Search Results

Search found 4652 results on 187 pages for 'explicit constructor'.

Page 26/187 | < Previous Page | 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33  | Next Page >

  • 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

  • CArray doesn't call copy constructors on memory reallocations, now what?

    - by MMx
    Suppose I have a class that requires copy constructor to be called to make a correct copy of: struct CWeird { CWeird() { number = 47; target = &number; } CWeird(const CWeird &other) : number(other.number), target(&number) { } void output() { printf("%d %d\n", *target, number); } int *target, number; }; Now the trouble is that CArray doesn't call copy constructors on its elements when reallocating memory (only memcpy from the old memory to the new), e.g. this code CArray<CWeird> a; a.SetSize(1); a[0].output(); a.SetSize(2); a[0].output(); results in 47 47 -572662307 47 I don't get this. Why is it that std::vector can copy the same objects properly and CArray can't? What's the lesson here? Should I use only classes that don't require explicit copy constructors? Or is it a bad idea to use CArray for anything serious?

    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

  • c++ constructors

    - by aharont
    i wrote this code: class A { public: A(){d=2.2;cout<<d;} A(double d):d(d){cout<<d;} double getD(){return d;} private: double d; }; class Bing { public: Bing(){a=A(5.3);} void f(){cout<<a.getD();} private: A a; }; int main() { Bing b; b.f(); } i get the output: 2.2 5.3 5.3 instead of 5.3 5.3. it's something in the constructor.... wahy am i getting this? how can i fix it?

    Read the article

  • can constructors actually return Strings?

    - by elwynn
    Hi all, I have a class called ArionFileExtractor in a .java file of the same name. public class ArionFileExtractor { public String ArionFileExtractor (String fName, String startText, String endText) { String afExtract = ""; // Extract string from fName into afExtract in code I won't show here return afExtract; } However, when I try to invoke ArionFileExtractor in another .java file, as follows: String afe = ArionFileExtractor("gibberish.txt", "foo", "/foo"); NetBeans informs me that there are incompatible types and that java.lang.String is required. But I coded ArionFileExtractor to return the standard string type, which is java.lang.string. I am wondering, can my ArionFileExtractor constructor legally return a String? I very much appreciate any tips or pointers on what I'm doing wrong here.

    Read the article

  • Use of .apply() with 'new' operator. Is this possible?

    - by Premasagar
    In JavaScript, I want to create an object instance (via the new operator), but pass an arbitrary number of arguments to the constructor. Is this possible? What I want to do is something like this (but the code below does not work): function Something(){ // init stuff } function createSomething(){ return new Something.apply(null, arguments); } var s = createSomething(a,b,c); // 's' is an instance of Something The Answer From the responses here, it became clear that there's no in-built way to call .apply() with the new operator. However, people suggested a number of really interesting solutions to the problem. My preferred solution was this one from Matthew Crumley (I've modified it to pass the arguments property): var createSomething = (function() { function F(args) { return Something.apply(this, args); } F.prototype = Something.prototype; return function() { return new F(arguments); } })();

    Read the article

  • How to get an array to work with oops concepts in Perl

    - by superstar
    Hello guys, I need some help regarding the arrays in Perl This is the constructor i have. sub new { my $class = shift; my @includeobjects = (); my @excludeobjects = (); my $Packet = { _PacketName => shift, _Platform => shift, _Version => shift, @_IncludePath => @includeobjects, }; bless $Packet, $class; return $Packet; } sub SetPacketName { my ( $Packet, $PacketName ) = @_; $Packet->{_PacketName} = $PacketName if defined($PacketName); return $Packet->{_PacketName}; } sub SetIncludePath { my ( $Packet, @IncludePath ) = @_; $Packet->{@_IncludePath} = @IncludePath; return $Packet->{@_IncludePath}; } sub GetPacketName { my( $Packet ) = @_; return $Packet->{_PacketName}; } sub GetIncludePath { my( $Packet ) = @_; return $Packet->{@_IncludePath}; } The get and set methods work fine for PacketName. But since IncludePath is an array, I could not get it work. The declaration is what i am not able to get right Any suggestions please...

    Read the article

  • How to create a Binary Tree from a General Tree?

    - by mno4k
    I have to solve the following constructor for a BinaryTree class in java: BinaryTree(GeneralTree<T> aTree) This method should create a BinaryTree (bt) from a General Tree (gt) as follows: Every Vertex from gt will be represented as a leaf in bt. If gt is a leaf, then bt will be a leaf with the same value as gt If gt is not a leaf, then bt will be constructed as an empty root, a left subTree (lt) and a right subTree (lr). Lt is a stric binary tree created from the oldest subtree of gt (the left-most subtree) and lr is a stric binary tree created from gt without its left-most subtree. The frist part is trivial enough, but the second one is giving me some trouble. I've gotten this far: public BinaryTree(GeneralTree<T> aTree){ if (aTree.isLeaf()){ root= new BinaryNode<T>(aTree.getRootData()); }else{ root= new BinaryNode<T>(null); // empty root LinkedList<GeneralTree<T>> childs = aTree.getChilds(); // Childs of the GT are implemented as a LinkedList of SubTrees child.begin(); //start iteration trough list BinaryTree<T> lt = new BinaryTree<T>(childs.element(0)); // first element = left-most child this.addLeftChild(lt); aTree.DeleteChild(hijos.elemento(0)); BinaryTree<T> lr = new BinaryTree<T>(aTree); this.addRightChild(lr); } } Is this the right way? If not, can you think of a better way to solve this? Thank you!

    Read the article

  • How do I use an array as an object attribute in Perl?

    - by superstar
    Hello guys, I need some help regarding the arrays in Perl This is the constructor i have. sub new { my $class = shift; my @includeobjects = (); my @excludeobjects = (); my $Packet = { _PacketName => shift, _Platform => shift, _Version => shift, @_IncludePath => @includeobjects, }; bless $Packet, $class; return $Packet; } sub SetPacketName { my ( $Packet, $PacketName ) = @_; $Packet->{_PacketName} = $PacketName if defined($PacketName); return $Packet->{_PacketName}; } sub SetIncludePath { my ( $Packet, @IncludePath ) = @_; $Packet->{@_IncludePath} = @IncludePath; return $Packet->{@_IncludePath}; } sub GetPacketName { my( $Packet ) = @_; return $Packet->{_PacketName}; } sub GetIncludePath { my( $Packet ) = @_; return $Packet->{@_IncludePath}; } The get and set methods work fine for PacketName. But since IncludePath is an array, I could not get it work. The declaration is what I am not able to get right.

    Read the article

  • Is there a good way to copy a Gtk widget?

    - by Jake
    Is there a way, using the Gtk library in C, to clone a Gtk button (for instance), and pack it somewhere else in the app. I know you can't pack the same widget twice. And that this code obviously wouldn't work, but shows what happens when I attempt a shallow copy of the button: GtkButton *a = g_object_new(GTK_TYPE_BUTTON, "label", "o_0", NULL); GtkButton *b = g_memdup(b, sizeof *b); gtk_box_pack_start_defaults(GTK_BOX(vbox), GTK_WIDGET(b)); There is surrounding code which creates a vbox and packs it in a window and runs gtk_main(). This will result in these hard to understand error messages: (main:6044): Gtk-CRITICAL **: gtk_widget_hide: assertion `GTK_IS_WIDGET (widget)' failed (main:6044): Gtk-CRITICAL **: gtk_widget_realize: assertion `GTK_WIDGET_ANCHORED (widget) || GTK_IS_INVISIBLE (widget)' failed ** Gtk:ERROR:/build/buildd/gtk+2.0-2.18.3/gtk/gtkwidget.c:8431:gtk_widget_real_map: assertion failed: (GTK_WIDGET_REALIZED (widget)) Along the same lines, if I were to write my own GObject (not necessarily a Gtk widget), is there a good way to write a copy constructor. Im thinking it should be an interface with optional hooks and based mostly on the properties, handling the class's hierarchy in some way. I'd want to do this: GtkButton *b = copyable_copy(COPYABLE(a)); If GtkButton could use a theoretical copyable interface.

    Read the article

  • Freestanding ARM C++ Code - empty .ctors section

    - by Matthew Iselin
    I'm writing C++ code to run in a freestanding environment (basically an ARM board). It's been going well except I've run into a stumbling block - global static constructors. To my understanding the .ctors section contains a list of addresses to each static constructor, and my code simply needs to iterate this list and make calls to each function as it goes. However, I've found that this section in my binary is in fact completely empty! Google pointed towards using ".init_array" instead of ".ctors" (an EABI thing), but that has not changed anything. Any ideas as to why my static constructors don't exist? Relevant linker script and objdump output follows: .ctors : { . = ALIGN(4096); start_ctors = .; *(.init_array); *(.ctors); end_ctors = .; } .dtors : { . = ALIGN(4096); start_dtors = .; *(.fini_array); *(.dtors); end_dtors = .; } -- 2 .ctors 00001000 8014c000 8014c000 00054000 2**2 CONTENTS, ALLOC, LOAD, DATA <snip> 8014d000 g O .ctors 00000004 start_ctors <snip> 8014d000 g O .ctors 00000004 end_ctors I'm using an arm-elf targeted GCC compiler (4.4.1).

    Read the article

  • Does code in the constructor add to code in subclass constructors?

    - by Jeremy Rudd
    Does code in the constructor add to code in subclass constructors? Or does the subclass's constructor override the superclass? Given this example superclass constructor: class Car{ function Car(){ trace("CAR") } } ...and this subclass constructor: class FordCar extends Car{ function FordCar(){ trace("FORD") } } When an instance of FordCar is created, will this trace "Car" and "Ford" ??

    Read the article

  • why we can't initialize a servlet using constructor itself?

    - by Reddy
    Why do we have to override init() method in Servlets while we can do the initialization in the constructor and have web container call the constructor passing ServletConfig reference to servlet while calling constructor? Ofcourse container has to use reflection for this but container has to use reflection anyway to call a simple no-arg constructor

    Read the article

  • Requriing static class setter to be called before Constructor, bad design?

    - by roverred
    I have a class, say Foo, and every instance of Foo will need and contain the same List object, myList. Since every class instance will share the same List Object, I thought it would be good to make myList static and use a static function to set myList before the constructor is called. I was wondering if this was bad, because this requires the setter to be called before the constructor. If the person doesn't, the program will crash. Alternative way would be passing myList every time. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Why can't I get 100% code coverage on a method that calls a constructor of a generic type?

    - by Martin Watts
    Today I came across a wierd issue in a Visual Studio 2008 Code Coverage Analysis. Consider the following method:  private IController GetController<T>(IContext context) where T : IController, new() {     IController controller = new T();     controller.ListeningContext = context;     controller.Plugin = this;     return controller; } This method is called in a unit test as follows (MenuController has an empty constructor): controller = plugin.GetController<MenuController>(null);  After calling this method from a Unit Test, the following code coverage report is generated: As you can see, Code Coverage is only 85%. Looking up the code results in the following: Apparently, the call to the constructor of the generic type is considered only partly covered. WHY? Google didn't help. And MSDN didn't help at all, of course. Anybody who does know?

    Read the article

  • Quantifying the Performance of Garbage Collection vs. Explicit Memory Management

    - by EmbeddedProg
    I found this article here: Quantifying the Performance of Garbage Collection vs. Explicit Memory Management http://www.cs.umass.edu/~emery/pubs/gcvsmalloc.pdf In the conclusion section, it reads: Comparing runtime, space consumption, and virtual memory footprints over a range of benchmarks, we show that the runtime performance of the best-performing garbage collector is competitive with explicit memory management when given enough memory. In particular, when garbage collection has five times as much memory as required, its runtime performance matches or slightly exceeds that of explicit memory management. However, garbage collection’s performance degrades substantially when it must use smaller heaps. With three times as much memory, it runs 17% slower on average, and with twice as much memory, it runs 70% slower. Garbage collection also is more susceptible to paging when physical memory is scarce. In such conditions, all of the garbage collectors we examine here suffer order-of-magnitude performance penalties relative to explicit memory management. So, if my understanding is correct: if I have an app written in native C++ requiring 100 MB of memory, to achieve the same performance with a "managed" (i.e. garbage collector based) language (e.g. Java, C#), the app should require 5*100 MB = 500 MB? (And with 2*100 MB = 200 MB, the managed app would run 70% slower than the native app?) Do you know if current (i.e. latest Java VM's and .NET 4.0's) garbage collectors suffer the same problems described in the aforementioned article? Has the performance of modern garbage collectors improved? Thanks.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33  | Next Page >