Search Results

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

Page 27/41 | < Previous Page | 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34  | Next Page >

  • Class<T> and static method Class.forName() drive me crazy.

    - by matt
    Hi, this code doesn't compile. I'm wondering what I am doing wrong: private static Importable getRightInstance(String s) throws Exception { Class<Importable> c = Class.forName(s); Importable i = c.newInstance(); return i; } where Importable is an interface and the string s is the name of an implementing class. The compiler says: ./Importer.java:33: incompatible types found : java.lang.Class<capture#964 of ?> required: java.lang.Class<Importable> Class<Importable> c = Class.forName(format(s)); thanks for any help! All the solutions Class<? extends Importable> c = Class.forName(s).asSubclass(Importable.class); and Class<? extends Importable> c = (Class<? extends Importable>) Class.forName(s); and Class<?> c = Class.forName(format(s)); Importable i = (Importable)c.newInstance(); give this error: Exception in thread "main" java.lang.IncompatibleClassChangeError: class C1 has interface Importable as super class where C1 is effectively a class implementing Importable, one of those i want to cast to Importable.

    Read the article

  • When is a parameterized method call useful?

    - by johann-christoph-jacob
    A Java method call may be parameterized like in the following code: class Test { <T> void test() { } public static void main(String[] args) { new Test().<Object>test(); // ^^^^^^^^ } } I found out this is possible from the Eclipse Java Formatter settings dialog and wondered if there are any cases where this is useful or required.

    Read the article

  • PropertyInfo.GetValue() - how do you index into a generic parameter using reflection in C#?

    - by flesh
    This (shortened) code.. for (int i = 0; i < count; i++) { object obj = propertyInfo.GetValue(Tcurrent, new object[] { i }); } .. is throwing a 'TargetParameterCountException : Parameter count mismatch' exception. The underlying type of 'propertyInfo' is a Collection of some T. 'count' is the number of items in the collection. I need to iterate through the collection and perform an operation on obj. Advice appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Getting the type of a parametrized class parameter?

    - by GuidoMB
    I have the following class public class MyClass<T> { public Class<T> getDomainClass() { GET THE CLASS OF T } } I've googled this problem and all the answers I could find told me to use getGenericSuperClass(), but the problem of this method is that I must have a second class that extends MyClass and I don't want to do this. What I need is to get the parametrized type of a concrete class?

    Read the article

  • scala 2.8 CanBuildFrom

    - by oxbow_lakes
    Following on from another question I asked, I wanted to understand a bit more about the Scala method TraversableLike[A].map whose signature is as follows: def map[B, That](f: A => B)(implicit bf: CanBuildFrom[Repr, B, That]): That Notice a few things about this method: it takes a function turning each A in the traversable into a B it returns That and takes an implicit argument of type CanBuildFrom[Repr, B, That] I can call this as follows: > val s: Set[Int] = List("Paris", "London").map(_.length) s: Set[Int] Set(5,6) What I cannot quite grasp is how the fact that That is bound to B (i.e. it is some collection of B's) is being enforced by the compiler. The type parameters look to be independent in both the signature above and in the signature of the trait CanBuildFrom itself: trait CanBuildFrom[-From, -Elem, +To] How is the scala compiler ensuring that That cannot be forced into something which does not make sense? > val s: Set[String] = List("Paris", "London").map(_.length) //will not compile EDIT - this question of course boils down to: How does the compiler decide what implicit CanBuildFrom objects are in scope for the call?

    Read the article

  • can I have an abstract base class with the key attribute being generic

    - by Greg
    Hi, I want to create a re-usable library. I was going to use extension methods however I run into some issues in some cases for the client to have to specify in the calling method the types. QUESTION - If I use an abstract base class as the basis, can I specify an attribute/property in the class to be generic (e.g. the key property might be an 'int' in one case, or a 'string' in another)?

    Read the article

  • How can the generic method called know the type of the generic return?

    - by Paulo Guedes
    I couldn't find a duplicate for this question for Java, although there are a lot of them for C#. I have this method: public <T> T getSomething() { // } According to the type of T, I will have a different return. For example: String a = getSomething(); int b = getSomething(); For a, my method will return a specific String. For b, it will return a specific int. And so on. It seems that this can be done with typeof() in C#. How can I achieve it in Java?

    Read the article

  • Any way to make a generic List where I can add a type AND a subtype?

    - by user383178
    I understand why I cannot do the following: private class Parent { }; private class Child extends Parent { }; private class GrandChild extends Child { }; public void wontCompile(List<? extends Parent> genericList, Child itemToAdd) { genericList.add(itemToAdd); } My question is there ANY practical way to have a typesafe List where you can call add(E) where E is known to be only a Parent or a Child? I vaguely remember some use of the "|" operator as used for wildcard bounds, but I cannot find it in the spec... Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Wouldn't it be nice to have a type variable referring to the class's instance.

    - by user93197
    I often have a pattern like this: class VectorBase<SubClass, Element> where SubClass : VectorBase<SubClass, Element>, new() where Element : Addable<Element> { Element[] data; public VectorBase(Element[] data) { this.data = data; } public SubClass add(SubClass second) { Element[] newData = new Element[data.Length]; for (int i = 0; i < newData.Length; i++) { newData[i] = data[i].add(second.data[i]); } SubClass result = new SubClass(); result.data = newData; return result; } } class VectorInt : VectorBase<VectorInt, Int32> { } class MyInt : Addable<MyInt> { int data; public MyInt(int data) { this.data = data; } public MyInt add(MyInt t) { return new MyInt(data + t.data); } } interface Addable<T> { T add(T t); } But I would rather just have: class VectorBase2<Element> where Element : Addable<Element> { Element[] data; public VectorBase(Element[] data) { this.data = data; } public SubClass add(SubClass second) { Element[] newData = new Element[data.Length]; for (int i = 0; i < newData.Length; i++) { newData[i] = data[i].add(second.data[i]); } SubClass result = new SubClass(data); return result; } } class VectorInt2 : VectorBase2<Int32> { } Why not make the subclass type available to all classes? Is this technically impossible?

    Read the article

  • Getting the type of an array of T, without specifying T - Type.GetType("T[]")

    - by Merlyn Morgan-Graham
    I am trying to create a type that refers to an array of a generic type, without specifying the generic type. That is, I would like to do the equivalent of Type.GetType("T[]"). I already know how to do this with a non-array type. E.g. Type.GetType("System.Collections.Generic.IEnumerable`1") // or typeof(IEnumerable<>) Here's some sample code that reproduces the problem. using System; using System.Collections.Generic; public class Program { public static void SomeFunc<T>(IEnumerable<T> collection) { } public static void SomeArrayFunc<T>(T[] collection) { } static void Main(string[] args) { Action<Type> printType = t => Console.WriteLine(t != null ? t.ToString() : "(null)"); Action<string> printFirstParameterType = methodName => printType( typeof(Program).GetMethod(methodName).GetParameters()[0].ParameterType ); printFirstParameterType("SomeFunc"); printFirstParameterType("SomeArrayFunc"); var iEnumerableT = Type.GetType("System.Collections.Generic.IEnumerable`1"); printType(iEnumerableT); var iEnumerableTFromTypeof = typeof(IEnumerable<>); printType(iEnumerableTFromTypeof); var arrayOfT = Type.GetType("T[]"); printType(arrayOfT); // Prints "(null)" // ... not even sure where to start for typeof(T[]) } } The output is: System.Collections.Generic.IEnumerable`1[T] T[] System.Collections.Generic.IEnumerable`1[T] System.Collections.Generic.IEnumerable`1[T] (null) I'd like to correct that last "(null)". This will be used to get an overload of a function via reflections by specifying the method signature: var someMethod = someType.GetMethod("MethodName", new[] { typeOfArrayOfT }); // ... call someMethod.MakeGenericMethod some time later I've already gotten my code mostly working by filtering the result of GetMethods(), so this is more of an exercise in knowledge and understanding.

    Read the article

  • C# specifying generic delegate type param at runtime

    - by smerlin
    following setup, i have several generic functions, and i need to choose the type and the function identified by two strings at runtime. my first try looked like this: public static class FOOBAR { public delegate void MyDelegateType(int param); public static void foo<T>(int param){...} public static void bar<T>(int param){...} public static void someMethod(string methodstr, string typestr) { MyDelegateType mydel; Type mytype; switch(typestr) { case "int": mytype = typeof(int); break; case "double": mytype = typeof(double); break; default: throw new InvalidTypeException(typestr); } switch(methodstr) { case "foo": mydel = foo<mytype>; //error break; case "bar": mydel = bar<mytype>; //error break; default: throw new InvalidTypeException(methodstr); } for(int i=0; i<1000; ++i) mydel(i); } } since this didnt work, i nested those switchs (a methodstr switch inside the typestr switch or viceversa), but that solution is really ugly and unmaintainable. The number of types is pretty much fixed, but the number of functions like foo or bar will increase by high numbers, so i dont want nested switchs. So how can i make this working without using nested switchs ?

    Read the article

  • Type-safe generic data structures in plain-old C?

    - by Bradford Larsen
    I have done far more C++ programming than "plain old C" programming. One thing I sorely miss when programming in plain C is type-safe generic data structures, which are provided in C++ via templates. For sake of concreteness, consider a generic singly linked list. In C++, it is a simple matter to define your own template class, and then instantiate it for the types you need. In C, I can think of a few ways of implementing a generic singly linked list: Write the linked list type(s) and supporting procedures once, using void pointers to go around the type system. Write preprocessor macros taking the necessary type names, etc, to generate a type-specific version of the data structure and supporting procedures. Use a more sophisticated, stand-alone tool to generate the code for the types you need. I don't like option 1, as it is subverts the type system, and would likely have worse performance than a specialized type-specific implementation. Using a uniform representation of the data structure for all types, and casting to/from void pointers, so far as I can see, necessitates an indirection that would be avoided by an implementation specialized for the element type. Option 2 doesn't require any extra tools, but it feels somewhat clunky, and could give bad compiler errors when used improperly. Option 3 could give better compiler error messages than option 2, as the specialized data structure code would reside in expanded form that could be opened in an editor and inspected by the programmer (as opposed to code generated by preprocessor macros). However, this option is the most heavyweight, a sort of "poor-man's templates". I have used this approach before, using a simple sed script to specialize a "templated" version of some C code. I would like to program my future "low-level" projects in C rather than C++, but have been frightened by the thought of rewriting common data structures for each specific type. What experience do people have with this issue? Are there good libraries of generic data structures and algorithms in C that do not go with Option 1 (i.e. casting to and from void pointers, which sacrifices type safety and adds a level of indirection)?

    Read the article

  • How to make TObjectDictionary.Values accessible as property?

    - by Holgerwa
    I have an object like this: TMyObj = class private FObjList: TObjectDictionary <integer, TMyObject>; public constructor Create; destructor Destroy; // How to access Values correctly? Something similar to this not working code property Values: TValueCollection read FObjList.Values write FObjList.Values; end; var MyObj: TMyObj; To access the values of FObjList, I'd like to write: for tmpObject in MyObj.Values do ... How do I need to declare the property "Values" so that MyObj.Values behaves exactly as if I would access MyObj.FObjList.Values?

    Read the article

  • C# Generic List constructor gives me a MethodAccessException

    - by evilfred
    Hi, I make a list in my code like so: List<IConnection> connections = new List<IConnection>(); where IConnection is my own interface. This is in a .NET 2.0 executable. If I run the code on my machine (with lots of .Net versions installed) it works fine. If I run it on my test machine (which only has .NET 3.5 SP1 installed) then I get a MethodAccessException in the System.Collections.Generic.List constructor. Any ideas what could be going wrong?

    Read the article

  • Unit test approach for generic classes/methods

    - by Greg
    Hi, What's the recommended way to cover off unit testing of generic classes/methods? For example (referring to my example code below). Would it be a case of have 2 or 3 times the tests to cover testing the methods with a few different types of TKey, TNode classes? Or is just one class enough? public class TopologyBase<TKey, TNode, TRelationship> where TNode : NodeBase<TKey>, new() where TRelationship : RelationshipBase<TKey>, new() { // Properties public Dictionary<TKey, NodeBase<TKey>> Nodes { get; private set; } public List<RelationshipBase<TKey>> Relationships { get; private set; } // Constructors protected TopologyBase() { Nodes = new Dictionary<TKey, NodeBase<TKey>>(); Relationships = new List<RelationshipBase<TKey>>(); } // Methods public TNode CreateNode(TKey key) { var node = new TNode {Key = key}; Nodes.Add(node.Key, node); return node; } public void CreateRelationship(NodeBase<TKey> parent, NodeBase<TKey> child) { . . .

    Read the article

  • removing items from a generic List<t>

    - by frosty
    I have the following method, I wish to remove items from my collection that match the product Id. Seems fairly straight forward, but i get an exception. Basically my collection is getting out of sync. So what is the best way to remove an item from a collection. public void RemoveOrderItem(Model.Order currentOrder, int productId) { foreach (var orderItem in currentOrder.OrderItems) { if (orderItem.Product.Id == productId) { currentOrder.OrderItems.Remove(orderItem); } } } Exception Details: System.InvalidOperationException: Collection was modified; enumeration operation may not execute

    Read the article

  • How to find the class object of Java generic type?

    - by Samuel Yung
    Assume I have a generic type P which is an Enum, that is <P extends Enum<P>>, and I want to get the Enum value from a string, for example: String foo = "foo"; P fooEnum = Enum.valueOf(P.class, foo); This will get a compile error because P.class is invalid. So what can I do in order to make the above code work?

    Read the article

  • How could I know if an object is derived from a specific generic class?

    - by Edison Chuang
    Suppose that I have an object then how could I know if the object is derived from a specific generic class. For example: public class GenericClass<T> { } public bool IsDeriveFrom(object o) { return o.GetType().IsSubclassOf(typeof(GenericClass)); //will throw exception here } please notice that the code above will throw an exception. The type of the generic class cannot be retrieved directly because there is no type for a generic class without a type parameter provided.

    Read the article

  • Html.Editor() helper in ASP.NET MVC 3 does not work as expected with array in model

    - by SlimShaggy
    In my ASP.NET MVC 3 application I have classes like the following: public class Localization<T> { public int VersionID { get; set; } public T Value { get; set; } ... } public class Localizable<T> { public Localization<T>[] Name { get; set; } ... } Then, I have the following view: @model dynamic ... @for (int i = 0; i < VersionCount; i++) { ... @Html.Editor(string.Format("Name[{0}.Value", i)) ... } Now, when I display this view, passing a subclass of Localizable<string> as the model, the textboxes for the strings are rendered, but they are empty. If I replace @Html.Editor(string.Format("Name[{0}.Value", i)) with @InputExtensions.TextBox(Html, string.Format("Name[{0}].Value", i), Model.Name[i].Value), the textboxes are correctly filled with values from the model. However, using TextBox instead of Editor is not an option for me, because I want to use different editor templates for different types of T. So, what am I doing wrong, or is it a bug in MVC, and is there any workaround?

    Read the article

  • is there some lightweight tecnique for adding type safety to identifier properties?

    - by shoren
    After using C++ I got used to the concept of Identifier which can be used with a class for the type, provides type safety and has no runtime overhead (the actual size is the size of the primitive). I want to do something like that, so I will not make mistakes like: personDao.find(book.getId());//I want compilation to fail personDao.find(book.getOwnerId());//I want compilation to succeed Possible solutuions that I don't like: For every entity have an entity id class wrapping the id primitive. I don't like the code bloat. Create a generic Identifier class. Code like this will not compile: void foo(Identifier book); void foo(Identifier person); Does anyone know of a better way? Is there a library with a utility such as this? Is implementing this an overkill? And the best of all, can this be done in Java without the object overhead like in C++?

    Read the article

  • Can I pass a non-generic type where a generic type is expected?

    - by Water Cooler v2
    I want to define a set of classes that collect and persist data. I want to call them either on-demand basis, or in a chain-of-responsibility fashion, as the caller pleases. To support the chaining, I have declared my interface like so: interface IDataManager<T, K> { T GetData(K args); void WriteData(Stream stream); void WriteData(T data, Stream stream); IDataCollectionPolicy Policy; IDataManager<T, K> NextDataManager; } But the T's and K's for each concrete types will be different. If I give it like this: IDataManager<T, K> NextDataManager; I assume that the calling code will only be able to chain types that have the same T's and K's. Is there a way I can have it chain any type of IDataManager? One thing that occurs to me is to have IDataManager inherit from a non-generic IDataManager like so: interface IDataManager { } interface IDataManager<T, K>: IDataManager { T GetData(K args); void WriteData(Stream stream); void WriteData(T data, Stream stream); IDataCollectionPolicy Policy; IDataManager NextDataManager; } Is this going to work?

    Read the article

  • Passing the Class<T> in java of a generic list?

    - by Rob Stevenson-Leggett
    I have a method for reading JSON from a service, I'm using Gson to do my serialization and have written the following method using type parameters. public T getDeserializedJSON(Class<T> aClass,String url) { Reader r = getJSONDataAsReader(url); Gson gson = new Gson(); return gson.fromJson(r, aClass); } I'm consuming json which returns just an array of a type e.g. [ { "prop":"value" } { "prop":"value" } ] I have a java class which maps to this object let's call it MyClass. However to use my method I need to do this: RestClient<ArrayList<MyClass>> restClient = new RestClient<ArrayList<MyClass>>(); ArrayList<MyClass> results = restClient.getDeserializedJSON(ArrayList<MyClass>.class, url); However, I can't figure out the syntax to do it. Passing just ArrayList.class doesn't work. So is there a way I can get rid of the Class parameter or how do I get the class of the ArrayList of MyClass?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34  | Next Page >