Search Results

Search found 6711 results on 269 pages for 'generic noob'.

Page 28/269 | < Previous Page | 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35  | Next Page >

  • Casting generics and the generic type

    - by Kragen
    Consider, I have the following 3 classes / interfaces: class MyClass<T> { } interface IMyInterface { } class Derived : IMyInterface { } And I want to be able to cast a MyClass<Derived> into a MyClass<IMyInterface> or visa-versa: MyClass<Derived> a = new MyClass<Derived>(); MyClass<IMyInterface> b = (MyClass<IMyInterface>)a; But I get compiler errors if I try: Cannot convert type 'MyClass<Derived>' to 'MyClass<IMyInterface>' I'm sure there is a very good reason why I cant do this, but I can't think of one. As for why I want to do this - The scenario I'm imagining is one whereby you ideally want to work with an instance of MyClass<Derived> in order to avoid lots of nasty casts, however you need to pass your instance to an interface that accepts MyClass<IMyInterface>. So my question is twofold: Why can I not cast between these two types? Is there any way of keeping the niceness of working with an instance of MyClass<Derived> while still being able to cast this into a MyClass<IMyInterface>?

    Read the article

  • Checking to see if a generic class is inherited from an interface

    - by SnOrfus
    I've got a class that inherits from an interface. That interface defines an event that I'd like to subscribe to in the calling code. I've tried a couple of things, but they all resolve to false (where I know it's true). How can I check to see if a class implements a specific interface. Here's what I've tried (note, the object in question is a usercontrol that implements MyInterface, stored in an array of controls, only some of which implement MyInterface - it is not null): if (this.controls[index].GetType().IsSubclassOf(typeof(MyInterface))) ((MyInterface)this.controls[index]).Event += this.Handler; if (this.controls[index].GetType().IsAssignableFrom(typeof(MyInterface))) ((MyInterface)this.controls[index]).Event += this.Handler; if (this.controls[index].GetType() == typeof(MyInterface)) ((MyInterface)this.controls[index]).Event += this.Handler; All to no avail.

    Read the article

  • Deserialize generic collections - coming up empty

    - by AC
    I've got a settings object for my app that has two collections in it. The collections are simple List generics that contain a collection of property bags. When I serialize it, everything is saved with no problem: XmlSerializer x = new XmlSerializer(settings.GetType()); TextWriter tw = new StreamWriter(@"c:\temp\settings.cpt"); x.Serialize(tw, settings); However when I deserialize it, everything is restored except for the two collections (verified by setting a breakpoint on the setters: XmlSerializer x = new XmlSerializer(typeof(CourseSettings)); XmlReader tr = XmlReader.Create(@"c:\temp\settings.cpt"); this.DataContext = (CourseSettings)x.Deserialize(tr); What would cause this? Everything is pretty vanilla... here's a snippet from the settings object... omitting most of it. The PresentationSourceDirectory works just fine, but the PresentationModules' setter isn't hit: private string _presentationSourceDirectory = string.Empty; public string PresentationSourceDirectory { get { return _presentationSourceDirectory; } set { if (_presentationSourceDirectory != value) { OnPropertyChanged("PresentationSourceDirectory"); _presentationSourceDirectory = value; } } } private List<Module> _presentationModules = new List<Module>(); public List<Module> PresentationModules { get { var sortedModules = from m in _presentationModules orderby m.ModuleOrder select m; return sortedModules.ToList<Module>(); } set { if (_presentationModules != value) { _presentationModules = value; OnPropertyChanged("PresentationModules"); } } }

    Read the article

  • how to use anonymous generic delegate in C# 2.0

    - by matti
    Hi. I have a class called NTree: class NTree<T> { public NTree(T data) { this.data = data; children = new List<NTree<T>>(); _stopTraverse = false; } ... public void Traverse(NTree<T> node, TreeVisitor<T> visitor) { try { _stopTraverse = false; Traverse(node, visitor); } finally { _stopTraverse = false; } } private void TraverseInternal(NTree<T> node, TreeVisitor<T> visitor) { if (_stopTraverse) return; if (!visitor(node.data)) { _stopTraverse = true; } foreach (NTree<T> kid in node.children) Traverse(kid, visitor); } When I try to use Traverse with anonymous delegate I get: Argument '2': cannot convert from 'anonymous method' to 'NisConverter.TreeVisitor' The code: tTable srcTable = new tTable(); DataRow[] rows; rootTree.Traverse(rootTree, delegate(TableRows tr) { if (tr.TableName == srcTable.mappingname) { rows = tr.Rows; return false; } }); This however produces no errors: static bool TableFinder<TableRows>(TableRows tr) { return true; } ... rootTree.Traverse(rootTree, TableFinder); I have tried to put "arrowhead-parenthisis" and everything to anonymous delegate but it just does not work. Please help me! Thanks & BR -Matti

    Read the article

  • Generic collection as a Java method argument

    - by Guido
    Is there any way to make this work in Java? public static void change(List<? extends Object> list, int position1, int position2) { Object obj = list.get(position1); list.set(position1, list.get(position2)); list.set(position2, obj); } The only way I've successfully avoided warnings and errors is this: public static <T> T change(List<T> list, int position1, int position2) { T obj = list.get(position1); list.set(position1, list.get(position2)); list.set(position2, obj); return obj; } but I don't like to be forced to return a value.

    Read the article

  • Equals method of System.Collections.Generic.List<T>...?

    - by Sambo
    I'm creating a class that derives from List... public class MyList : List<MyListItem> {} I've overridden Equals of MyListItem... public override bool Equals(object obj) { MyListItem li = obj as MyListItem; return (ID == li.ID); // ID is a property of MyListItem } I would like to have an Equals method in the MyList object too which will compare each item in the list, calling Equals() on each MyListItem object. It would be nice to simply call... MyList l1 = new MyList() { new MyListItem(1), new MyListItem(2) }; MyList l2 = new MyList() { new MyListItem(1), new MyListItem(2) }; if (l1 == l2) { ... } ...and have the comparisons of the list done by value. What's the best way...?

    Read the article

  • Java generic return type

    - 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 Dictionary and generating a hashcode for multi-part key

    - by Andrew
    I have an object that has a multi-part key and I am struggling to find a suitable way override GetHashCode. An example of what the class looks like is. public class wibble{ public int keypart1 {get; set;} public int keypart2 {get; set;} public int keypart3 {get; set;} public int keypart4 {get; set;} public int keypart5 {get; set;} public int keypart6 {get; set;} public int keypart7 {get; set;} public single value {get; set;} } Note in just about every instance of the class no more than 2 or 3 of the keyparts would have a value greater than 0. Any ideas on how best to generate a unique hashcode in this situation? I have also been playing around with creating a key that is not unique, but spreads the objects evenly between the dictionaries buckets and then storing objects with matched hashes in a List< or LinkedList< or SortedList<. Any thoughts on this?

    Read the article

  • Open Source Utilization Questions: How do you lone wold programmers best take advantage of open sour

    - by Funkyeah
    For Clarity: So you come up with an idea for a new program and want to start hacking, but you also happen to be a one-man army. How do you programming dynamos best find and utilize existing open-source software to give you the highest jumping off point possible when diving into your new project? When you do jump in where the shit do you start from? Any imaginary scenarios would be welcome, e.g. a shitty example might be utilizing a open-source database with an open-source IM client as a starting off point to a make a new client where you could tag and store conversations and query those tags at a later time.

    Read the article

  • Generic function pointers in C

    - by Lucas
    I have a function which takes a block of data and the size of the block and a function pointer as argument. Then it iterates over the data and performes a calculation on each element of the data block. The following is the essential outline of what I am doing: int myfunction(int* data, int size, int (*functionAsPointer)(int)){ //walking through the data and calculating something for (int n = 0; n < size; n++){ data[n] = (*function)(data[n]); } } The functions I am passing as arguments look something like this: int mycalculation(int input){ //doing some math with input //... return input; } This is working well, but now I need to pass an additional variable to my functionpointer. Something along the lines int mynewcalculation(int input, int someVariable){ //e.g. input = input * someVariable; //... return input; } Is there an elegant way to achieve this and at the same time keeping my overall design idea?

    Read the article

  • How to explain traits?

    - by Partial
    How would you explain traits to a new C++ programmer? How would you explain traits to a C programmer? How would you explain traits to a Java/Ruby/Python/C# or any other OOP language programmer?

    Read the article

  • Concrete Implementation of Generic Form Not Working in Designer

    - by Dov
    I have a base class, defined as below (I'm also using DevExpress components): public abstract partial class BaseFormClass<R> : XtraForm where R : DataRow { ... } Contrary to what I've read from elsewhere, I'm still able to design this class. I didn't have to create a concrete class from it to do so. But, when I create a concrete class descended from it (as below), that class won't work in the designer. public partial class ConcreteFormClass : BaseFormClass<StronglyTypedRow> { ... } I get this message: The designer could not be shown for this file because none of the classes within it can be designed. The designer inspected the following classes in the file: ConcreteFormClass --- The base class 'BaseFormClass' could not be loaded. Ensure the assembly has been referenced and that all projects have been built. Has anyone seen this before? Any sort of known workaround?

    Read the article

  • C# Generic Arrays and math operations on it

    - by msedi
    Hello, I'm currently involved in a project where I have very large image volumes. This volumes have to processed very fast (adding, subtracting, thresholding, and so on). Additionally most of the volume are so large that they event don't fit into the memory of the system. For that reason I have created an abstract volume class (VoxelVolume) that host the volume and image data and overloads the operators so that it's possible to perform the regular mathematical operations on volumes. Thereby two more questions opened up which I will put into stackoverflow into two additional threads. Here is my first question. My volume is implemented in a way that it only can contain float array data, but most of the containing data is from an UInt16 image source. Only operations on the volume can create float array images. When I started implementing such a volume the class looked like following: public abstract class VoxelVolume<T> { ... } but then I realized that overloading the operators or return values would get more complicated. An example would be: public abstract class VoxelVolume<T> { ... public static VoxelVolume<T> Import<T>(param string[] files) { } } also adding two overloading operators would be more complicated: ... public static VoxelVolume<T> operator+(VoxelVolume<T> A, VoxelVolume<T> B) { ... } Let's assume I can overcome the problems described above, nevertheless I have different types of arrays that contain the image data. Since I have fixed my type in the volumes to float the is no problem and I can do an unsafe operation when adding the contents of two image volume arrays. I have read a few threads here and had a look around the web, but found no real good explanation of what to do when I want to add two arrays of different types in a fast way. Unfortunately every math operation on generics is not possible, since C# is not able to calculate the size of the underlying data type. Of course there might by a way around this problem by using C++/CLR, but currently everything I have done so far, runs in 32bit and 64bit without having to do a thing. Switching to C++/CLR seemed to me (pleased correct me if I'm wrong) that I'm bound to a certain platform (32bit) and I have to compile two assemblies when I let the application run on another platform (64bit). Is this true? So asked shortly: How is it possible to add two arrays of two different types in a fast way. Is it true that the developers of C# haven't thought about this. Switching to a different language (C# - C++) seems not to be an option. I realize that simply performing this operation float []A = new float[]{1,2,3}; byte []B = new byte[]{1,2,3}; float []C = A+B; is not possible and unnecessary although it would be nice if it would work. My solution I was trying was following: public static class ArrayExt { public static unsafe TResult[] Add<T1, T2, TResult>(T1 []A, T2 []B) { // Assume the length of both arrays is equal TResult[] result = new TResult[A.Length]; GCHandle h1 = GCHandle.Alloc (A, Pinned); GCHandle h2 = GCHandle.Alloc (B, Pinned); GCHandle hR = GCHandle.Alloc (C, Pinned); void *ptrA = h1.ToPointer(); void *ptrB = h2.ToPointer(); void *ptrR = hR.ToPointer(); for (int i=0; i<A.Length; i++) { *((TResult *)ptrR) = (TResult *)((T1)*ptrA + (T2)*ptrB)); } h1.Free(); h2.Free(); hR.Free(); return result; } } Please excuse if the code above is not quite correct, I wrote it without using an C# editor. Is such a solution a shown above thinkable? Please feel free to ask if I made a mistake or described some things incompletely. Thanks for your help Martin

    Read the article

  • C# Delegate under the hood question.

    - by Ted
    Hi Guys I was doing some digging around into delegate variance after reading the following tquestion in SO. "delegate-createdelegate-and-generics-error-binding-to-target-method" (sorry not allowed to post more than one hyperlink as a newbie here!) I found a very nice bit of code from Barry kelly at https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8184237816669520763&postID=2109708553230166434 Here it is (in a sugared-up form :-) using System; namespace ConsoleApplication4 { internal class Base { } internal class Derived : Base { } internal delegate void baseClassDelegate(Base b); internal delegate void derivedClassDelegate(Derived d); internal class App { private static void Foo1(Base b) { Console.WriteLine("Foo 1"); } private static void Foo2(Derived b) { Console.WriteLine("Foo 2"); } private static T CastDelegate<T>(Delegate src) where T : class { return (T) (object) Delegate.CreateDelegate( typeof (T), src.Target, src.Method, true); // throw on fail } private static void Main() { baseClassDelegate a = Foo1; // works fine derivedClassDelegate b = Foo2; // works fine b = a.Invoke; // the easy way to assign delegate using variance, adds layer of indirection though b(new Derived()); b = CastDelegate<derivedClassDelegate>(a); // the hard way, avoids indirection b(new Derived()); } } } I understand all of it except this one (what looks very simple) line. b = a.Invoke; // the easy way to assign delegate using variance, adds layer of indirection though Can anyone tell me: how it is possible to call invoke without passing the param required by the static function. When is going on under the hood when you assign the return value from calling invoke What does Barry mean by extra indirection (in his comment)

    Read the article

  • Java Generic Casting Type Mismatch

    - by Kay
    public class MaxHeap<T extends Comparable<T>> implements Heap<T>{ private T[] heap; private int lastIndex; public void main(String[] args){ int i; T[] arr = {1,3,4,5,2}; //ERROR HERE ******* foo } public T[] Heapsort(T[]anArray, int n){ // build initial heap T[]sortedArray = anArray; for (int i = n-1; i< 0; i--){ //assert: the tree rooted at index is a semiheap heapRebuild(anArray, i, n); //assert: the tree rooted at index is a heap } //sort the heap array int last = n-1; //invariant: Array[0..last] is a heap, //Array[last+1..n-1] is sorted for (int j=1; j<n-1;j++) { sortedArray[0]=sortedArray[last]; last--; heapRebuild(anArray, 0, last); } return sortedArray; } protected void heapRebuild(T[ ] items, int root, int size){ foo } } The error is on the line with "T[arr] = {1,3,4,5,2}" Eclispe complains that there is a: "Type mismatch: cannot convert from int to T" I've tried to casting nearly everywhere but to no avail.A simple way out would be to not use generics but instead just ints but that's sadly not an option. I've got to find a way to resolve the array of ints "{1,3,4,5,2}" into an array of T so that the rest of my code will work smoothly.

    Read the article

  • Bind postback data from a strong type view of type List<T>

    - by Robert Koritnik
    I have a strong type view of type List<List<MyViewModelClass>> The outer list will always have two lists of List<MyViewModelClass>. For each of the two outer lists I want to display a group of checkboxes. Each set can have an arbitrary number of choices. My view model class looks similar to this: public class MyViewModelClass { public Area Area { get; set; } public bool IsGeneric { get; set; } public string Code { get; set; } public bool IsChecked { get; set; } } So the final view will look something like: Please select those that apply: First set of choices: x Option 1 x Option 2 x Option 3 etc. Second set of choices: x Second Option 1 x Second Option 2 x Second Option 3 x Second Option 4 etc. Checkboxes should display MyViewModelClass.Area.Name, and their value should be related to MyViewModelClass.Area.Id. Checked state is of course related to MyViewModel.IsChecked. Question I wonder how should I use Html.CheckBox() or Html.CheckBoxFor() helper to display my checkboxes? I have to get these values back to the server on a postback of course. I would like to have my controller action like one of these: public ActionResult ConsumeSelections(List<List<MyViewModelClass>> data) { // process data } public ActionResult ConsumeSelections(List<MyViewModelClass> first, List<MyViewModelClass> second) { // process data } If it makes things simpler, I could make a separate view model type like: public class Options { public List First { get; set; } public List Second { get; set; } } As well as changing my first version of controller action to: public ActionResult ConsumeSelections(Options data) { // process data }

    Read the article

  • Abstract Factory Using Generics: Is Explicitly Converting a Specified Type to Generic a Bad Practice

    - by Merritt
    The question's title says it all. I like how it fits into the rest of my code, but does it smell? public interface IFoo<T> { T Bar { get; set; } } public class StringFoo : IFoo<string> { public string Bar { get; set; } } public static class FooFactory { public static IFoo<T> CreateFoo<T>() { if (typeof(T) == typeof(string)) { return new StringFoo() as IFoo<T>; } throw new NotImplementedException(); } } UPDATE: this is sort of a duplicate of Is the StaticFactory in codecampserver a well known pattern?

    Read the article

  • In VB.NET how do you specify Inherits/implements on a generic class with multi-constraints

    - by Romel Evans
    When I write the following statement in VB.Net (C# is my normal language), I get an "end of statement expected" referring to the "Implements" statement. <Serializable()> _ <XmlSchemaProvider("EtgSchema")> _ Public Class SerializeableEntity(Of T As {Class, ISerializable, New}) _ Implements IXmlSerializable, ISerializable ... End Class The C# version that I'm trying to emulate is: [Serializable] [XmlSchemaProvider("MySchema")] public class SerializableEntity<T> : IXmlSerializable, ISerializable where T : class, new() { .... } Sometimes I feel like I have 5 thumbs with VB.NET :)

    Read the article

  • Access generic type parameter at runtime?

    - by Bart van Heukelom
    Event dispatcher interface public interface EventDispatcher { <T> EventListener<T> addEventListener(EventListener<T> l); <T> void removeEventListener(EventListener<T> l); } Implementation public class DefaultEventDispatcher implements EventDispatcher { @SuppressWarnings("unchecked") private Map<Class, Set<EventListener>> listeners = new HashMap<Class, Set<EventListener>>(); public void addSupportedEvent(Class eventType) { listeners.put(eventType, new HashSet<EventListener>()); } @Override public <T> EventListener<T> addEventListener(EventListener<T> l) { Set<EventListener> lsts = listeners.get(T); // ****** error: cannot resolve T if (lsts == null) throw new RuntimeException("Unsupported event type"); if (!lsts.add(l)) throw new RuntimeException("Listener already added"); return l; } @Override public <T> void removeEventListener(EventListener<T> l) { Set<EventListener> lsts = listeners.get(T); // ************* same error if (lsts == null) throw new RuntimeException("Unsupported event type"); if (!lsts.remove(l)) throw new RuntimeException("Listener is not here"); } } Usage EventListener<ShapeAddEvent> l = addEventListener(new EventListener<ShapeAddEvent>() { @Override public void onEvent(ShapeAddEvent event) { // TODO Auto-generated method stub } }); removeEventListener(l); I've marked two errors with a comment above (in the implementation). Is there any way to get runtime access to this information?

    Read the article

  • Cloned Cached item has memory issues

    - by ioWint
    Hi there, we are having values stored in Cache-Enterprise library Caching Block. The accessors of the cached item, which is a List, modify the values. We didnt want the Cached Items to get affected. Hence first we returned a new List(IEnumerator of the CachedItem) This made sure accessors adding and removing items had little effect on the original Cached item. But we found, all the instances of the List we returned to accessors were ALIVE! Object relational Graph showed a relationship between this list and the EnterpriseLibrary.CacheItem. So we changed the return to be a newly cloned List. For this we used a LINQ say (from item in Data select new DataClass(item) ).ToList() even when you do as above, the ORG shows there is a relationship between this list and the CacheItem. Cant we do anything to create a CLONE of the List item which is present in the Enterprise library cache, which DOESNT have ANY relationship with CACHE?!

    Read the article

  • ASP.NET MVC PartialView generic ModelView

    - by Greg Ogle
    I have an ASP.NET MVC application which I want to dynamically pick the partial view and what data gets passed to it, while maintaining strong types. So, in the main form, I want a class that has a view model that contains a generically typed property which should contain the data for the partial view's view model. public class MainViewModel<T> { public T PartialViewsViewModel { get; set; } } In the User Control, I would like something like: Inherits="System.Web.Mvc.ViewUserControl<MainViewModel<ParticularViewModel>>" %> Though in my parent form, I must put Inherits="System.Web.Mvc.ViewPage<MainViewModel<ParticularViewModel>>" %> for it to work. Is there a way to work around this? The use case is to make the user control pluggable. I understand that I could inherit a base class, but that would put me back to having something like a dictionary instead of a typed view model.

    Read the article

  • Best way to translate from IDictionary to a generic IDictionary

    - by George Mauer
    I've got an IDictionary field that I would like to expose via a property of type IDictionary<string, dynamic> the conversion is surprisingly difficult since I have no idea what I can .Cast<>() the IDictionary to. Best I've got: IDictionary properties; protected virtual IDictionary<string, dynamic> Properties { get { return _properties.Keys.Cast<string>() .ToDictionary(name=>name, name=> _properties[name] as dynamic); } }

    Read the article

  • Function-Local Static Const variable Initialization semantics.

    - by Hassan Syed
    The questions are in bold, for those that cannot be bothered reading a question in depth. This is a followup to this question. It is to do with the initialization semantics of static variables in functions. Static variables should be initialized once, and their internal state might be altered later - as I (currently) do in the linked question. However, the code in question does not require the feature to change the state of the variable later. Let me clarrify my position, since I don't require the string object's internal state to change. The code is for a trait class for meta programming, and as such would would benifit from a const char * const ptr -- thus Ideally a local cost static const variable is needed. My educated guess is that in this case the string in question will be optimally placed in memory by the link-loader, and that the code is more secure and maps to the intended semantics. This leads to the semantics of such a variable "The C++ Programming language Third Edition -- Stroustrup" does not have anything (that I could find) to say about this matter. All that is said is that the variable is initialized once when the flow of control of the thread first reaches the code. This leads me to ponder if the following code would be sensible, and if not what are the intended semantics ?. #include <iostream> const char * const GetString(const char * x_in) { static const char * const x = x_in; return x; } int main() { const char * const temp = GetString("yahoo"); std::cout << temp << std::endl; const char * const temp2 = GetString("yahoo2"); std::cout << temp2 << std::endl; } The following compiles on GCC and prints "yahoo" twice. Which is what I want -- However it might not be standards compliant (which is why I post this question). It might be more elegant to have two functions, "SetString" and "String" where the latter forwards to the first. If it is standards compliant does someone know of a templates implementation in boost (or elsewhere) ?

    Read the article

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