Search Results

Search found 2390 results on 96 pages for 'concrete inheritance'.

Page 36/96 | < Previous Page | 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43  | Next Page >

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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++ 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

  • C# property exactly the same, defined in two places

    - by Sarah Vessels
    I have the following classes: Defect - represents a type of data that can be found in a database FilterQuery - provides a way of querying the database by setting simple Boolean filters Both Defect and FilterQuery implement the same interface: IDefectProperties. This interface specifies particular fields that are in the database. Different classes have methods that return lists of Defect instances. With FilterQuery, you specify some filters for the particular properties implemented as part of IDefectProperties, and then you run the query and get back a list of Defect instances. My problem is that I end up implementing some properties exactly the same in FilterQuery and Defect. The two are inherently different classes, they just share some of the same properties. For example: public DateTime SubmitDateAsDate { get { return DateTime.Parse(SubmitDate); } set { SubmitDate = value.ToString(); } } This is a property required by IDefectProperties that depends on a different property, SubmitDate, which returns a string instead of a DateTime. Now SubmitDate is implemented differently in Defect and FilterQuery, but SubmitDateAsDate is exactly the same. Is there a way that I can define SubmitDateAsDate in only place, but both Defect and FilterQuery provide it as a property? FilterQuery and Defect already inherit from two different classes, and it wouldn't make sense for them to share an ancestor anyway, I think. I am open to suggestions as to my design here as well.

    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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • select from multiple tables with different columns

    - by Qaiser Iftikhar
    Say I got this sql schema. Table Job: id,title, type, is_enabled Table JobFileCopy: job_id,from_path,to_path Table JobFileDelete: job_id, file_path Table JobStartProcess: job_id, file_path, arguments, working_directory There are many other tables with varying number of columns and they all got foreign key job_id which is linked to id in table Job. My questions: Is this the right approach? I don't have requirement to delete anything at anytime. I will require to select and insert mostly. Secondly, what is the best approach to get the list of jobs with relevant details from all the different tables in a single database hit? e.g I would like to select top 20 jobs with details, their details can be in any table (depends on column type in table Job) which I don't know until runtime. Thanks in advance. Regards,

    Read the article

  • When calling a static method on parent class, can the parent class deduce the type on the child (C#)

    - by Matt
    Suppose we have 2 classes, Child, and the class from which it inherits, Parent. class Parent { public static void MyFunction(){} } class Child : Parent { } Is it possible to determine in the parent class how the method was called? Because we can call it two ways: Parent.MyFunction(); Child.MyFunction(); My current approach was trying to use: MethodInfo.GetCurrentMethod().ReflectedType; // and MethodInfo.GetCurrentMethod().DeclaringType; But both appear to return the Parent type. If you are wondering what, exactly I am trying to accomplish (and why I am violating the basic OOP rule that the parent shouldn't have to know anything about the child), the short of it is this (let me know if you want the long version): I have a Model structure representing some of our data that persists to the database. All of these models inherit from an abstract Parent. This parent implements a couple of events, such as SaveEvent, DeleteEvent, etc. We want to be able to subscribe to events specific to the type. So, even though the event is in the parent, I want to be able to do: Child.SaveEvent += new EventHandler((sender, args) => {}); I have everything in place, where the event is actually backed by a dictionary of event handlers, hashed by type. The last thing I need to get working is correctly detecting the Child type, when doing Child.SaveEvent. I know I can implement the event in each child class (even forcing it through use of abstract), but it would be nice to keep it all in the parent, which is the class actually firing the events (since it implements the common save/delete/change functionality).

    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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • Root base class in C++

    - by Littlesmith
    Every object in .NET inherits (directly or indirectly) from the common root base "Object". Is there such a common object root in C++? How do I pass any object to a function? public void DoSomeStuff(object o) { ... }

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43  | Next Page >