Search Results

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

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 28/41 | < Previous Page | 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35  | Next Page >

  • 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

  • C++ Generic List Assignment

    - by S73417H
    I've clearly been stuck in Java land for too long... Is it possible to do the C++ equivalent of the following Java code: // Method List<Bar> getBars() { return new LinkedList<Bar>(); } // Assignment statement. List<Foo> stuff = getBars(); Where Foo is a sub-class of Bar. So in C++.... std::list<Bar> & getBars() { std::list<Bar> bars; return bars; } std::list<Foo> stuff = getBars(); Hope that makes sense....

    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

  • Creating a sort function for a generic list

    - by Andrey
    I have a method for sorting generic lists by the object fields: public static IQueryable<T> SortTable<T>(IQueryable<T> q, string sortfield, bool ascending) { var p = Expression.Parameter(typeof(T), "p"); if (typeof(T).GetProperty(sortfield).PropertyType == typeof(int?)) { var x = Expression.Lambda<Func<T, int?>>(Expression.Property(p, sortfield), p); if (ascending) q = q.OrderBy(x); else q = q.OrderByDescending(x); } else if (typeof(T).GetProperty(sortfield).PropertyType == typeof(int)) { var x = Expression.Lambda<Func<T, int>>(Expression.Property(p, sortfield), p); if (ascending) q = q.OrderBy(x); else q = q.OrderByDescending(x); } else if (typeof(T).GetProperty(sortfield).PropertyType == typeof(DateTime)) { var x = Expression.Lambda<Func<T, DateTime>>(Expression.Property(p, sortfield), p); if (ascending) q = q.OrderBy(x); else q = q.OrderByDescending(x); } // many more for every type return q; } Is there any way I can collapse those ifs to a single generic statement? The main problem is that for the part Expression.Lambda<Func<T, int>> I am not sure how to write it generically.

    Read the article

  • Get derived class type from a base's class static method

    - by Marco Bettiolo
    Hi, i would like to get the type of the derived class from a static method of its base class. How can this be accomplished? Thanks! class BaseClass { static void Ping () { Type t = this.GetType(); // should be DerivedClass, but it is not possible with a static method } } class DerivedClass : BaseClass {} // somewhere in the code DerivedClass.Ping();

    Read the article

  • C# Using Reflection to Get a Generic Object's (and its Nested Objects) Properties

    - by Jimbo
    This is a scenario created to help understand what Im trying to achieve. I am trying to create a method that returns the specified property of a generic object e.g. public object getValue<TModel>(TModel item, string propertyName) where TModel : class{ PropertyInfo p = typeof(TModel).GetProperty(propertyName); return p.GetValue(item, null); } The code above works fine if you're looking for a property on the TModel item e.g. string customerName = getValue<Customer>(customer, "name"); However, if you want to find out what the customer's group's name is, it becomes a problem: e.g. string customerGroupName = getValue<Customer>(customer, "Group.name"); Hoping someone can give me some insight on this way out scenario - thanks.

    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

  • Operator overloading in generic struct: can I create overloads for specific kinds(?) of generic?

    - by Carson Myers
    I'm defining physical units in C#, using generic structs, and it was going okay until I got the error: One of the parameters of a binary operator must be the containing type when trying to overload the mathematical operators so that they convert between different units. So, I have something like this: public interface ScalarUnit { } public class Duration : ScalarUnit { } public struct Scalar<T> where T : ScalarUnit { public readonly double Value; public Scalar(double Value) { this.Value = Value; } public static implicit operator double(Scalar<T> Value) { return Value.Value; } } public interface VectorUnit { } public class Displacement : VectorUnit { } public class Velocity : VectorUnit { } public struct Vector<T> where T : VectorUnit { #... public static Vector<Velocity> operator /(Vector<Displacement> v1, Scalar<Duration> v2) { return new Vector<Velocity>(v1.Magnitude / v2, v1.Direction); } } There aren't any errors for the + and - operators, where I'm just working on a Vector<T>, but when I substitute a unit for T, suddenly it doesn't like it. Is there a way to make this work? I figured it would work, since Displacement implements the VectorUnit interface, and I have where T : VectorUnit in the struct header. Am I at least on the right track here? I'm new to C# so I have difficulty understanding what's going on sometimes.

    Read the article

  • Why can I derived from a templated/generic class based on that type in C# / C++

    - by stusmith
    Title probably doesn't make a lot of sense, so I'll start with some code: class Foo : public std::vector<Foo> { }; ... Foo f; f.push_back( Foo() ); Why is this allowed by the compiler? My brain is melting at this stage, so can anyone explain whether there are any reasons you would want to do this? Unfortunately I've just seen a similar pattern in some production C# code and wondered why anyone would use this pattern.

    Read the article

  • Is this a good way to generically deserialize objects?

    - by Damien Wildfire
    I have a stream onto which serialized objects representing messages are dumped periodically. The objects are one of a very limited number of types, and other than the actual sequence of bytes that arrives, I have no way of knowing what type of message it is. I would like to simply try to deserialize it as an object of a particular type, and if an exception is thrown, try again with the next type. I have an interface that looks like this: public interface IMessageHandler<T> where T : class, IMessage { T Handle(string message); } // elsewhere: // (These are all xsd.exe-generated classes from an XML schema.) public class AppleMessage : IMessage { ... } public class BananaMessage : IMessage { ... } public class CoconutMessage : IMessage { ... } Then I wrote a GenericHandler<T> that looks like this: public class GenericHandler<T> : IMessageHandler<T> where T: class, IMessage { public class MessageHandler : IMessageHandler { T IMessageHandler.Handle(string message) { T result = default(T); try { // This utility method tries to deserialize the object with an // XmlSerializer as if it were an object of type T. result = Utils.SerializationHelper.Deserialize<T>(message); } catch (InvalidCastException e) { result = default(T); } return result; } } } Two questions: Using my GenericHandler<T> (or something similar to it), I'd now like to populate a collection with handlers that each handle a different type. Then I want to invoke each handler's Handle method on a particular message to see if it can be deserialized. If I get a null result, move onto the next handler; otherwise, the message has been deserialized. Can this be done? Is there a better way to deserialize data of unknown (but restricted) type?

    Read the article

  • Is there a nice way of having static generic parameters is Java?

    - by Chris
    Hello, recently I'm writing some functions that I take from Haskell and translate into Java. One of the main problems I have is I cannot easily create a static property with a generic type. Let me explain by a little example... // An interface to implement functions public interface Func<P, R> { public R apply(P p); } // What I want to do... (incorrect in Java) public class ... { public static <T> Func<T, T> identity = new Func<T, T>() { public T apply(T p) { return p; } } } // What I do right now public class ... { private static Func<Object, Object> identity = new Func<Object, Object>() { public Object apply(Object p) { return p; } } @SuppressWarnings("unchecked") public static <T> Func<T, T> getIdentity() { return (Func<T, T>)identity; } } Are there any easier ways to do something like that? What kind of problems might arise if the syntax I used would be valid?

    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

  • How to convert string to any type

    - by DJPB
    Hi there I want to convert a string to a generic type I have this: string inputValue = myTxtBox.Text; PropertyInfo propInfo = typeof(MyClass).GetProperty(myPropertyName); Type propType = propInfo.PropertyType; object propValue = ????? I want to convert 'inputString' to the type of that property, to check if it's compatible how can I do that? tks

    Read the article

  • How to create a generic C# method that can return either double or decimal?

    - by CrimsonX
    I have a method like this: private static double ComputePercentage(ushort level, ushort capacity) { double percentage; if(capacity == 1) percentage = 1; // do calculations... return percentage; } Is it possible to make it of a generic type like "type T" where it can return either decimal or double, depending on the type of method expected (or the type put into the function?) I tried something like this and I couldn't get it to work, because I cannot assign a number like "1" to a generic type. I also tried using the "where T :" after ushort capacity) but I still couldn't figure it out. private static T ComputePercentage<T>(ushort level, ushort capacity) { T percentage; if(capacity == 1) percentage = 1; // error here // do calculations... return percentage; } Is this even possible? I wasn't sure, but I thought this post might suggest that what I'm trying to do is just plain impossible.

    Read the article

  • Trouble with abstract generic methods

    - by DanM
    Let's say I have a class library that defines a couple entity interfaces: public interface ISomeEntity { /* ... */ } public interface ISomeOtherEntity { /* ... */ } This library also defines an IRepository interface: public interface IRepository<TEntity> { /* ... */ } And finally, the library has an abstract class called RepositorySourceBase (see below), which the main project needs to implement. The goal of this class is to allow the base class to grab new Repository objects at runtime. Because certain repositories are needed (in this example a repository for ISomeEntity and ISomeOtherEntity), I'm trying to write generic overloads of the GetNew<TEntity>() method. The following implementation doesn't compile (the second GetNew() method gets flagged as "already defined" even though the where clause is different), but it gets at what I'm trying to accomplish: public abstract class RepositorySourceBase // This doesn't work! { public abstract Repository<TEntity> GetNew<TEntity>() where TEntity : SomeEntity; public abstract Repository<TEntity> GetNew<TEntity>() where TEntity : SomeOtherEntity; } The intended usage of this class would be something like this: public class RepositorySourceTester { public RepositorySourceTester(RepositorySourceBase repositorySource) { var someRepository = repositorySource.GetNew<ISomeEntity>(); var someOtherRepository = repositorySource.GetNew<ISomeOtherEntity>(); } } Meanwhile, over in my main project (which references the library project), I have implementations of ISomeEntity and ISomeOtherEntity: public class SomeEntity : ISomeEntity { /* ... */ } public class SomeOtherEntity : ISomeOtherEntity { /* ... */ } The main project also has an implementation for IRepository<TEntity>: public class Repository<TEntity> : IRepository<TEntity> { public Repository(string message) { } } And most importantly, it has an implementation of the abstract RepositorySourceBase: public class RepositorySource : RepositorySourceBase { public override Repository<SomeEntity> GetNew() { return new Repository<SomeEntity>("stuff only I know"); } public override Repository<SomeOtherEntity> GetNew() { return new Repository<SomeOtherEntity>("other stuff only I know"); } } Just as with RepositorySourceBase, the second GetNew() method gets flagged as "already defined". So, C# basically think I'm repeating the same method because there's no way to distinguish the methods from parameters, but if you look at my usage example, it seems like I should be able to distinguish which GetNew() I want from the generic type parameter, e.g, <ISomeEntity> or <ISomeOtherEntity>. What do I need to do to get this to work?

    Read the article

  • Operator as and generic classes

    - by abatishchev
    I'm writing .NET On-the-Fly compiler for CLR scripting and want execution method make generic acceptable: object Execute() { return type.InvokeMember(..); } T Execute<T>() { return Execute() as T; /* doesn't work: The type parameter 'T' cannot be used with the 'as' operator because it does not have a class type constraint nor a 'class' constraint */ // also neither typeof(T) not T.GetType(), so on are possible return (T) Execute(); // ok } But I think operator as will be very useful: if result type isn't T method will return null, instead of an exception! Is it possible to do?

    Read the article

  • Generic overloading tells me this is the same function. Not agree.

    - by serhio
    base class: Class List(Of T) Function Contains(ByVal value As T) As Boolean derived class: Class Bar : List(Of Exception) ' Exception type as example ' Function Contains(Of U)(ByVal value As U) As Boolean compiler tells me that that two are the same, so I need to declare Overloads/new this second function. But I want use U to differentiate the type (one logic) like NullReferenceException, ArgumentNull Exception, etc. but want to leave the base function(no differentiation by type - other logic) as well.

    Read the article

  • Generic delegate instances

    - by Luc C
    I wonder if C# (or the underlying .NET framework) supports some kind of "generic delegate instances": that is a delegate instance that still has an unresolved type parameter, to be resolved at the time the delegate is invoked (not at the time the delegate is created). I suspect this isn't possible, but I'm asking it anyway... Here is an example of what I'd like to do, with some "???" inserted in places where the C# syntax seems to be unavailable for what I want. (Obviously this code doesn't compile) class Foo { public T Factory<T>(string name) { // implementation omitted } } class Test { public void TestMethod() { Foo foo = new Foo(); ??? magic = foo.Factory; // No type argument given here yet to Factory! // What would the '???' be here (other than 'var' :) )? string aString = magic<string>("name 1"); // type provided on call int anInt = magic<int>("name 2"); // another type provided on another call // Note the underlying calls work perfectly fine, these work, but i'd like to expose // the generic method as a delegate. string aString2 = foo.Factory<string>("name 1"); int anInt2 = foo.Factory<int>("name 2"); } } Is there a way to actually do something like this in C#? If not, is that a limitation in the language, or is it in the .NET framework?

    Read the article

  • Finding the specific type held in an ArrayList<Object> (ie. Object = String, etc.)

    - by Christopher Griffith
    Say I have an ArrayList that I have cast to an ArrayList of objects. I know that all the objects that were in the ArrayList I cast were of the same type, but not what the type was. Now, if the ArrayList is not empty, I could take one of the objects in it and use the instanceof operator to learn what the actual type is. But what of the case where the ArrayList is empty? How do I determine what type Object actually is then? Is it possible?

    Read the article

  • Invoking static methods containing Generic Parameters using Reflection.

    - by AJP
    While executing the following code i gets this error "Late bound operations cannot be performed on types or methods for which ContainsGenericParameters is true." class Program { static void Main(string[] args) { MethodInfo MI = typeof(MyClass).GetMethod("TestProc"); MI.MakeGenericMethod(new [] {typeof(string)}); MI.Invoke(null, new [] {"Hello"}); } } class MyClass { public static void TestProc<T>(T prefix) { Console.WriteLine("Hello"); } } Please help.

    Read the article

  • Generic Func<> as parameter to base method

    - by WestDiscGolf
    I might be losing the plot, but I hope someone can point me in the right direction. What am I trying to do? I'm trying to write some base methods which take Func< and Action so that these methods handle all of the exception handling etc. so its not repeated all over the place but allow the derived classes to specify what actions it wants to execute. So far this is the base class. public abstract class ServiceBase<T> { protected T Settings { get; set; } protected ServiceBase(T setting) { Settings = setting; } public void ExecAction(Action action) { try { action(); } catch (Exception exception) { throw new Exception(exception.Message); } } public TResult ExecFunc<T1, T2, T3, TResult>(Func<T1, T2, T3, TResult> function) { try { /* what goes here?! */ } catch (Exception exception) { throw new Exception(exception.Message); } } } I want to execute an Action in the following way in the derived class (this seems to work): public void Delete(string application, string key) { ExecAction(() => Settings.Delete(application, key)); } And I want to execute a Func in a similar way in the derived class but for the life of me I can't seem to workout what to put in the base class. I want to be able to call it in the following way (if possible): public object Get(string application, string key, int? expiration) { return ExecFunc(() => Settings.Get(application, key, expiration)); } Am I thinking too crazy or is this possible? Thanks in advance for all the help.

    Read the article

  • A strange error in java generic.

    - by ???
    This is ok: Class<? extends String> stringClass = "a".getClass(); But this gets error: <T> void f(T obj) { Class<? extends T> objClass = obj.getClass(); } I know I can cast it like: <T> void f(T obj) { @SuppressWarnings("unchecked") Class<? extends T> objClass = (Class<? extends T>) obj.getClass(); } But why the previous error? Will the next release of Java 7 will support such usage?

    Read the article

  • Common type for generic classes of different types

    - by DinGODzilla
    I have (for example) Dictionary of different generic types (d1, d2, d3, d4) and I want to store them in something var d1 = new Dictionary<int, string>(); var d2 = new Dictionary<int, long>(); var d3 = new Dictionary<DateTime, bool>(); var d4 = new Dictionary<string, object>(); var something = ??? //new List<object> {d1, d2, d3, d4}; Is there any other way how to store that in something with common denominator different than object? Thanks :-)

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

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