Search Results

Search found 1494 results on 60 pages for 'prototypal inheritance'.

Page 34/60 | < Previous Page | 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41  | Next Page >

• Nhibernate Common columns in base class

  - by sukh

  I want to design following scenario Base class (Id, Name, order, Value) 3 Derived classes derive1, derive2, derive3 inheriting properties from base There is no table for base class. And 1 table for each derived class. 3 tables have same columns. How can I create mapping file ignoring base class? Do I need to create 1 mapping file for each derived class? can I achieve this using only 1 mapping file?

  Read the article

• Why can a public class not inherit from a less visible one?

  - by Dan Tao

  I apologize if this question has been asked before. I've searched SO somewhat and wasn't able to find it. I'm just curious what the rationale behind this design was/is. Obviously I understand that private/internal members of a base type cannot, nor should they, be exposed through a derived public type. But it seems to my naive thinking that the "hidden" parts could easily remain hidden while some base functionality is still shared and a new interface is exposed publicly. I'm thinking of something along these lines: Assembly X internal class InternalClass { protected virtual void DoSomethingProtected() { // Let's say this method provides some useful functionality. // Its visibility is quite limited (only to derived types in // the same assembly), but at least it's there. } } public class PublicClass : InternalClass { public void DoSomethingPublic() { // Now let's say this method is useful enough that this type // should be public. What's keeping us from leveraging the // base functionality laid out in InternalClass's implementation, // without exposing anything that shouldn't be exposed? } } Assembly Y public class OtherPublicClass : PublicClass { // It seems (again, to my naive mind) that this could work. This class // simply wouldn't be able to "see" any of the methods of InternalClass // from AssemblyX directly. But it could still access the public and // protected members of PublicClass that weren't inherited from // InternalClass. Does this make sense? What am I missing? }

  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

• are Hierarchical SIngletons in Java possible?

  - by Zach H

  I've been toying with an interesting idea (No idea if I'll include it in any code, but it's fun to think about) Let's say we have a program that requires a large number of classes, all of a certain subclass. And those classes all need to be singletons. Now, we could write the singleton pattern for each of those classes, but it seems wasteful to write the same code over and over, and we already have a common base class. It would be really nice to create a getSingleton method of A that when called from a subclass, returns a singleton of the B class (cast to class A for simplicity) class A{ public A getSingleton(){ //Wizardry } } class B extends A{ } A blargh = B.getSingleton() A gish = B.getSingleton() if(A == B) System.out.println("It works!") It seems to me that the way to do this would be to recognize and call B's default constructor (assuming we don't need to pass anything in.) I know a little of the black magic of reflection in Java, but i'm not sure if this can be done. Anyone interested in puzzling over this?

  Read the article

• Does string inherits from Object in Javascript?

  - by Morgan Cheng

  Is Object the base class of all objects in Javascript, just like other language such as Java & C#? I tried below code in Firefox with Firebug installed. var t = new Object(); var s1 = new String('str'); var s2 = 'str'; console.log(typeof t); console.log(typeof s1); console.log(typeof s2); The console output is object object string So, s1 and s2 are of diffeent type?

  Read the article

• javascript function object's inheritFrom method

  - by gawpertron

  I've come across this.inheritFrom that enables you to inherit from a super class. var superClass = function() { this.foo = 'foo'; this.bar = 'bar'; } var subClass = function() { this.inheritFrom = superClass; this.inheritFrom(); this.myFunction = function() { return this.foo; }; } I've looked in Mozilla and MSDN, but I can't seem to find it documented any where. As far as I can see it works in IE6 and Firefox 3. Any reason why it wouldn't be documented?

  Read the article

• Container<ImplementerOfIInterface> is not Container<IInterface>. Why not?

  - by Chris Simmons

  Why wouldn't DoesntWork() work below? The error is: Cannot implicitly convert type 'List' to 'IEnumerable'. An explicit conversion exists (are you missing a cast?). I know this is something about generic/templates I'm not getting, but List is IEnumerable and Implementer is an IInterface. I don't see why this needs to be casted (or if it really can be). public interface IInterface { // ... } public class Implementer : IInterface { // ... } IEnumerable<IInterface> DoesntWork() { List<Implementer> result = new List<Implementer>(); return result; }

  Read the article

• Class lookup structure array in C++

  - by wyatt

  I'm trying to create a structure array which links input strings to classes as follows: struct {string command; CommandPath cPath;} cPathLookup[] = { {"set an alarm", AlarmCommandPath}, {"send an email", EmailCommandPath}, {"", NULL} }; which will be used as follows: CommandPath *cPath = NULL; string input; getline(cin, input); for(int i = 0; cPathLookup[i] != ""; i++) { if(cPathLookup[i].command == input) cPath = new cPathLookup[i].cPath; } Obviously, this code is meaningless, but I think my intention is apparent - depending on input, I'd like cPath to be initialized as either a new AlarmCommandPath or a new EmailCommandPath. I could handle it with a function returning an instance depending on input, but a whole sequence of ifs just seems inelegant. I should also note that, in case it's not apparent and important, that AlarmCommandPath and EmailCommandPath are derived from CommandPath, and CommandPath is an abstract class. Thanks for any help you can offer. EDIT: I just noticed that, in spite of CommandPath being abstract, I have a declaration: CommandPath *cPath = NULL; in working code. Why does that compile?

  Read the article

• C# casting question: from IEnumerable to custom type

  - by Sarah Vessels

  I have a custom class called Rows that implements IEnumerable<Row>. I often use LINQ queries on Rows instances: Rows rows = new Rows { row1, row2, row3 }; IEnumerable<Row> particularRows = rows.Where<Row>(row => condition); What I would like is to be able to do the following: Rows rows = new Rows { row1, row2, row3 }; Rows particularRows = (Rows)rows.Where<Row>(row => condition); However, I get a "System.InvalidCastException: Unable to cast object of type 'WhereEnumerableIterator1[NS.Row]' to type 'NS.Rows'". I do have a Rows constructor taking IEnumerable<Row>, so I could do: Rows rows = new Rows { row1, row2, row3 }; Rows particularRows = new Rows(rows.Where<Row>(row => condition)); This seems bulky, however, and I would love to be able to cast an IEnumerable<Row> to be a Rows since Rows implements IEnumerable<Row>. Any ideas?

  Read the article

• PHP inheriting/extending a particular instance of an Object

  - by delta9

  Is there any way to force PHP to extend an existing/particular (and for that matter, already instantiated) instance of an object? This imaginary code should explain what I am wondering: class Base { public $var; function __construct($var){ $this->var = $name; } } class Extender extends Base { function __construct($parent) { parent = $parent; } } $base = new Base('yay!'); $extender = new Extender($base); echo 'Extended base var value: '.$extender->var.'<br/>'; Output (would be): Extended base var value: yay! To be clear, I am wanting to instantiate an object that extends a PARTICULAR INSTANCE of another object, one that has already been instantiated. I am aware that I can pass a reference to an object to another object (via it's constructor function) and then add it as a property of the receiving object, I'm wondering if there is a real way to do this?

  Read the article

• Ways to make (relatively) safe assumptions about the type of concrete subclasses?

  - by Kylotan

  I have an interface (defined as a abstract base class) that looks like this: class AbstractInterface { public: bool IsRelatedTo(const AbstractInterface& other) const = 0; } And I have an implementation of this (constructors etc omitted): class ConcreteThing { public: bool IsRelatedTo(const AbstractInterface& other) const { return m_ImplObject.has_relationship_to(other.m_ImplObject); } private: ImplementationObject m_ImplObject; } The AbstractInterface forms an interface in Project A, and the ConcreteThing lives in Project B as an implementation of that interface. This is so that code in Project A can access data from Project B without having a direct dependency on it - Project B just has to implement the correct interface. Obviously the line in the body of the IsRelatedTo function cannot compile - that instance of ConcreteThing has an m_ImplObject member, but it can't assume that all AbstractInterfaces do, including the other argument. In my system, I can actually assume that all implementations of AbstractInterface are instances of ConcreteThing (or subclasses thereof), but I'd prefer not to be casting the object to the concrete type in order to get at the private member, or encoding that assumption in a way that will crash without a diagnostic later if this assumption ceases to hold true. I cannot modify ImplementationObject, but I can modify AbstractInterface and ConcreteThing. I also cannot use the standard RTTI mechanism for checking a type prior to casting, or use dynamic_cast for a similar purpose. I have a feeling that I might be able to overload IsRelatedTo with a ConcreteThing argument, but I'm not sure how to call it via the base IsRelatedTo(AbstractInterface) method. It wouldn't get called automatically as it's not a strict reimplementation of that method. Is there a pattern for doing what I want here, allowing me to implement the IsRelatedTo function via ImplementationObject::has_relationship_to(ImplementationObject), without risky casts? (Also, I couldn't think of a good question title - please change it if you have a better one.)

  Read the article

• C++ parent class alignment

  - by aaa

  hello. Is it possible to specify alignment of parent class? for example something like (which does not compiled): template<size_t n> class Vector : public boost::array<double,n> __attribute__ ((aligned(16))) { thanks

  Read the article

• When inheriting a control in Silverlight, how to find out if its template has been applied?

  - by herzmeister der welten

  When inheriting a control in Silverlight, how do I find out if its template has already been applied? I.e., can I reliably get rid of my cumbersome _hasTemplateBeenApplied field? public class AwesomeControl : Control { private bool _hasTemplateBeenApplied = false; public override void OnApplyTemplate() { base.OnApplyTemplate(); this._hasTemplateBeenApplied = true; // Stuff } private bool DoStuff() { if (this._hasTemplateBeenApplied) { // Do Stuff } } }

  Read the article

• Any way to force classes to have public static final field in Java?

  - by serg555

  Is there a way to force classes in Java to have public static final field (through interface or abstract class)? Or at least just a public field? I need to make sure somehow that a group of classes have public static final String TYPE = "..."; in them.

  Read the article

• C++ Problem: Class Promotion using derived class

  - by Michael Fitzpatrick

  I have a class for Float32 that is derived from Float32_base class Float32_base { public: // Constructors Float32_base(float x) : value(x) {}; Float32_base(void) : value(0) {}; operator float32(void) {return value;}; Float32_base operator =(float x) {value = x; return *this;}; Float32_base operator +(float x) const { return value + x;}; protected: float value; } class Float32 : public Float32_base { public: float Tad() { return value + .01; } } int main() { Float32 x, y, z; x = 1; y = 2; // WILL NOT COMPILE! z = (x + y).Tad(); // COMPILES OK z = ((Float32)(x + y)).Tad(); } The issue is that the + operator returns a Float32_base and Tad() is not in that class. But 'x' and 'y' are Float32's. Is there a way that I can get the code in the first line to compile without having to resort to a typecast like I did on the next line?

  Read the article

• How to override "inherited" z-indexes?

  - by Earlz

  I am needing to override the notion of inherited z-indexes. For instance in this code <style> div{ background-color:white; top: 0px; bottom: 0px; left: 0px; right: 0px; } </style> <div style="position: fixed; z-index: 2;"> div 1 <div style="position: fixed; z-index: 3;"> div 2 </div> </div> <div style="position: fixed; z-index: 2;"> div 3 </div> http://jsbin.com/epoqo3/3 I want for div 2 to be displayed, but instead div 3 is displayed. How can I change this behavior without changing my structure.

  Read the article

• Are private members inherited in C#?

  - by Petr

  Just seen one tutorial saying that: Class Dog { private string Name; } Class SuperDog:Dog { private string Mood; } Then there was an UML displaying that SuperDog will inherit Name as well. I have tried but to me it seems that only public members are inherited. At least I could not access Name unless it was declared as public.

  Read the article

• C++ - Error: expected unqualified-id before ‘using’

  - by Francisco P.

  Hello, everyone. I am having some trouble on a project I'm working on. Here's the header file for the calor class: #ifndef _CALOR_ #define _CALOR_ #include "gradiente.h" using namespace std; class Calor : public Gradiente { public: Calor(); Calor(int a); ~Calor(); int getTemp(); int getMinTemp(); void setTemp(int a); void setMinTemp(int a); void mostraSensor(); }; #endif When I try to compile it: calor.h|6|error: expected unqualified-id before ‘using’| Why does this happen? I've been searching online and learned this error occurs mostly due to corrupted included files. Makes no sense to me, though. This class inherits from gradiente: #ifndef _GRADIENTE_ #define _GRADIENTE_ #include "sensor.h" using namespace std; class Gradiente : public Sensor { protected: int vActual, vMin; public: Gradiente(); ~Gradiente(); } #endif Which in turn inherits from sensor #ifndef _SENSOR_ #define _SENSOR_ #include <iostream> #include <fstream> #include <string> #include "definicoes.h" using namespace std; class Sensor { protected: int tipo; int IDsensor; bool estadoAlerta; bool estadoActivo; static int numSensores; public: Sensor(/*PARAMETROS*/); Sensor(ifstream &); ~Sensor(); int getIDsensor(); bool getEstadoAlerta(); bool getEstadoActivo(); void setEstadoAlerta(int a); void setEstadoActivo(int a); virtual void guardaSensor(ofstream &); virtual void mostraSensor(); // FUNÇÃO COMUM /* virtual int funcaoComum() = 0; virtual int funcaoComum(){return 0;};*/ }; #endif For completeness' sake, here's definicoes.h #ifndef _DEFINICOES_ #define _DEFINICOES_ const unsigned int SENSOR_MOVIMENTO = 0; const unsigned int SENSOR_SOM = 1; const unsigned int SENSOR_PRESSAO = 2; const unsigned int SENSOR_CALOR = 3; const unsigned int SENSOR_CONTACTO = 4; const unsigned int MIN_MOVIMENTO = 10; const unsigned int MIN_SOM = 10; const unsigned int MIN_PRESSAO = 10; const unsigned int MIN_CALOR = 35; #endif Any help'd be much appreciated. Thank you for your time. Thanks for your time!

  Read the article

• Determine an object's class returned by a factory method (Error: function does not take 1 arguments

  - by tzippy

  I have a factorymethod that either returns an object of baseclass or one that is of derivedclass (a derived class of baseclass). The derived class has a method virtual void foo(int x) that takes one argument. baseclass however has virtual void foo() without an argument. In my code, a factory method returns a pointer of type bar that definetly points to an object of class derivedclass. However since this is only known at runtime I get a compiler error saying that foo() does not take an argument. Can I cast this pointer to a pointer of type derivedclass? std::auto_ptr<baseclass> bar = classfactory::CreateBar(); //returns object of class derivedclass bar->foo(5); class baseclass { public: virtual void foo(); } class derivedclass : public baseclass { public: virtual void foo(int x); }

  Read the article

• Add Method to Built In Class

  - by Evorlor

  I am pretty sure this is not doable, but I will go ahead and cross my fingers and ask. I am trying to add a method to a built in class. I want this method to be callable by all of the built in class's subclasses. Specifically: I have a JButton, a JTextPane, and other JComponents. I want to be able to pass in a JDom Element instead of a Rectangle to setBounds(). My current solution is to extend each JComponent subclass with the desired methods, but that is a LOT of duplicate code. Is there a way I can write the following method just one time, and have it callable on all JComponent objects? Or is it required that I extend each subclass individually, and copy and paste the method below? public void setBounds(Element element) { this.setBounds(Integer.parseInt(element.getAttribute( "x").toString()), Integer.parseInt(element .getAttribute("y").toString()), Integer .parseInt(element.getAttribute("width").toString()), Integer.parseInt(element.getAttribute("height") .toString())); }

  Read the article

• Inheriting a Base Form but Paste/Cut Commands Not Captured

  - by ohu812

  I created a base form that has a specific size and an icon as a base for all forms created in my project (to be consistent in looks). The problem is, for some reason if I add a Text box to the Child form, I can no longer execute shortcuts like Copy (CTRL+C) etc into the Textbox. What should I do to handle this OTHER THAN writing code to capture those on the KeyUp control? This is also the case for RichTextBox control as well. Thanks

  Read the article

• Calling an Overridden Method from a Parent-Class Constructor

  - by Vaibhav Bajpai

  I tried calling an overridden method from a constructor of a parent class and noticed different behavior across languages. C++ - echoes A.foo() class A{ public: A(){foo();} virtual void foo(){cout<<"A.foo()";} }; class B : public A{ public: B(){} void foo(){cout<<"B.foo()";} }; int main(){ B *b = new B(); } Java - echoes B.foo() class A{ public A(){foo();} public void foo(){System.out.println("A.foo()");} } class B extends A{ public void foo(){System.out.println("B.foo()");} } class Demo{ public static void main(String args[]){ B b = new B(); } } C# - echoes B.foo() class A{ public A(){foo();} public virtual void foo(){Console.WriteLine("A.foo()");} } class B : A{ public override void foo(){Console.WriteLine("B.foo()");} } class MainClass { public static void Main (string[] args) { B b = new B(); } } I realize that in C++ objects are created from top-most parent going down the hierarchy, so when the constructor calls the overridden method, B does not even exist, so it calls the A' version of the method. However, I am not sure why I am getting different behavior in Java and C#.

  Read the article

• C++ - How to call a member function for an inherited object.

  - by Francisco P.

  Hello! I have a few classes (heat, gas, contact, pressure) inheriting from a main one (sensor). I have a need to store them in a vector<Sensor *> (part of the specification). At some point in time, I need to call a function that indiscriminately stores those Sensor *. (also part of the specification, not open for discussion) Something like this: for(size_t i = 0; i < Sensors.size(); ++i) Sensors[i]->storeSensor(os) //os is an ofstream kind of object, passed onwards by reference Where and how shall storeSensor be defined? Is there any simple way to do this or will I need to disregard the specification? Mind you, I'm a beginner! Thanks for your time!

  Read the article

• Extending a Java Swing class in Clojure

  - by mikera

  I'm trying to extend a Java Swing component in Clojure, i.e. I want to extend a javax.swing.JComponent and add some custom methods implemented in pure Clojure in addition to all the standard inherited methods. I've tried using "proxy" which works great if I just want a single instance (in the same way as an anonymous inner class). However I'd really like a named class so that I can generate an arbitrary number of instances. What's the recommended way of doing this?

  Read the article

• Are static members inherited? (C++)

  - by Keand64

  When static members are inherited, are they static for the entire heirarchy, or just that class, ie: class SomeClass { public: SomeClass(){total++;} static int total; }; class SomeDerivedClass: public SomeClass { public: SomeDerivedClass(){total++;} }; int main() { SomeClass A; SomeClass B; SomeDerivedClass C; return 0; } would total be 3 in all three instances, or would it be 2 for SomeClass and 1 for SomeDerivedClass?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41  | Next Page >