Search Results

Search found 4999 results on 200 pages for 'derived instances'.

Page 28/200 | < Previous Page | 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35  | Next Page >

  • How can I get a default value in some instances but not others?

    - by Connor Wagner
    I am making an iPhone app and want to use an 'if' statement and a boolean to set default values in some instances but not others... is this possible? Are there alternative options if it is not possible? In the MainViewController.m I have: @interface MainViewController (){ BOOL moveOver; } [...] - (void)viewDidLoad { [super viewDidLoad]; _label.text = [NSString stringWithFormat:@"%i", computerSpeed]; } } [...] - (void)flipsideViewControllerDidFinish:(FlipsideViewController *)controller { [self dismissViewControllerAnimated:YES completion:nil]; moveOver = true; } The problem that it is redefined when the ViewDidLoad runs... I need a statement that will not redefine when the ViewDidLoad runs. I have something that I feel like is much closer to working... In the ViewDidLoad I have: if (playToInt != 10 || computerMoveSpeed != 3) { moveOver = TRUE; } which connects to my created method, gameLoop. It has if (moveOver == false) { computerMoveSpeed = 3; playToInt = 10; } I have tried putting the code in the gameLoop into the ViewDidLoad, but it had the same effect. When moveOver was false, the computerMoveSpeed and the playToInt were both seemingly 0. I have two UITextFields and typed 10 and 3 in them... does this not set it to the default? It seems to set the default to 0 for both, how do I change this? THIS IS A DIFFERENT ISSUE THAN THE THREE BOOLEAN VALUES QUESTION

    Read the article

  • printing in the same line in java.

    - by sil3nt
    Hi there, I have a base class called Items and 3 derived classes, and within the Items base class i have a print function of the form public void print(){ System.out.println("ID " + id + " Title " + title + " <" + year + "> "); } and within every derived class I call the Items print function through super.print(); which is followed by a specific print function relating to the derived class. My problem is, whenever the printing is executed from one of the derived classes the printed text is not on the same line. So super.print() will be in the line above the derived class print function. How do I get them both to be on the same line?

    Read the article

  • Safe to cast pointer to a forward-declared class to its true base class in C++?

    - by Matt DiMeo
    In one header file I have: #include "BaseClass.h" // a forward declaration of DerivedClass, which extends class BaseClass. class DerivedClass ; class Foo { DerivedClass *derived ; void someMethod() { // this is the cast I'm worried about. ((BaseClass*)derived)->baseClassMethod() ; } }; Now, DerivedClass is (in its own header file) derived from BaseClass, but the compiler doesn't know that at the time it's reading the definition above for class Foo. However, Foo refers to DerivedClass pointers and DerivedClass refers to Foo pointers, so they can't both know each other's declaration. First question is whether it's safe (according to C++ spec, not in any given compiler) to cast a derived class pointer to its base class pointer type in the absence of a full definition of the derived class. Second question is whether there's a better approach. I'm aware I could move someMethod()'s body out of the class definition, but in this case it's important that it be inlined (part of an actual, measured hotspot - I'm not guessing).

    Read the article

  • Whats wrong with the following code, its not compiling

    - by Ganesh Kundapur
    #include <iostream> #include <vector> using namespace std; class Base { public: void Display( void ) { cout<<"Base display"<<endl; } int Display( int a ) { cout<<"Base int display"<<endl; return 0; } }; class Derived : public Base { public: void Display( void ) { cout<<"Derived display"<<endl; } }; void main() { Derived obj; obj.Display(); obj.Display( 10 ); } $test1.cpp: In function ‘int main()’: test1.cpp:35: error: no matching function for call to ‘Derived::Display(int)’ test1.cpp:24: note: candidates are: void Derived::Display() On commenting obj.Display(10), it works.

    Read the article

  • Figuring out what makes a C++ class abstract in VS2008

    - by suszterpatt
    I'm using VS2008 to build a plain old C++ program (not C++/CLI). I have an abstract base class and a non-abstract derived class, and building this: Base* obj; obj = new Derived(); fails with the error "'Derived': cannot instantiate abstract class". (It may be worth noting, however, that if I hover over Base with the cursor, VS will pop up a tooltip saying "class Base abstract", but hovering over Derived will only say "class Derived" (no "abstract")). The definitions of these classes are fairly large and I'd like to avoid manually checking if each method has been overridden. Can VS do this for me somehow? Any general tips on pinpointing the exact parts of the class' definition that make it abstract?

    Read the article

  • C++ Add this pointer to a container by calling it in base class constructor

    - by vivekeviv
    class Base { public: Base (int a, int b); private: int a,b; }; class Derived1 { public: Derived1():base(1,2){} }; similarly Derived2, Derived 3 which doesnt contain any data members on its own Now i need to contain these derived objects in a singleton, so i was thinking to call this in base constructor like Base::Base(int a, int b) { CBaseMgr::GetInstance()->AddtoVector(this); } so now if i construct Derived d1, d2, d3 etc. will the Singleton's container contain all derived objects? My doubt is can i do this adding of objects to container in base ctor or should i do in derived ctor.?

    Read the article

  • How to add custom-control-derived TabItem to TabControl in WPF?

    - by orloffm
    I want to have my own base TabItem class and use other classes that derive from it. I define base class in MyNs namespace like this: public class MyCustomTab : TabItem { static MyCustomTab() { DefaultStyleKeyProperty.OverrideMetadata(typeof(MyCustomTab), new FrameworkPropertyMetadata(typeof(TabItem))); } } And this is what I do for the class that inherits from it: code-behind in MyNs namespace: public partial class ActualTab : MyCustomTab { public ActualTab() { InitializeComponent(); } } XAML: <MyCustomTab x:Class="MyNs.ActualTab" xmlns="http://schemas.microsoft.com/winfx/2006/xaml/presentation" xmlns:x="http://schemas.microsoft.com/winfx/2006/xaml"> <Grid> </Grid> </MyCustomTab> The error I get is "The tag 'MyCustomTab' does not exist in XML namespace 'http://schemas.microsoft.com/winfx/2006/xaml/presentation'". If I use TabItem tag in XAML the error says that it's not possible to define to different base classes. How to fix this?

    Read the article

  • How do I hide an inherited __published property in the derived class in a VCL component?

    - by Gary Benade
    I have created a new VCL component based on an existing VCL component. What I want to do now is set the Password and Username properties from an ini file instead of the property inspector. Robert Dunn Link I read on the delphi forum above you cannot unpublish a property and that the only workaround is to redeclare the property as read-only. I tried this but it all it does is make the property read only and grayed out in the object inspector. While this could work I would prefer if the property wasn't visible at all. __property System::UnicodeString Password = {read=FPassword}; Thanks in advance for any help or links to c++ VCL component writing tutorials. I am using CB2010

    Read the article

  • Conversion of pointer-to-pointer between derived and base classes?

    - by Mike Mueller
    Regarding the following C++ program: class Base { }; class Child : public Base { }; int main() { // Normal: using child as base is allowed Child *c = new Child(); Base *b = c; // Double pointers: apparently can't use Child** as Base** Child **cc = &c; Base **bb = cc; return 0; } GCC produces the following error on the last assignment statement: error: invalid conversion from ‘Child**’ to ‘Base**’ My question is in two parts: Why is there no implicit conversion from Child** to Base**? I can make this example work with a C-style cast or a reinterpret_cast. Using these casts means throwing away all type safety. Is there anything I can add to the class definitions to make these pointers cast implicitly, or at least phrase the conversion in a way that allows me to use static_cast instead?

    Read the article

  • How can I instantiate a base class and then convert it to a derived class?

    - by Eric
    I was wondering how to do this, consider the following classes public class Fruit { public string Name { get; set; } public Color Color { get; set; } } public class Apple : Fruit { public Apple() { } } How can I instantiate a new fruit but upcast to Apple, is there a way to instantiate a bunch of Fruit and make them apples with the name & color set. Do I need to manually deep copy? Of course this fails Fruit a = new Fruit(); a.Name = "FirstApple"; a.Color = Color.Red; Apple wa = a as Apple; System.Diagnostics.Debug.Print("Apple name: " + wa.Name); Do I need to pass in a Fruit to the AppleCTor and manually set the name and color( or 1-n properties) Is there an better design to do this?

    Read the article

  • Polymorphism problem: How to check type of derived class?

    - by malymato
    Hi, this is my first question here :) I know that I should not check for object type but instead use dynamic_cast, but that would not solve my problem. I have class called Extension and interfaces called IExtendable and IInitializable, IUpdatable, ILoadable, IDrawable (the last four are basicly the same). If Extension implements IExtendable interface, it can extend itself with different Extension objects. The problem is that I want to allow the Extension which implements IExtendable to extend only with Extension that implements the same interfaces as the original Extension. You probably don't unerstand that mess so I try to explain it with code: class IExtendable { public: IExtendable(void); void AddExtension(Extension*); void RemoveExtensionByID(unsigned int); vector<Extension*>* GetExtensionPtr(){return &extensions;}; private: vector<Extension*> extensions; }; class IUpdatable { public: IUpdatable(void); ~IUpdatable(void); virtual void Update(); }; class Extension { public: Extension(void); virtual ~Extension(void); void Enable(){enabled=true;}; void Disable(){enabled=false;}; unsigned int GetIndex(){return ID;}; private: bool enabled; unsigned int ID; static unsigned int _indexID; }; Now imagine the case that I create Extension like this: class MyExtension : public Extension, public IExtendable, public IUpdatable, public IDrawable { public: MyExtension(void); virtual ~MyExtension(void); virtual void AddExtension(Extension*); virtual void Update(); virtual void Draw(); }; And I want to allow this class to extend itself only with Extensions that implements the same interfaces (or less). For example I want it to be able to take Extension which implements IUpdatable; or both IUpdatable and IDrawable; but e.g. not Extension which implements ILoadable. I want to do this because when e.g. Update() will be called on some Extension which implements IExtendable and IUpdateable, it will be also called on these Extensions which extends this Extension. So when I'm adding some Extension to Extension which implements IExtendable and some of the IUpdatable, ILoadable... I'm forced to check if Extension that is going to be add implements these interfaces too. So In the IExtendable::AddExtension(Extension*) I would need to do something like this: void IExtendable::AddExtension(Extension* pEx) { bool ok = true; // check wheather this extension can take pEx // do this with every interface if ((*pEx is IUpdatable) && (*this is_not IUpdatable)) ok = false; if (ok) this->extensions.push_back(pEx); } But how? Any ideas what would be the best solution? I don't want to use dynamic_cast and see if it returns null... thanks

    Read the article

  • How to implement Cocoa copyWithZone on derived object in MonoMac C#?

    - by Justin Aquadro
    I'm currently porting a small Winforms-based .NET application to use a native Mac front-end with MonoMac. The application has a TreeControl with icons and text, which does not exist out of the box in Cocoa. So far, I've ported almost all of the ImageAndTextCell code in Apple's DragNDrop example: https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/#samplecode/DragNDropOutlineView/Listings/ImageAndTextCell_m.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/DTS40008831-ImageAndTextCell_m-DontLinkElementID_6, which is assigned to an NSOutlineView as a custom cell. It seems to be working almost perfectly, except that I have not figured out how to properly port the copyWithZone method. Unfortunately, this means the internal copies that NSOutlineView is making do not have the image field, and it leads to the images briefly vanishing during expand and collapse operations. The objective-c code in question is: - (id)copyWithZone:(NSZone *)zone { ImageAndTextCell *cell = (ImageAndTextCell *)[super copyWithZone:zone]; // The image ivar will be directly copied; we need to retain or copy it. cell->image = [image retain]; return cell; } The first line is what's tripping me up, as MonoMac does not expose a copyWithZone method, and I don't know how to otherwise call it. Update Based on current answers and additional research and testing, I've come up with a variety of models for copying an object. static List<ImageAndTextCell> _refPool = new List<ImageAndTextCell>(); // Method 1 static IntPtr selRetain = Selector.GetHandle ("retain"); [Export("copyWithZone:")] public virtual NSObject CopyWithZone(IntPtr zone) { ImageAndTextCell cell = new ImageAndTextCell() { Title = Title, Image = Image, }; Messaging.void_objc_msgSend (cell.Handle, selRetain); return cell; } // Method 2 [Export("copyWithZone:")] public virtual NSObject CopyWithZone(IntPtr zone) { ImageAndTextCell cell = new ImageAndTextCell() { Title = Title, Image = Image, }; _refPool.Add(cell); return cell; } [Export("dealloc")] public void Dealloc () { _refPool.Remove(this); this.Dispose(); } // Method 3 static IntPtr selRetain = Selector.GetHandle ("retain"); [Export("copyWithZone:")] public virtual NSObject CopyWithZone(IntPtr zone) { ImageAndTextCell cell = new ImageAndTextCell() { Title = Title, Image = Image, }; _refPool.Add(cell); Messaging.void_objc_msgSend (cell.Handle, selRetain); return cell; } // Method 4 static IntPtr selRetain = Selector.GetHandle ("retain"); static IntPtr selRetainCount = Selector.GetHandle("retainCount"); [Export("copyWithZone:")] public virtual NSObject CopyWithZone (IntPtr zone) { ImageAndTextCell cell = new ImageAndTextCell () { Title = Title, Image = Image, }; _refPool.Add (cell); Messaging.void_objc_msgSend (cell.Handle, selRetain); return cell; } public void PeriodicCleanup () { List<ImageAndTextCell> markedForDelete = new List<ImageAndTextCell> (); foreach (ImageAndTextCell cell in _refPool) { uint count = Messaging.UInt32_objc_msgSend (cell.Handle, selRetainCount); if (count == 1) markedForDelete.Add (cell); } foreach (ImageAndTextCell cell in markedForDelete) { _refPool.Remove (cell); cell.Dispose (); } } // Method 5 static IntPtr selCopyWithZone = Selector.GetHandle("copyWithZone:"); [Export("copyWithZone:")] public virtual NSObject CopyWithZone(IntPtr zone) { IntPtr copyHandle = Messaging.IntPtr_objc_msgSendSuper_IntPtr(SuperHandle, selCopyWithZone, zone); ImageAndTextCell cell = new ImageAndTextCell(copyHandle) { Image = Image, }; _refPool.Add(cell); return cell; } Method 1: Increases the retain count of the unmanaged object. The unmanaged object will persist persist forever (I think? dealloc never called), and the managed object will be harvested early. Seems to be lose-lose all-around, but runs in practice. Method 2: Saves a reference of the managed object. The unmanaged object is left alone, and dealloc appears to be invoked at a reasonable time by the caller. At this point the managed object is released and disposed. This seems reasonable, but on the downside the base type's dealloc won't be run (I think?) Method 3: Increases the retain count and saves a reference. Unmanaged and managed objects leak forever. Method 4: Extends Method 3 by adding a cleanup function that is run periodically (e.g. during Init of each new ImageAndTextCell object). The cleanup function checks the retain counts of the stored objects. A retain count of 1 means the caller has released it, so we should as well. Should eliminate leaking in theory. Method 5: Attempt to invoke the copyWithZone method on the base type, and then construct a new ImageAndTextView object with the resulting handle. Seems to do the right thing (the base data is cloned). Internally, NSObject bumps the retain count on objects constructed like this, so we also use the PeriodicCleanup function to release these objects when they're no longer used. Based on the above, I believe Method 5 is the best approach since it should be the only one that results in a truly correct copy of the base type data, but I don't know if the approach is inherently dangerous (I am also making some assumptions about the underlying implementation of NSObject). So far nothing bad has happened "yet", but if anyone is able to vet my analysis then I would be more confident going forward.

    Read the article

  • What is lifetime of lambda-derived implicit functors in C++ ?

    - by Fyodor Soikin
    The question is simple: what is lifetime of that functor object that is automatically generated for me by the C++ compiler when I write a lambda-expression? I did a quick search, but couldn't find a satisfactory answer. In particular, if I pass the lambda somewhere, and it gets remembered there, and then I go out of scope, what's going to happen once my lambda is called later and tries to access my stack-allocated, but no longer alive, captured variables? Or does the compiler prevent such situation in some way? Or what?

    Read the article

  • Customizing the behavior of ControlDesigners for Controls derived from native .NET controls.

    - by Eric
    My question is related to this question: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/93541/baseline-snaplines-in-custom-winforms-controls However, in my case, I have created a new control that derives from TextBox rather than containing a TextBox. I would like to have a custom ControlDesigner, but I would like to modify the behavior of the TextBox's designer rather than having to write a complete designer myself. In particular, I'd like to be able to return the TextBox's SnapLines while providing some custom verbs. Is there a good way to do this? EDIT: To clarify, this is for Windows Forms in .NET 2.0.

    Read the article

  • Why my custom CStatic derived control does not receive WM_SIZE message?

    - by Michael P
    Hello everyone! I'm currently developing a custom control that derives from CStatic MFC class (Smart Device C++ project). I have created the control class using VC++ MFC class wizard, selecting CStatic class as its base class. I have used Class View to add OnSize event handler for my control class (I have selected WM_SIZE message from messages list), and new OnSize method has been created by Visual Studio along with ON_WM_SIZE() statement between BEGIN_MESSAGE_MAP(...) and END_MESSAGE_MAP(). The problem is that my control does not receive WM_SIZE thus OnSize method is never called - I used MoveWindow to change size of my control - its size changes as I have seen on dialog window but WM_SIZE message is never being sent. When I send WM_SIZE through SendMessage or PostMessage function - the control OnSize method is called normally. What do I wrong? I've read MSDN docs about CStatic control and there is no information that WM_SIZE message is never sent to a static control window. Sorry for my bad English.

    Read the article

  • Have you ever derived a programming solution from nature?

    - by Ryu
    When you step back and look at ... the nature of animals, insects, plants and the problems they have organically solved perhaps even the nature and balance of the universe Have you ever been able to solve a problem by deriving an approach from nature? I've heard of Ant Colony Algorithms being able to optimize supply chain amongst other things. Also Fractal's being the "geometry of nature" have been applied to a wide range of problems. Now that spring is here again and the world is coming back to life I'm wondering if anybody has some experiences they can share. Thanks PS I would recommend watching the "Hunting the Hidden Dimension" Nova episode on fractals.

    Read the article

  • Is it possible to override a property and return a derived type in VB.NET?

    - by Casey
    Consider the following classes representing an Ordering system: Public Class OrderBase Public MustOverride Property OrderItem() as OrderItemBase End Class Public Class OrderItemBase End Class Now, suppose we want to extend these classes to a more specific set of order classes, keeping the aggregate nature of OrderBase: Public Class WebOrder Inherits OrderBase Public Overrides Property OrderItem() as WebOrderItem End Property End Class Public Class WebOrderItem Inherits OrderItemBase End Class The Overriden property in the WebOrder class will cause an error stating that the return type is different from that defined in OrderBase... however, the return type is a subclass of the type defined in OrderBase. Why won't VB allow this?

    Read the article

  • C# - Why can't I enforce derived classes to have parameterless constructors?

    - by FrisbeeBen
    I am trying to do the following: public class foo<T> where T : bar, new { _t = new T(); private T _t; } public abstract class bar { public abstract void someMethod(); // Some implementation } public class baz : bar { public overide someMethod(){//Implementation} } And I am attempting to use it as follows: foo<baz> fooObject = new foo<baz>(); And I get an error explaining that 'T' must be a non-abstract type with a public parameterless constructor in order to use it as parameter 'T' in the generic type or method. I fully understand why this must be, and also understand that I could pass a pre-initialized object of type 'T' in as a constructor argument to avoid having to 'new' it, but is there any way around this? any way to enforce classes that derive from 'bar' to supply parameterless constructors?

    Read the article

  • How can one enforce calling a base class function after derived class constructor?

    - by Mike Elkins
    I'm looking for a clean C++ idiom for the following situation: class SomeLibraryClass { public: SomeLibraryClass() { /* start initialization */ } void addFoo() { /* we are a collection of foos */ } void funcToCallAfterAllAddFoos() { /* Making sure this is called is the issue */ } }; class SomeUserClass : public SomeLibraryClass { public: SomeUserClass() { addFoo(); addFoo(); addFoo(); // SomeUserClass has three foos. } }; class SomeUserDerrivedClass : public SomeUserClass { public: SomeUserDerrivedClass() { addFoo(); // This one has four foos. } }; So, what I really want is for SomeLibraryClass to enforce the calling of funcToCallAfterAllAddFoos at the end of the construction process. The user can't put it at the end of SomeUserClass::SomeUserClass(), that would mess up SomeUserDerrivedClass. If he puts it at the end of SomeUserDerrivedClass, then it never gets called for SomeUserClass. To further clarify what I need, imagine that /* start initialization */ acquires a lock, and funcToCallAfterAllAddFoos() releases a lock. The compiler knows when all the initializations for an object are done, but can I get at that information by some nice trick?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35  | Next Page >