Search Results

Search found 35708 results on 1429 pages for 'default copy constructor'.

Page 29/1429 | < Previous Page | 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36  | Next Page >

  • constructor should not call methods

    - by Stefano Borini
    I described to a colleague why a constructor calling a method is an antipattern. example (in my rusty C++) class C { public : C(int foo); void setFoo(int foo); private: int foo; } C::C(int foo) { setFoo(foo); } void C::setFoo(int foo) { this->foo = foo } I would like to motivate better this fact through your additional contribute. If you have examples, book references, blog pages, or names of principles, they would be very welcome. Edit: I'm talking in general, but we are coding in python.

    Read the article

  • Constructor should generally not call methods

    - by Stefano Borini
    I described to a colleague why a constructor calling a method can be an antipattern. example (in my rusty C++) class C { public : C(int foo); void setFoo(int foo); private: int foo; } C::C(int foo) { setFoo(foo); } void C::setFoo(int foo) { this->foo = foo } I would like to motivate better this fact through your additional contribute. If you have examples, book references, blog pages, or names of principles, they would be very welcome. Edit: I'm talking in general, but we are coding in python.

    Read the article

  • Can I pass a pointer to a superclass, but create a copy of the child?

    - by Alex
    I have a function that takes a pointer to a superclass and performs operations on it. However, at some point, the function must make a deep copy of the inputted object. Is there any way I can perform such a copy? It occurred to me to make the function a template function and simply have the user pass the type, but I hold out hope that C++ offers a more elegant solution.

    Read the article

  • Linq To SQL: Behaviour for table field which is NotNull and having Default value or binding

    - by kaushalparik27
    I found this something interesting while wandering over community which I would like to share. The post is whole about: DBML is not considering the table field's "Default value or Binding" setting which is a NotNull. I mean the field which can not be null but having default value set needs to be set IsDbGenerated = true in DBML file explicitly.Consider this situation: There is a simple tblEmployee table with below structure: The fields are simple. EmployeeID is a Primary Key with Identity Specification = True with Identity Seed = 1 to autogenerate numeric value for this field. EmployeeName and their EmailAddress to store in rest of 2 fields. And the last one is "DateAdded" with DateTime datatype which doesn't allow NULL but having Default Value/Binding with "GetDate()". That means if we don't pass any value to this field then SQL will insert current date in "DateAdded" field.So, I start with a new website, add a DBML file and dropped the said table to generate LINQ To SQL context class. Finally, I write a simple code snippet to insert data into the tblEmployee table; BUT, I am not passing any value to "DateAdded" field. Because I am considering SQL Server's "Default Value or Binding (GetDate())" setting to this field and understand that SQL will insert current date to this field.        using (TestDatabaseDataContext context = new TestDatabaseDataContext())        {            tblEmployee tblEmpObjet = new tblEmployee();            tblEmpObjet.EmployeeName = "KaushaL";            tblEmpObjet.EmployeeEmailAddress = "[email protected]";            context.tblEmployees.InsertOnSubmit(tblEmpObjet);            context.SubmitChanges();        }Here comes the twist when application give me below error:  This is something not expecting! From the error it clearly depicts that LINQ is passing NULL value to "DateAdded" Field while according to my understanding it should respect Sql Server's "Default value or Binding" setting for this field. A bit googling and I found very interesting related to this problem.When we set Primary Key to any field with "Identity Specification" Property set to true; DBML set one important property "IsDbGenerated=true" for this field. BUT, when we set "Default Value or Biding" property for some field; we need to explicitly tell the DBML/LINQ to let it know that this field is having default binding at DB side that needs to be respected if I don't pass any value. So, the solution is: You need to explicitly set "IsDbGenerated=true" for such field to tell the LINQ that the field is having default value or binding at Sql Server side so, please don't worry if i don't pass any value for it.You can select the field and set this property from property window in DBML Designer file or write the property in DBML.Designer.cs file directly. I have attached a working example with required table script with this post here. I hope this would be helpful for someone hunting for the same. Happy Discovery!

    Read the article

  • How to copy lots of files between two computers, without network?

    - by Steve Bennett
    I want to copy around 50Gb of files from my desktop to my work laptop. For some reason, the laptop won't connect to my home network. I haven't had any luck with a direct ethernet connection either, and I'm not willing to change any of the laptop's network configuration (last time I did that, I couldn't get onto the network at work, making me Not Very Popular). So...what else is there? The obvious route is copying via SD card. My largest card is 8Gb. But I can't find a good workflow. Is there a tool designed for this, where I could just repetitively move the card back and forth, without having to select files? I've tried using teracopy, but you end up missing a few files. I guess I could zip everything up into multi-volume .rars or something...but is there a more elegant way?

    Read the article

  • How to copy partition from one disc to another (boot partition keeping all the vital data)?

    - by Patryk
    I have bought a new laptop but the HDD, which runs at 5400 rpm, is not sufficient for me. The laptop runs Windows 7 64-bit. I have my 'old' one (a better one - Seagate Momentus 7200 rpm) and I would like to replace it but without reinstalling everything. And there my question arises: can I copy my boot partition from my laptop hard drive to my old drive so that it will boot from it properly? If so, then how to do it? Will Norton Ghost be useful here? My point would be to just replace this partition and leave the rest.

    Read the article

  • Why can't gif images copy at a reasonable speed on this dell laptop with XP?

    - by alt234
    I've got this somewhat old Dell Latitude D810. Strangest thing... If I try to copy anything that has gif files in it the gif files take forever. Like a few minutes per gif regardless of size. Everything else copies fine. I notice this when copying files off our network, copying off multiple external drives, and even when files are copying during an installation process. I'm on Windows XP Pro service pack 3. I've never seen anything like this before. Anyone else?

    Read the article

  • Volume Shadow Copy based backup that works with TrueCrypt?

    - by jasonh
    I have enabled whole-drive encryption on my external drive to comply with my company's requirements about data security. I want to be able to make a backup of files on the drive, even while they're in use. Is there any program out there that uses Volume Shadow Copy for backup and also works with a TrueCrypt encrypted drive? I have tried Windows Backup and Macrium Reflect and both act like the drive isn't connected, even though TrueCrypt has mounted it. It would be really nice if there was something that was free, but in order for that to work, it also has to work for commercial purposes since this is my company laptop I'm trying to backup.

    Read the article

  • Cannot Copy Pictures w/ text or w/o from web pages anymore word in office starter 2010

    - by Mindy Billings
    This is something new. I had been able to copy text and pictures from websites into a microsoft word office starter 2010. I have gone into advanced settings to no avail. I have verified that under paste special html is selected. I have reviewed the help sections and questions and they all tell me to select html under paste special but again it isn't working either. Also I used to have 3 formatting options under paste and am now only having two options. I did have a problem with my computer last night and I am wondering if something re-set itself..will you help?

    Read the article

  • Is std::move really needed on initialization list of constructor for heavy members passed by value?

    - by PiotrNycz
    Recently I read an example from cppreference.../vector/emplace_back: struct President { std::string name; std::string country; int year; President(std::string p_name, std::string p_country, int p_year) : name(std::move(p_name)), country(std::move(p_country)), year(p_year) { std::cout << "I am being constructed.\n"; } My question: is this std::move really needed? My point is that compiler sees that this p_name is not used in the body of constructor, so, maybe, there is some rule to use move semantics for it by default? That would be really annoying to add std::move on initialization list to every heavy member (like std::string, std::vector). Imagine hundreds of KLOC project written in C++03 - shall we add everywhere this std::move? This question: move-constructor-and-initialization-list answer says: As a golden rule, whenever you take something by rvalue reference, you need to use it inside std::move, and whenever you take something by universal reference (i.e. deduced templated type with &&), you need to use it inside std::forward But I am not sure: passing by value is rather not universal reference?

    Read the article

  • Constructor vs setter validations

    - by Jimmy
    I have the following class : public class Project { private int id; private String name; public Project(int id, String name, Date creationDate, int fps, List<String> frames) { if(name == null ){ throw new NullPointerException("Name can't be null"); } if(id == 0 ){ throw new IllegalArgumentException("id can't be zero"); } this.name = name; this.id = id; } public int getId() { return id; } public void setId(int id) { this.id = id; } public String getName() { return name; } public void setName(String name) { this.name = name; } } I have three questions: Do I use the class setters instead of setting the fields directly. One of the reason that I set it directly, is that in the code the setters are not final and they could be overridden. If the right way is to set it directly and I want to make sure that the name filed is not null always. Should I provide two checks, one in the constructor and one in the setter. I read in effective java that I should use NullPointerException for null parameters. Should I use IllegalArgumentException for other checks, like id in the example.

    Read the article

  • Initializing entities vs having a constructor parameter

    - by Vee
    I'm working on a turn-based tile-based puzzle game, and to create new entities, I use this code: Field.CreateEntity(10, 5, Factory.Player()); This creates a new Player at [10; 5]. I'm using a factory-like class to create entities via composition. This is what the CreateEntity method looks like: public void CreateEntity(int mX, int mY, Entity mEntity) { mEntity.Field = this; TileManager.AddEntity(mEntity, true); GetTile(mX, mY).AddEntity(mEntity); mEntity.Initialize(); InvokeOnEntityCreated(mEntity); } Since many of the components (and also logic) of the entities require to know what the tile they're in is, or what the field they belong to is, I need to have mEntity.Initialize(); to know when the entity knows its own field and tile. The Initialize(); method contains a call to an event handler, so that I can do stuff like this in the factory class: result.OnInitialize += () => result.AddTags(TDLibConstants.GroundWalkableTag, TDLibConstants.TrapdoorTag); result.OnInitialize += () => result.AddComponents(new RenderComponent(), new ElementComponent(), new DirectionComponent()); This works so far, but it is not elegant and it's very open to bugs. I'm also using the same idea with components: they have a parameterless constructor, and when you call the AddComponent(mComponent); method in an entity, it is the entity's job to set the component's entity to itself. The alternative would be having a Field, int, int parameters in the factory class, to do stuff like: new Entity(Field, 10, 5); But I also don't like the fact that I have to create new entities like this. I would prefer creating entities via the Field object itself. How can I make entity/component creation more elegant and less prone to bugs?

    Read the article

  • Use constructor or setter method?

    - by user633600
    I am working on a UI code where I have an Action class, something like this - public class MyAction extends Action { public MyAction() { setText("My Action Text"); setToolTip("My Action Tool tip"); setImage("Some Image"); } } When this Action class was created it was pretty much assumed that the Action class wont be customizable (in a sense- its text, tooltip or image will be not be changed anywhere in the code). Of late, now we are in need of changing the action text at some location in code. So I suggested my co-worker to remove the hardcoded action text from the constructor and accept it as an argument, so that everybody is forced to pass the action text. Something like this code below - public class MyAction extends Action { public MyAction(String actionText) { setText(actionText); setTooltip("My Action tool tip); setImage("My Image"); } } He however thinks that since setText() method belongs to base class. It can be flexibly used to pass the action text wherever action instance is created. That way, there is no need to change the existing MyAction class. So his code would look something like this. MyAction action = new MyAction(); //this creates action instance with the hardcoded text action.setText("User required new action text"); //overwrite the exisitng text. I am not sure if that is a correct way to deal with problem. I think in above mentioned case user is anyway going to change the text, so why not force him while constructing the action. The only benefit I see with the original code is that user can create Action class without much thinking about setting text.

    Read the article

  • WCF Runtime Error while using Constructor

    - by Pranesh Nair
    Hi all, I am new to WCF i am using constructor in my WCF service.svc.cs file....It throws this error when i use the constructor The service type provided could not be loaded as a service because it does not have a default (parameter-less) constructor. To fix the problem, add a default constructor to the type, or pass an instance of the type to the host. When i remove the constructor its working fine....But its compulsory that i have to use constructor... This is my code namespace UserAuthentication { [ServiceBehavior(InstanceContextMode=System.ServiceModel.InstanceContextMode.Single)] public class UserAuthentication : UserRepository,IUserAuthentication { private ISqlMapper _mapper; private IRoleRepository _roleRepository; public UserAuthentication(ISqlMapper mapper): base(mapper) { _mapper = mapper; _roleRepository = new RoleRepository(_mapper); } public string EduvisionLogin(EduvisionUser aUser, int SchoolID) { UserRepository sampleCode= new UserRepository(_mapper); sampleCode.Login(aUser); return "Login Success"; } } } can anyone provide ideas or suggestions or sample code hw to resolve this issue...

    Read the article

  • Generic Abstract Singleton with Custom Constructor in C#

    - by Heka
    I want to write a generic singleton with an external constructor. In other words the constructor can be modified. I have 2 designs in my mind but I don't know whether they are practical or not. First one is to enforce derived class' constructor to be non-public but I do not know if there is a way of it? Second one is to use a delegate and call it inside the constructor? It isn't necessarily to be a constructor. The reason I chose custom constructor is doing some custom initializations. Any suggestions would be appreciated :)

    Read the article

  • How is a constructor executed?

    - by simion
    I am doing some reviison from the lecture slides and it says a constructor is executed in the following way; If the constructor starts with this, recursively execute the indicated constructor, then go to step 4. Invoke the explicitly or implicitly indicated superclass constructor (unless this class is java.lang.Object) Initialise the fields of the object in the order in which they were declared in this class Execute the rest of the body of this constructor. What i dont undertsand is that, a constructor can never "start" with this, because even if it forms no class heirarchy/relationship then super() is inserted by default. How would this fit in with the description above? Thanks

    Read the article

  • What is the meaning of ": base" in the constructor definition ?

    - by DotNetBeginner
    What is the meaning of ": base" in the costructor of following class(MyClass) ? Please explain the concept behind constructor definition given below for class MyClass. public class MyClass: WorkerThread { public MyClass(object data): base(data) { // some code } } public abstract class WorkerThread { private object ThreadData; private Thread thisThread; public WorkerThread(object data) { this.ThreadData = data; } public WorkerThread() { ThreadData = null; } }

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36  | Next Page >