Search Results

Search found 1555 results on 63 pages for 'mutiple inheritance'.

Page 31/63 | < Previous Page | 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38  | Next Page >

  • Cant overload python socket.send

    - by ralu
    Code from socket import socket class PolySocket(socket): def __init__(self,*p): print "PolySocket init" socket.__init__(self,*p) def sendall(self,*p): print "PolySocket sendall" return socket.sendall(self,*p) def send(self,*p): print "PolySocket send" return socket.send(self,*p) def connect(self,*p): print "connecting..." socket.connect(self,*p) print "connected" HOST="stackoverflow.com" PORT=80 readbuffer="" s=PolySocket() s.connect((HOST, PORT)) s.send("a") s.sendall("a") Output: PolySocket init connecting... connected PolySocket sendall As we can see, send method is not overloaded.

    Read the article

  • C++ superclass constructor calling rules

    - by levik
    What are the C++ rules for calling the superclass constructor from a subclass one?? For example I know in Java, you must do it as the first line of the subclass constructor (and if you don't an implicit call to a no-arg super constructor is assumed - giving you a compile error if that's missing).

    Read the article

  • Apples, oranges, and pointers to the most derived c++ class

    - by Matthew Lowe
    Suppose I have a bunch of fruit: class Fruit { ... }; class Apple : public Fruit { ... }; class Orange: public Fruit { ... }; And some polymorphic functions that operate on said fruit: void Eat(Fruit* f, Pesticide* p) { } void Eat(Apple* f, Pesticide* p) { ingest(f,p); } void Eat(Orange* f, Pesticide* p) { peel(f,p); ingest(f,p); } OK, wait. Stop right there. Note at this point that any sane person would make Eat() a virtual member function of the Fruit classes. But that's not an option, because I am not a sane person. Also, I don't want that Pesticide* in the header file for my fruit class. Sadly, what I want to be able to do next is exactly what member functions and dynamic binding allow: typedef list<Fruit*> Fruits; Fruits fs; ... for(Fruits::iterator i=fs.begin(), e=fs.end(); i!=e; ++i) Eat(*i); And obviously, the problem here is that the pointer we pass to Eat() will be a Fruit*, not an Apple* or an Orange*, therefore nothing will get eaten and we will all be very hungry. So what I really want to be able to do instead of this: Eat(*i); is this: Eat(MAGIC_CAST_TO_MOST_DERIVED_CLASS(*i)); But to my limited knowledge, such magic does not exist, except possibly in the form of a big nasty if-statement full of calls to dynamic_cast. So is there some run-time magic of which I am not aware? Or should I implement and maintain a big nasty if-statement full of dynamic_casts? Or should I suck it up, quit thinking about how I would implement this in Ruby, and allow a little Pesticide to make its way into my fruit header?

    Read the article

  • Session is null when inherit from System.Web.UI.Page

    - by Andreas K.
    I want to extend the System.Web.UI.Page-class with some extra stuff. In the ctor I need the value of a session-variable. The problem is that the Session-object is null... public class ExtendedPage : System.Web.UI.Page { protected foo; public ExtendedPage() { this.foo = (int)HttpContext.Current.Session["foo"]; // NullReferenceException } } If I move the part with the session-object into the Load-Event everything works fine... public class ExtendedPage : System.Web.UI.Page { protected foo; public ExtendedPage() { this.Load += new EventHandler(ExtendedPage_Load); } void ExtendedPage_Load(object sender, EventArgs e) { this.foo = (int)HttpContext.Current.Session["foo"]; } } Why is the Session-object null in the first case??

    Read the article

  • Scala: Mixing traits with private fields

    - by Vilius Normantas
    It's not much of a question, it's rather my excitement that it's possible at all! I wrote this little example just to prove the opposite - I expected either a compiler error or one of the values (111 or 222, I wasn't sure). scala> trait T1 { private val v = 111; def getValueT1 = v } scala> trait T2 { private val v = 222; def getValueT2 = v } scala> class T12 extends T1 with T2 scala> val t = new T12 scala> t.getValueT1 res9: Int = 111 scala> t.getValueT2 res10: Int = 222 Why doesn't the v get overridden? Off course this works only as long as vs are private, but still.

    Read the article

  • How can I reuse a base class function in a derived class

    - by Armen Ablak
    Let's say we have these four classes: BinaryTree, SplayTree (which is a sub-class of BinaryTree), BinaryNode and SplayNode (which is a sub-class of BinaryNode). In class BinaryTree I have 2 Find functions, like this bool Find(const T &) const; virtual Node<T> * Find(const T &, Node<T> *) const; and in SplayTree I would like to reuse the second one, because it works in the same way (for example) as in SplayTree, the only thing different is the return type, which is SplayNode. I thought it might be enough if I use this line in SplayTree.cpp using BinaryTree::Find; but it isn't. So, how can I do this?

    Read the article

  • Python:How to override inner class methods if the inner class is defined as a property of the top cl

    - by Maddy
    I have a code snippet like this class A(object): class b: def print_hello(self): print "Hello world" b = property(b) And I want to override the inner class 'b'(please dont worry about the lowercase name) behaviour. Say, I want to add a new method or I want to change an existing method, like: class C(A): class b(A.b): def print_hello(self): print "Inner Class: Hello world" b = property(b) Now if I create C's object as c = C(), and call c.b I get TypeError: 'property' object is not callable error. How would I get pass this and call print_hello of the extended inner class? Disclaimer: I dont want to change the code for A class.

    Read the article

  • Java method: retrieve the inheriting type

    - by DrDro
    I have several classes that extend C and I would need a method that accepts any argument of type C. But in this method I would like to know if I'm dealing with A or B. * public A extends C public B extends C public void goForIt(C c)() If I cast how can I retrieve the type in a clean way (I just read using getClass or instanceof is often not the best way). *Sorry but I can't type closing braces

    Read the article

  • Where in the standard is forwarding to a base class required in these situations?

    - by pgast
    Maybe even better is: Why does the standard require forwarding to a base class in these situations? (yeah yeah yeah - Why? - Because.) class B1 { public: virtual void f()=0; }; class B2 { public: virtual void f(){} }; class D : public B1,public B2{ }; class D2 : public B1,public B2{ public: using B2::f; }; class D3 : public B1,public B2{ public: void f(){ B2::f(); } }; D d; D2 d2; D3 d3; EDG gives: sourceFile.cpp sourceFile.cpp(24) : error C2259: 'D' : cannot instantiate abstract class due to following members: 'void B1::f(void)' : is abstract sourceFile.cpp(6) : see declaration of 'B1::f' sourceFile.cpp(25) : error C2259: 'D2' : cannot instantiate abstract class due to following members: 'void B1::f(void)' : is abstract sourceFile.cpp(6) : see declaration of 'B and similarly for the MS compiler. I might buy the first case,D. But in D2 - f is unambiguously defined by the using declaration, why is that not enough for the compiler to be required to fill out the vtable? Where in the standard is this situation defined?

    Read the article

  • django access to parent

    - by SledgehammerPL
    model: class Product(models.Model): name = models.CharField(max_length = 128) (...) def __unicode__(self): return self.name class Receipt(models.Model): name = models.CharField(max_length=128) (...) components = models.ManyToManyField(Product, through='ReceiptComponent') def __unicode__(self): return self.name class ReceiptComponent(models.Model): product = models.ForeignKey(Product) receipt = models.ForeignKey(Receipt) quantity = models.FloatField(max_length=9) unit = models.ForeignKey(Unit) def __unicode__(self): return unicode(self.quantity!=0 and self.quantity or '') + ' ' + unicode(self.unit) + ' ' + self.product.genitive And now I'd like to get list of the most often useable products: ReceiptComponent.objects.values('product').annotate(Count('product')).order_by('-product__count' the example result: [{'product': 3, 'product__count': 5}, {'product': 6, 'product__count': 4}, {'product': 5, 'product__count': 3}, {'product': 7, 'product__count': 2}, {'product': 1, 'product__count': 2}, {'product': 11, 'product__count': 1}, {'product': 8, 'product__count': 1}, {'product': 4, 'product__count': 1}, {'product': 9, 'product__count': 1}] It's almost what I need. But I'd prefer having Product object not product value, because I'd like to use this in views.py for generating list.

    Read the article

  • Constructor Overload Problem in C++ Inherrentance

    - by metdos
    Here my code snippet: class Request { public: Request(void); ……….. } Request::Request(void) { qDebug()<<"Request: "<<"Hello World"; } class LoginRequest :public Request { public: LoginRequest(void); LoginRequest(QDomDocument); …………… } LoginRequest::LoginRequest(void) { qDebug()<<"LoginRequest: "<<"Hello World"; requestType=LOGIN; requestId=-1; } LoginRequest::LoginRequest(QDomDocument doc){ qDebug()<<"LoginRequest: "<<"Hello World with QDomDocument"; LoginRequest::LoginRequest(); xmlDoc_=doc; } When call constructor of Overrided LoginRequest LoginRequest *test=new LoginRequest(doc); I came up with this result: Request: Hello World LoginRequest: Hello World with QDomDocument Request: Hello World LoginRequest: Hello World Obviously both constructor of LoginRequest called REquest constructor. Is there any way to cape with this situation? I can construct another function that does the job I want to do and have both constructors call that function. But I wonder is there any solution?

    Read the article

  • Using enums or a set of classes when I know I have a finite set of different options?

    - by devoured elysium
    Let's say I have defined the following class: public abstract class Event { public DateTime Time { get; protected set; } protected Event(DateTime time) { Time = time; } } What would you prefer between this: public class AsleepEvent : Event { public AsleepEvent(DateTime time) : base(time) { } } public class AwakeEvent : Event { public AwakeEvent(DateTime time) : base(time) { } } and this: public enum StateEventType { NowAwake, NowAsleep } public class StateEvent : Event { protected StateEventType stateType; public MealEvent(DateTime time, StateEventType stateType) : base(time) { stateType = stateType; } } and why? I am generally more inclined to the first option, but I can't explain why. Is it totally the same or are any advantages in using one instead of the other? Maybe with the first method its easier to add more "states", altough in this case I am 100% sure I will only want two states: now awake, and now asleep (they signal the moments when one awakes and one falls asleep).

    Read the article

  • Using child visitor in C#

    - by Thomas Matthews
    I am setting up a testing component and trying to keep it generic. I want to use a generic Visitor class, but not sure about using descendant classes. Example: public interface Interface_Test_Case { void execute(); void accept(Interface_Test_Visitor v); } public interface Interface_Test_Visitor { void visit(Interface_Test_Case tc); } public interface Interface_Read_Test_Case : Interface_Test_Case { uint read_value(); } public class USB_Read_Test : Interface_Read_Test_Case { void execute() { Console.WriteLine("Executing USB Read Test Case."); } void accept(Interface_Test_Visitor v) { Console.WriteLine("Accepting visitor."); } uint read_value() { Console.WriteLine("Reading value from USB"); return 0; } } public class USB_Read_Visitor : Interface_Test_Visitor { void visit(Interface_Test_Case tc) { Console.WriteLine("Not supported Test Case."); } void visit(Interface_Read_Test_Case rtc) { Console.WriteLine("Not supported Read Test Case."); } void visit(USB_Read_Test urt) { Console.WriteLine("Yay, visiting USB Read Test case."); } } // Code fragment USB_Read_Test test_case; USB_Read_Visitor visitor; test_case.accept(visitor); What are the rules the C# compiler uses to determine which of the methods in USB_Read_Visitor will be executed by the code fragment? I'm trying to factor out dependencies of my testing component. Unfortunately, my current Visitor class contains visit methods for classes not related to the testing component. Am I trying to achieve the impossible?

    Read the article

  • In Java, is it possible for a super constructor invocation actually invoke a constructor in the calling class?

    - by John Assymptoth
    Super constructor invocation definition: [Primary.] [NonWildTypeArguments] super ( ArgumentListopt ) ; A super constructor call can be prefixed by an Primary expression. Example (taken from JLS): class Outer { class Inner{ } } class ChildOfInner extends Outer.Inner { ChildOfInner() { (new Outer()).super(); // (new Outer()) is the Primary } } Does a Primary expression exist that makes the call to super() the invocation of a constructor of the calling class? Or Java prevents that?

    Read the article

  • Java generics question

    - by user247866
    So I have 3 classes. Abstract class A Class B extends class A independent Class C In class D that contains the main method, I create a list of instances of class B List<B> b = methodCall(); // the method returns a list of instances of class B Now in class C I have one method that is common to both A and B, and hence I don't want to duplicate it. I want to have one method that takes as input an instance of class A, as follows: public void someMethod(List<A> a) However, when I do: C c = new C(); c.someMethod(b); I get an error that some-method is not applicable for the argument List<B>, instead it's expecting to get List<A>. Is there a good way to fix this problem? Many thanks!

    Read the article

  • Calling Base Class Functions with Inherited Type

    - by Kein Mitleid
    I can't describe exactly what I want to say but I want to use base class functions with an inherited type. Like I want to declare "Coord3D operator + (Coord3D);" in one class, but if I use it with Vector3D operands, I want it to return Vector3D type instead of Coord3D. With this line of code below, I add two Vector3D's and get a Coord3D in return, as told to me by the typeid().name() function. How do I reorganize my classes so that I get a Vector3D on return? #include <iostream> #include <typeinfo> using namespace std; class Coord3D { public: float x, y, z; Coord3D (float = 0.0f, float = 0.0f, float = 0.0f); Coord3D operator + (Coord3D &); }; Coord3D::Coord3D (float a, float b, float c) { x = a; y = b; z = c; } Coord3D Coord3D::operator+ (Coord3D &param) { Coord3D temp; temp.x = x + param.x; temp.y = y + param.y; temp.z = z + param.z; return temp; } class Vector3D: public Coord3D { public: Vector3D (float a = 0.0f, float b = 0.0f, float c = 0.0f) : Coord3D (a, b, c) {}; }; int main () { Vector3D a (3, 4, 5); Vector3D b (6, 7, 8); cout << typeid(a + b).name(); return 0; }

    Read the article

  • Doing things with objects as if they were parents

    - by General Ackbar
    Sorry that this is probably a super noob question. But the following code give me an error saying that there are invalid arguments in my call of doStuffToLines(segments) shouldnt I be able to do this since I have my DimensionLineSegment inherits from Lines? private void doStuff() { List<DimensionLineSegment> segments = new List<DimensionLineSegment>(); doStuffToLines(segments); } private void doStuffToLines(List<Line> lines) { }

    Read the article

  • how do I best create a set of list classes to match my business objects

    - by ken-forslund
    I'm a bit fuzzy on the best way to solve the problem of needing a list for each of my business objects that implements some overridden functions. Here's the setup: I have a baseObject that sets up database, and has its proper Dispose() method All my other business objects inherit from it, and if necessary, override Dispose() Some of these classes also contain arrays (lists) of other objects. So I create a class that holds a List of these. I'm aware I could just use the generic List, but that doesn't let me add extra features like Dispose() so it will loop through and clean up. So if I had objects called User, Project and Schedule, I would create UserList, ProjectList, ScheduleList. In the past, I have simply had these inherit from List< with the appropriate class named and then written the pile of common functions I wanted it to have, like Dispose(). this meant I would verify by hand, that each of these List classes had the same set of methods. Some of these classes had pretty simple versions of these methods that could have been inherited from a base list class. I could write an interface, to force me to ensure that each of my List classes has the same functions, but interfaces don't let me write common base functions that SOME of the lists might override. I had tried to write a baseObjectList that inherited from List, and then make my other Lists inherit from that, but there are issues with that (which is really why I came here). One of which was trying to use the Find() method with a predicate. I've simplified the problem down to just a discussion of Dispose() method on the list that loops through and disposes its contents, but in reality, I have several other common functions that I want all my lists to have. What's the best practice to solve this organizational matter?

    Read the article

  • Python, invoke super constructor

    - by Mike
    class A: def __init__(self): print "world" class B(A): def __init__(self): print "hello" B() hello In all other languages I've worked with the super constructor is invoked implicitly. How does one invoke it in Python? I would expect super(self) but this doesn't work

    Read the article

  • Attaching methods to prototype from within constructor function

    - by Matthew Taylor
    Here is the textbook standard way of describing a 'class' or constructor function in JavaScript, straight from the Definitive Guide to JavaScript: function Rectangle(w,h) { this.width = w; this.height = h; } Rectangle.prototype.area = function() { return this.width * this.height; }; I don't like the dangling prototype manipulation here, so I was trying to think of a way to encapsulate the function definition for area inside the constructor. I came up with this, which I did not expect to work: function Rectangle(w,h) { this.width = w; this.height = h; this.constructor.prototype.area = function() { return this.width * this.height; }; } I didn't expect this to work because the this reference inside the area function should be pointing to the area function itself, so I wouldn't have access to width and height from this. But it turns out I do! var rect = new Rectangle(2,3); var area = rect.area(); // great scott! it is 6 Some further testing confirmed that the this reference inside the area function actually was a reference to the object under construction, not the area function itself. function Rectangle(w,h) { this.width = w; this.height = h; var me = this; this.constructor.prototype.whatever = function() { if (this === me) { alert ('this is not what you think');} }; } Turns out the alert pops up, and this is exactly the object under construction. So what is going on here? Why is this not the this I expect it to be?

    Read the article

  • Java: using generic wildcards with subclassing

    - by gibberish
    Say I have a class Foo, a class A and some subclass B of A. Foo accepts A and its sublclasses as the generic type. A and B both require a Foo instance in their constructor. I want A's Foo to be of type A , and B's Foo to be of type B or a superclass of B. So in effect, So I only want this: Foo<X> bar = new Foo<X>; new B(bar); to be possible if X is either A, B, or a both subclass of A and superclass of B. So far this is what I have: class Foo<? extends A>{ //construct } class A(Foo<A> bar){ //construct } class B(Foo<? super B> bar){ super(bar); //construct } The call to super(...) doesn't work, because <A> is stricter than <? super B>. Is it somehow possible to use the constructor (or avoid code duplication by another means) while enforcing these types? Edit: Foo keeps a collection of elements of the generic parameter type, and these elements and Foo have a bidirectional link. It should therefore not be possible to link an A to a Foo.

    Read the article

  • Generic Class Vb.net

    - by KoolKabin
    hi guys, I am stuck with a problem about generic classes. I am confused how I call the constructor with parameters. My interface: Public Interface IDBObject Sub [Get](ByRef DataRow As DataRow) Property UIN() As Integer End Interface My Child Class: Public Class User Implements IDBObject Public Sub [Get](ByRef DataRow As System.Data.DataRow) Implements IDBObject.Get End Sub Public Property UIN() As Integer Implements IDBObject.UIN Get End Get Set(ByVal value As Integer) End Set End Property End Class My Next Class: Public Class Users Inherits DBLayer(Of User) #Region " Standard Methods " #End Region End Class My DBObject Class: Public Class DBLayer(Of DBObject As {New, IDBObject}) Public Shared Function GetData() As List(Of DBObject) Dim QueryString As String = "SELECT * ***;" Dim Dataset As DataSet = New DataSet() Dim DataList As List(Of DBObject) = New List(Of DBObject) Try Dataset = Query(QueryString) For Each DataRow As DataRow In Dataset.Tables(0).Rows **DataList.Add(New DBObject(DataRow))** Next Catch ex As Exception DataList = Nothing End Try Return DataList End Function End Class I get error in the starred area of the DBLayer Object. What might be the possible reason? what can I do to fix it? I even want to add New(byval someval as datatype) in IDBObject interface for overloading construction. but it also gives an error? how can i do it? Adding Sub New(ByVal DataRow As DataRow) in IDBObject producess following error 'Sub New' cannot be declared in an interface. Error Produced in DBLayer Object line: DataList.Add(New DBObject(DataRow)) Msg: Arguments cannot be passed to a 'New' used on a type parameter.

    Read the article

  • Me As Child Type In General Function

    - by Steven
    I have a MustInherit Parent class with two Child classes which Inherit from the Parent. How can I use (or Cast) Me in a Parent function as the the child type of that instance? EDIT: My actual goal is to be able to serialize (BinaryFormatter.Serialize(Stream, Object)) either of my child classes. However, "repeating the code" in each child "seems" wrong. EDIT2: This is my Serialize function. Where should I implement this function? Copying and pasting to each child doesn't seem right, but casting the parent to a child doesn't seem right either. Public Function Serialize() As Byte() Dim bFmt As New BinaryFormatter() Dim mStr As New MemoryStream() bFmt.Serialize(mStr, Me) Return mStr.ToArray() End Function

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38  | Next Page >