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 >

  • Assigning two strings together getting Access Read Violation

    - by Jay Bell
    I am trying to pass a string to a class mutator and set the private member to that string here is the code that is sending the string void parseTradePairs(Exchange::Currency *curr, std::string *response, int begin, int exit) { int start; int end; string temp; string dataResponse; CURL *tempCurl; initializeCurl(tempCurl); int location = response->find("marketid", begin); if(location <= exit) { start = location + 11; begin = response->find("label", start); end = begin - start - 3; findStrings(start, end, temp, response); getMarketInfo(tempCurl, temp, dataResponse); curr->_coin->setExch(temp); // here is the line of code that is sending the string dataResponse >> *(curr->_coin); curr->_next = new Exchange::Currency(curr, curr->_position + 1); parseTradePairs(curr->_next, response, begin, exit); } } and here is the mutator within the coin class that is receiving the string and assigning it to _exch void Coin::setExch(string exch) { _exch = exch; } I have stepped through it and made sure that exch has the string in it. "105" but soon as it hits _exch = exch; I get the reading violation. I tried passing as pointer as well. I do not believe it should go out of scope. and the string variable in the class is initialized to zero in the default constructor but again that should matter unless I am trying to read from it instead of writing to it. /* defualt constructor */ Coin::Coin() { _id = ""; _label = ""; _code= ""; _name = ""; _marketCoin = ""; _volume = 0; _last = 0; _exch = ""; } Exchange::Exchange(std::string str) { _exch = str; _currencies = new Currency; std::string pair; std::string response; CURL *curl; initializeCurl(curl); getTradePairs(curl, response); int exit = response.find_last_of("marketid"); parseTradePairs(_currencies, &response, 0, exit); } int main(void) { CURL *curl; string str; string id; Coin coin1; initializeCurl(curl); Exchange ex("cryptsy"); curl_easy_cleanup(curl); system("pause"); return 0; } class Exchange { public: typedef struct Currency { Currency(Coin *coin, Currency *next, Currency *prev, int position) : _coin(coin), _next(next), _prev(prev), _position(position) {} Currency(Currency *prev, int position) : _prev(prev), _position(position), _next(NULL), _coin(&Coin()){} Currency() : _next(NULL), _prev(NULL), _position(0) {} Coin *_coin; Currency *_next; Currency *_prev; int _position; }; /* constructor and destructor */ Exchange(); Exchange(std::string str); ~Exchange(); /* Assignment operator */ Exchange& operator =(const Exchange& copyExchange); /* Parse Cryptsy Pairs */ friend void parseTradePairs(Currency *curr, std::string *response, int begin, int exit); private: std::string _exch; Currency *_currencies; }; here is what i changed it to to fix it. typedef struct Currency { Currency(Coin *coin, Currency *next, Currency *prev, int position) : _coin(coin), _next(next), _prev(prev), _position(position) {} Currency(Currency *prev, int position) : _prev(prev), _position(position), _next(NULL), _coin(&Coin()){} Currency() { _next = NULL; _prev = NULL; _position = 0; _coin = new Coin(); } Coin *_coin; Currency *_next; Currency *_prev; int _position; };

    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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • How to have variables with dynamic data types in Java?

    - by Nazgulled
    Hi, I need to have a UserProfile class that it's just that, a user profile. This user profile has some vital user data of course, but it also needs to have lists of messages sent from the user friends. I need to save these messages in LinkedList, ArrayList, HashMap and TreeMap. But only one at a time and not duplicate the message for each data structure. Basically, something like a dynamic variable type where I could pick the data type for the messages. Is this, somehow, possible in Java? Or my best approach is something like this? I mean, have 2 different classes (for the user profile), one where I host the messages as Map<K,V> (and then I use HashMap and TreeMap where appropriately) and another class where I host them as List<E> (and then I use LinkedList and ArrayList where appropriately). And probably use a super class for the UserProfile so I don't have to duplicate variables and methods for fields like data, age, address, etc... Any thoughts?

    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

  • About calling an subclass' overriding method when casted to its superclass

    - by Omega
    #include <iostream> class Vehicle { public: void greet() { std::cout << "Hello, I'm a vehicle"; } }; class Car : public Vehicle { public: void greet() { std::cout << "Hello, I'm a car"; } }; class Bike : public Vehicle { public: void greet() { std::cout << "Hello, I'm a bike"; } }; void receiveVehicle(Vehicle vehicle) { vehicle.greet(); } int main() { receiveVehicle(Car()); return 0; } As you can see, I'm trying to send a parameter of type Vehicle to a function, which calls greet(). Car and Bike are subclasses of Vehicle. They overwrite greet(). However, I'm getting "Hello, I'm a vehicle". I suppose that this is because receiveVehicle receives a parameter of type Vehicle instead of a specific subclass like Car or Bike. But that's what I want: I want this function to work with any subclass of Vehicle. Why am I not getting the expected output?

    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

  • 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

  • Java - How to pass a Generic parameter as Class<T> to a constructor

    - by Joe Almore
    I have a problem here that still cannot solve, the thing is I have this abstract class: public abstract class AbstractBean<T> { private Class<T> entityClass; public AbstractBean(Class<T> entityClass) { this.entityClass = entityClass; }... Now I have another class that inherits this abstract: @Stateless @LocalBean public class BasicUserBean<T extends BasicUser> extends AbstractBean<T> { private Class<T> user; public BasicUserBean() { super(user); // Error: cannot reference user before supertype contructor has been called. } My question is how can I make this to work?, I am trying to make the class BasicUserBean inheritable, so if I have class PersonBean which inherits BasicUserBean then I could set in the Generic the entity Person which also inherits the entity BasicUser. And it will end up being: @Stateless @LocalBean public class PersonBean extends BasicUserBean<Person> { public PersonBean() { super(Person.class); } ... I just want to inherit the basic functionality from BasicUserBean to all descendants, so I do not have to repeat the same code among all descendants. Thanks!.

    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

  • 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

  • Generics in a bidirectional association

    - by Verhoevenv
    Let's say I have two classes A and B, with B a subtype of A. This is only part of a richer type hierarchy, obviously, but I don't think that's relevant. Assume A is the root of the hierarchy. There is a collection class C that keeps track of a list of A's. However, I want to make C generic, so that it is possible to make an instance that only keeps B's and won't accept A's. class A(val c: C[A]) { c.addEntry(this) } class B(c: C[A]) extends A(c) class C[T <: A]{ val entries = new ArrayBuffer[T]() def addEntry(e: T) { entries += e } } object Generic { def main(args : Array[String]) { val c = new C[B]() new B(c) } } The code above obviously give the error 'type mismatch: found C[B], required C[A]' on the new B(c) line. I'm not sure how this can be fixed. It's not possible to make C covariant in T (like C[+T <: A]) because the ArrayBuffer is non-variantly typed in T. It's not possible to make the constructor of B require a C[B] because C can't be covariant. Am I barking up the wrong tree here? I'm a complete Scala newbie, so any ideas and tips might be helpful. Thank you! EDIT: Basically, what I'd like to have is that the compiler accepts both val c = new C[B]() new B(c) and val c = new C[A]() new B(c) but would reject val c = new C[B]() new A(c) It's probably possible to relax the typing of the ArrayBuffer in C to be A instead of T, and thus in the addEntry method as well, if that helps.

    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

  • C# - are private members inherited?

    - by Petr
    Hi, 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. Thanks

    Read the article

  • inheritence in c#

    - by scatman
    i am trying to create a custom (TreeView) control by inheriting from (RadTreeView) control by doing so: public class CustTreeView : RadTreeView but not all methods where inherited!!. for example: i can do: RadTreeView r = new RadTreeView(); r.LoadContentFile("Sample.xml"); but not: CustTreeView r = new CustTreeView (); r.LoadContentFile("Sample.xml"); so LoadContentFile is a method in RadTreeView but not in CustTreeView!!any explanation?

    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

  • 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

  • Passing derived objects in a constructure

    - by Clarence Klopfstein
    This is a bit of a convoluted question, hopefully I can make it clear. I am finding that this may not be possible, but am trying to see if anybody has a solution. I have four classes, two are core classes and two are those core classes extended: extUser Extends coreUser extSecurity Extends coreSecurity In the constructor for coreUser you have this: public coreUser(string id, ref coreSecurity cs) When trying to extend coreUser you would have this: public extUser(string id ref extSecurity es) : base(id, ref es) This fails because es is of type, extSecurity and the base class expects a type of coreSecurity. I've not found anyway to cast this to allow for me to override this base class in C#. In VB it works just fine. Ideas?

    Read the article

  • Setting the type of a field in a superclass from a subclass (Java)

    - by Ibolit
    Hi. I am writing a project on Google App Engine, within it I have a number of abstract classes that I hope I will be able to use in my future projects, and a number of concrete classes inheriting from them. Among other abstract classes I have an abstract servlet that does user management, and I hava an abstract user. The AbstractUser has all the necessary fields and methods for storing it in the datastore and telling whether the user is registered with my service or not. It does not implement any project specific functionality. The abstract servlet that manages users, refers only to the methods declared in the AbstractUser class, which allows it to generate links for logging in, logging out and registering (for unregistered users). In order to implement the project-specific user functionality I need to subclass the Abstract user. The servlets I use in my project are all indirect descendants from that abstract user management servlet, and the user is a protected field in it, so the descendant servlets can use it as their own field. However, whenever i want to access any project specific method of the concrete user, i need to cast it to that type. i.e. (abstract user managing servlet) ... AbstractUser user = getUser(); ... abstract protected AbstractUser getUser(); (project-specific abstract servlet) @Override protected AbstractUser getUser() { return MyUserFactory.getUser(); } any other project specific servlet: int a = ((ConcreteUser) user).getA(); Well, what i'd like to do is to somehow make the type of “user” in the superclass depend on something in the project-specific abstract class. Is it at all possible? And i don't want to move all the user-management stuff into a project-specific layer, for i would like to have it for my future projects already written :) Thank you for your help.

    Read the article

  • Force calling the derived class implementation within a generic function in C#?

    - by Adam Hardy
    Ok so I'm currently working with a set of classes that I don't have control over in some pretty generic functions using these objects. Instead of writing literally tens of functions that essentially do the same thing for each class I decided to use a generic function instead. Now the classes I'm dealing with are a little weird in that the derived classes share many of the same properties but the base class that they are derived from doesn't. One such property example is .Parent which exists on a huge number of derived classes but not on the base class and it is this property that I need to use. For ease of understanding I've created a small example as follows: class StandardBaseClass {} // These are simulating the SMO objects class StandardDerivedClass : StandardBaseClass { public object Parent { get; set; } } static class Extensions { public static object GetParent(this StandardDerivedClass sdc) { return sdc.Parent; } public static object GetParent(this StandardBaseClass sbc) { throw new NotImplementedException("StandardBaseClass does not contain a property Parent"); } // This is the Generic function I'm trying to write and need the Parent property. public static void DoSomething<T>(T foo) where T : StandardBaseClass { object Parent = ((T)foo).GetParent(); } } In the above example calling DoSomething() will throw the NotImplemented Exception in the base class's implementation of GetParent(), even though I'm forcing the cast to T which is a StandardDerivedClass. This is contrary to other casting behaviour where by downcasting will force the use of the base class's implementation. I see this behaviour as a bug. Has anyone else out there encountered this?

    Read the article

  • Friendness and derived class

    - by ereOn
    Hi, Let's say I have the following class hierarchy: class Base { protected: virtual void foo() = 0; friend class Other; }; class Derived : public Base { protected: void foo() { /* Some implementation */ }; }; class Other { public: void bar() { Derived* a = new Derived(); a->foo(); // Compiler error: foo() is protected within this context }; }; I guess I could change it too a->Base::foo() but since foo() is pure virtual in the Base class, the call will result in calling Derived::foo() anyway. However, the compiler seems to refuse a->foo(). I guess it is logical, but I can't really understand why. Am I missing something ? Can't (shouldn't) it handle this special case ? Thank you.

    Read the article

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