertyValue<T>(EditablePropertyMap<T> map, string property, object value) { var property = map[property]; // get the property modifier property.Set((T)this, value); // use the set delegate (encapsulated in a method) } In the above code, T is the Type of the actual (derived) class. I need this type for the get/set delegates. The problem is how to get the EditablePropertyMap<T> when I don't know what T is. My current (ugly) solution is to pass the map in an overriden virtual method in the derived class: public override void SetPropertyValue(string property, object value) { base.SetPropertyValue((EditablePropertyMap<ExampleType>)EditableTypes[typeof(ExampleType)], property, value); } What this does is: get the correct dictionary containing the property modifiers of this class using the class's type, cast it to the appropiate type and pass it to the SetPropertyValue method. I want to get rid of the SetPropertyValue method in my derived class (since there are a lot of derived classes), but don't know yet how to accomplish that. I cannot just make a virtual GetEditablePropertyMap<T> method because I cannot infer a concrete type for T then. I also cannot acces my dictionary directly with a type and retrieve an EditablePropertyMap<T> from it because I cannot cast to it from object in the base class, since again I do not know T. I found some neat tricks to infere types (e.g. by adding a dummy T parameter), but cannot apply them to my specific problem. I'd highly appreciate any suggestions you may have for me.

    Read the article

  • inconsistency between Sun JRE javac and Eclipse java compiler?

    - by Jason S
    This confuses me. The following compiles fine under Eclipse. package com.example.gotchas; public class GenericHelper1 { static <T> T fail() throws UnsupportedOperationException { throw new UnsupportedOperationException(); } /** * just calls fail() * @return something maybe */ public boolean argh() { return fail(); } public static void main(String[] args) { // TODO Auto-generated method stub } } But if I try to do a clean build with ant, or at the command line with javac, I get this: src\com\example\gotchas\GenericHelper1.java:14: type parameters of <T>T cannot be determined; no unique maximal instance exists for type variable T with upper bounds boolean,java.lang.Object public boolean argh() { return fail(); } ^ 1 error what gives, and how do I fix it?

    Read the article

  • VB.NET Two different approaches to generic cross-threaded operations; which is better?

    - by BASnappl
    VB.NET 2010, .NET 4 Hello, I recently read about using SynchronizationContext objects to control the execution thread for some code. I have been using a generic subroutine to handle (possibly) cross-thread calls for things like updating UI controls that utilizes Invoke. I'm an amateur and have a hard time understanding the pros and cons of any particular approach. I am looking for some insight on which approach might be preferable and why. Update: This question is motivated, in part, by statements such as the following from the MSDN page on Control.InvokeRequired. An even better solution is to use the SynchronizationContext returned by SynchronizationContext rather than a control for cross-thread marshaling. Method 1: Public Sub InvokeControl(Of T As Control)(ByVal Control As T, ByVal Action As Action(Of T)) If Control.InvokeRequired Then Control.Invoke(New Action(Of T, Action(Of T))(AddressOf InvokeControl), New Object() {Control, Action}) Else Action(Control) End If End Sub Method 2: Public Sub UIAction(Of T As Control)(ByVal Control As T, ByVal Action As Action(Of Control)) SyncContext.Send(New Threading.SendOrPostCallback(Sub() Action(Control)), Nothing) End Sub Where SyncContext is a Threading.SynchronizationContext object defined in the constructor of my UI form: Public Sub New() InitializeComponent() SyncContext = WindowsFormsSynchronizationContext.Current End Sub Then, if I wanted to update a control (e.g., Label1) on the UI form, I would do: InvokeControl(Label1, Sub(x) x.Text = "hello") or UIAction(Label1, Sub(x) x.Text = "hello") So, what do y'all think? Is one way preferred or does it depend on the context? If you have the time, verbosity would be appreciated! Thanks in advance, Brian

    Read the article

  • How do I create a generic method with a generic in the where clause? (Man that's clear as mud!)

    - by Jordan
    Is there a way of doing this: protected void SubscribeToEvent<TEvent, TPayload>(Action<TPayload> a_action) where TEvent : CompositePresentationEvent<TPayload> { TEvent newEvent = _eventAggregator.GetEvent<TEvent>(); SubscriptionToken eventToken = newEvent.Subscribe(a_action); _lstEventSubscriptions.Add(new KeyValuePair<EventBase, SubscriptionToken>(newEvent, eventToken)); } without requiring the user to specify a TPayload parameter?

    Read the article

  • Casting Type array to Generic array?

    - by George R
    The short version of the question - why can't I do this? I'm restricted to .NET 3.5. T[] genericArray; // Obviously T should be float! genericArray = new T[3]{ 1.0f, 2.0f, 0.0f }; // Can't do this either, why the hell not genericArray = new float[3]{ 1.0f, 2.0f, 0.0f }; Longer version - I'm working with the Unity engine here, although that's not important. What is - I'm trying to throw conversion between its fixed Vector2 (2 floats) and Vector3 (3 floats) and my generic Vector< class. I can't cast types directly to a generic array. using UnityEngine; public struct Vector { private readonly T[] _axes; #region Constructors public Vector(int axisCount) { this._axes = new T[axisCount]; } public Vector(T x, T y) { this._axes = new T[2] { x, y }; } public Vector(T x, T y, T z) { this._axes = new T[3]{x, y, z}; } public Vector(Vector2 vector2) { // This doesn't work this._axes = new T[2] { vector2.x, vector2.y }; } public Vector(Vector3 vector3) { // Nor does this this._axes = new T[3] { vector3.x, vector3.y, vector3.z }; } #endregion #region Properties public T this[int i] { get { return _axes[i]; } set { _axes[i] = value; } } public T X { get { return _axes[0];} set { _axes[0] = value; } } public T Y { get { return _axes[1]; } set { _axes[1] = value; } } public T Z { get { return this._axes.Length (Vector2 vector2) { Vector vector = new Vector(vector2); return vector; } public static explicit operator Vector(Vector3 vector3) { Vector vector = new Vector(vector3); return vector; } #endregion }

    Read the article

  • Exporting to CSV with dynamic field type handling

    - by serhio
    I have to do an export from DB to CSV. field; fileld; field... etc Have 3 types of fields: Alpha, Numeric and Bool respresented as "alphaValue",intValue and True/False. I try to encapsulate this in a fields collection, in order to export if alpha then set "", if Bool=True/False if numeric let as is. and try to build a CsvField class: Public Structure?Class CsvField(Of T As ???) End Structure Enum FieldType Alpha Bool Numeric End Enum any suggestions welcomed.

    Read the article

  • C# How to check if a class implements generic interface ?

    - by PaN1C_Showt1Me
    How to get generic interface type for an instance ? Suppose this code: interface IMyInterface<T> { T MyProperty { get; set; } } class MyClass : IMyInterface<int> { #region IMyInterface<T> Members public int MyProperty { get; set; } #endregion } MyClass myClass = new MyClass(); /* returns the interface */ Type[] myinterfaces = myClass.GetType().GetInterfaces(); /* returns null */ Type myinterface = myClass.GetType().GetInterface(typeof(IMyInterface<int>).FullName);

    Read the article

  • Initialize generic object from a System.Type

    - by CaptnCraig
    I need to create a generic type, but I do not know the type at compile time. I would like to do this: Type t = typeof(whatever); var list = new List<t> this won't compile, because t is not a valid type. But it does know all about a valid type. Is there a way to dynamically create the generic list from a System.Type like this? I may need reflection, and that's ok, I am just a bit lost here.

    Read the article

  • Where are the function literals c++?

    - by academicRobot
    First of all, maybe literals is not the right term for this concept, but its the closest I could think of (not literals in the sense of functions as first class citizens). The idea is that when you make a conventional function call, it compiles to something like this: callq <immediate address> But if you make a function call using a function pointer, it compiles to something like this: mov <memory location>,%rax callq *%rax Which is all well and good. However, what if I'm writing a template library that requires a callback of some sort with a specified argument list and the user of the library is expected to know what function they want to call at compile time? Then I would like to write my template to accept a function literal as a template parameter. So, similar to template <int int_literal> struct my_template {...};` I'd like to write template <func_literal_t func_literal> struct my_template {...}; and have calls to func_literal within my_template compile to callq <immediate address>. Is there a facility in C++ for this, or a work around to achieve the same effect? If not, why not (e.g. some cataclysmic side effects)? How about C++0x or another language? Solutions that are not portable are fine. Solutions that include the use of member function pointers would be ideal. I'm not particularly interested in being told "You are a <socially unacceptable term for a person of low IQ>, just use function pointers/functors." This is a curiosity based question, and it seems that it might be useful in some (albeit limited) applications. It seems like this should be possible since function names are just placeholders for a (relative) memory address, so why not allow more liberal use (e.g. aliasing) of this placeholder. p.s. I use function pointers and functions objects all the the time and they are great. But this post got me thinking about the don't pay for what you don't use principle in relation to function calls, and it seems like forcing the use of function pointers or similar facility when the function is known at compile time is a violation of this principle, though a small one.

    Read the article

  • Generic Constraints And Type Parameters Mess

    - by Dummy01
    Hi everyone, I have the following base abstract class defined as: public abstract class BaseObject<T> : IComparable, IComparable<T>, IEquatable<T> {} I also have an interface defined as: public interface ICode<T> where T : struct { T Code { get; } } Now I want to derive a class that is inherited from BaseObject<T> and includes interface ICode<T>. I tried to define it like that: public class DerivedObject<T, U> : BaseObject<T>, ICode<U> where T : DerivedObject<T, U> where U : struct { public DerivedObject(U code) { Code = code; } // From BaseObject protected override int InstanceCompareTo(T obj) { return Code.CompareTo(obj.Code); } // From BaseObject protected override bool InstanceEquals(T obj) { return Code.Equals(obj.Code); } // From ICode U _Code; public U Code { get { return _Code; } protected set { _Code = value; } } } The only error that comes from the compiler is for Code.CompareTo(obj.Code) with the message: 'U' does not contain a definition for 'CompareTo' and no extension method 'CompareTo' accepting a first argument of type 'U' could be found. But U is a value type and should know CompareTo. Have you any idea what I am doing wrong, or if I do all wrong? My final aim is to derive classes such these: public class Account : DerivedObject<Account, int> public class ItemGroup : DerivedObject<ItemGroup, string> Big Thanks In Advance!

    Read the article

  • Linq-to-XML explicit casting in a generic method

    - by vlad
    I've looked for a similar question, but the only one that was close didn't help me in the end. I have an XML file that looks like this: <Fields> <Field name="abc" value="2011-01-01" /> <Field name="xyz" value="" /> <Field name="tuv" value="123.456" /> </Fields> I'm trying to use Linq-to-XML to get the values from these fields. The values can be of type Decimal, DateTime, String and Int32. I was able to get the fields one by one using a relatively simple query. For example, I'm getting the 'value' from the field with the name 'abc' using the following: private DateTime GetValueFromAttribute(IEnumerable<XElement> fields, String attName) { return (from field in fields where field.Attribute("name").Value == "abc" select (DateTime)field.Attribute("value")).FirstOrDefault() } this is placed in a separate function that simply returns this value, and everything works fine (since I know that there is only one element with the name attribute set to 'abc'). however, since I have to do this for decimals and integers and dates, I was wondering if I can make a generic function that works in all cases. this is where I got stuck. here's what I have so far: private T GetValueFromAttribute<T>(IEnumerable<XElement> fields, String attName) { return (from field in fields where field.Attribute("name").Value == attName select (T)field.Attribute("value").Value).FirstOrDefault(); } this doesn't compile because it doesn't know how to convert from String to T. I tried boxing and unboxing (i.e. select (T) (Object) field.Attribute("value").Value but that throws a runtime Specified cast is not valid exception as it's trying to convert the String to a DateTime, for instance. Is this possible in a generic function? can I put a constraint on the generic function to make it work? or do I have to have separate functions to take advantage of Linq-to-XML's explicit cast operators?

    Read the article

  • Multiple generic types in one container

    - by Lirik
    I was looking at the answer of this question regarding multiple generic types in one container and I can't really get it to work: the properties of the Metadata class are not visible, since the abstract class doesn't have them. Here is a slightly modified version of the code in the original question: public abstract class Metadata { } public class Metadata<T> : Metadata { // ... some other meta data public T Function{ get; set; } } List<Metadata> metadataObjects; metadataObjects.Add(new Metadata<Func<double,double>>()); metadataObjects.Add(new Metadata<Func<int,double>>()); metadataObjects.Add(new Metadata<Func<double,int>>()); foreach( Metadata md in metadataObjects) { var tmp = md.Function; // <-- Error: does not contain a definition for Function } The exact error is: error CS1061: 'Metadata' does not contain a definition for 'Function' and no extension method 'Function' accepting a first argument of type 'Metadata' could be found (are you missing a using directive or an assembly reference?) I believe it's because the abstract class does not define the property Function, thus the whole effort is completely useless. Is there a way that we can get the properties?

    Read the article

  • Iterating over member typed collection fails when using untyped reference to generic object

    - by Alexander Pavlov
    Could someone clarify why iterate1() is not accepted by compiler (Java 1.6)? I do not see why iterate2() and iterate3() are much better. This paragraph is added to avoid silly "Your post does not have much context to explain the code sections; please explain your scenario more clearly." protection. import java.util.Collection; import java.util.HashSet; public class Test<T> { public Collection<String> getCollection() { return new HashSet<String>(); } public void iterate1(Test test) { for (String s : test.getCollection()) { // ... } } public void iterate2(Test test) { Collection<String> c = test.getCollection(); for (String s : c) { // ... } } public void iterate3(Test<?> test) { for (String s : test.getCollection()) { // ... } } } Compiler output: $ javac Test.java Test.java:11: incompatible types found : java.lang.Object required: java.lang.String for (String s : test.getCollection()) { ^ Note: Test.java uses unchecked or unsafe operations. Note: Recompile with -Xlint:unchecked for details. 1 error

    Read the article

  • Java Webservice with generic methods

    - by danby
    Hi, I was wondering if it is possible to make a generic webservice method in java like this: @WebMethod public <T extends Foo> void testGeneric(T data){ However when I try to consume this with a Java client I get an error stating: [ERROR] Schema descriptor {http://####/}testGeneric in message part "parameters" is not defined and could not be bound to Java. I know it is possible to make a method that takes a parameter such as List and this generates correctly using JAX-WS. I don't mind if there is a solution that means I am tied to using only a particular technology. Thanks, Dan.

    Read the article

  • How to create a generic method in C# that's all applicable to many types - ints, strings, doubles et

    - by satyajit
    Let's I have a method to remove duplicates in an integer Array public int[] RemoveDuplicates(int[] elems) { HashSet<int> uniques = new HashSet<int>(); foreach (int item in elems) uniques.Add(item); elems = new int[uniques.Count]; int cnt = 0; foreach (var item in uniques) elems[cnt++] = item; return elems; } How can I make this generic such that now it accepts a string array and remove duplicates in it? How about a double array? I know I am probably mixing things here in between primitive and value types. For your reference the following code won't compile public List<T> RemoveDuplicates(List<T> elems) { HashSet<T> uniques = new HashSet<T>(); foreach (var item in elems) uniques.Add(item); elems = new List<T>(); int cnt = 0; foreach (var item in uniques) elems[cnt++] = item; return elems; } The reason is that all generic types should be closed at run time. Thanks for you comments

    Read the article

  • A simple eventbus for .net

    - by chikak
    Hello, I want to make a very simple event bus which will allow any client to subscribe to a particular type of event and when any publisher pushes an event on the bus using EventBus.PushEvent() method only the clients that subscribed to that particular event type will get the event. I am using c#.net 2.0 Any help/pointer would be greatly appreciated. Thanks Pradeep

    Read the article

  • c# Why can't open generic types be passed as parameters?

    - by Rich Oliver
    Why can't open generic types be passed as parameters. I frequently have classes like: public class Example<T> where T: BaseClass { public int a {get; set;} public List<T> mylist {get; set;} } Lets say BaseClass is as follows; public BaseClass { public int num; } I then want a method of say: public int MyArbitarySumMethod(Example example)//This won't compile Example not closed { int sum = 0; foreach(BaseClass i in example.myList)//myList being infered as an IEnumerable sum += i.num; sum = sum * example.a; return sum; } I then have to write an interface just to pass this one class as a parameter as follows: public interface IExample { public int a {get; set;} public IEnumerable<BaseClass> myIEnum {get;} } The generic class then has to be modified to: public class Example<T>: IExample where T: BaseClass { public int a {get; set;} public List<T> mylist {get; set;} public IEnumerable<BaseClass> myIEnum {get {return myList;} } } That's a lot of ceremony for what I would have thought the compiler could infer. Even if something can't be changed I find it psychologically very helpful if I know the reasons / justifications for the absence of Syntax short cuts.

    Read the article

  • Java generic return tpye

    - by Colby77
    Hi, I'd like to write a method that can accept a type param (or whatever the method can figure out the type from) and return a value of this type so I don't have to cast the return type. Here is a method: public Object doIt(Object param){ if(param instanceof String){ return "string"; }else if(param instanceof Integer){ return 1; }else{ return null; } } When I call this method, and pass in it a String, even if I know the return type will be a String I have to cast the return Object. This is similar to the int param. How shall I write this method to accept a type param, and return this type?

    Read the article

  • Generic TypeIdenitifier convertion.How?

    - by John
    How do I convert the TypeIdenitifier to a class type? I need to use implicit convertion. type TMyChildArray<T>=class(TMyArray<T>) private FData:Array of T; procedure AddEnd(); end; TTypeIdenitifierParentClass=class(TAnotherParentClass) protected TestField:Cardinal; end; procedure TMyChildArray<T>.AddEnd(); var elem:T; begin for elem in Fdata do TTypeIdenitifierParentClass(elem).TestField:=0; end; I get "Invalid typecast" on the implicit convertion "TTypeIdenitifierParentClass(elem).TestField:=0;". The principle I want to use is that the TypeIdenitifier will represent a class that descends from TTypeIdenitifierParentClass.There are many class types,but all of them descend that class. How do I do this?

    Read the article

  • .NET 4.0 Generic Invariant, Covariant, Contravariant

    - by Sameer Shariff
    Here's the scenario i am faced with: public abstract class Record { } public abstract class TableRecord : Record { } public abstract class LookupTableRecord : TableRecord { } public sealed class UserRecord : LookupTableRecord { } public interface IDataAccessLayer<TRecord> where TRecord : Record { } public interface ITableDataAccessLayer<TTableRecord> : IDataAccessLayer<TTableRecord> where TTableRecord : TableRecord { } public interface ILookupTableDataAccessLayer<TLookupTableRecord> : ITableDataAccessLayer<TLookupTableRecord> where TLookupTableRecord : LookupTableRecord { } public abstract class DataAccessLayer<TRecord> : IDataAccessLayer<TRecord> where TRecord : Record, new() { } public abstract class TableDataAccessLayer<TTableRecord> : DataAccessLayer<TTableRecord>, ITableDataAccessLayer<TTableRecord> where TTableRecord : TableRecord, new() { } public abstract class LookupTableDataAccessLayer<TLookupTableRecord> : TableDataAccessLayer<TLookupTableRecord>, ILookupTableDataAccessLayer<TLookupTableRecord> where TLookupTableRecord : LookupTableRecord, new() { } public sealed class UserDataAccessLayer : LookupTableDataAccessLayer<UserRecord> { } Now when i try to cast UserDataAccessLayer to it's generic base type ITableDataAccessLayer<TableRecord>, the compiler complains that it cannot implicitly convert the type.

    Read the article

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