Search Results

Search found 1591 results on 64 pages for 'oop criticism'.

Page 36/64 | < Previous Page | 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43  | Next Page >

  • I'm confused about Polymorphism

    - by Vtanathip
    I'm know polymorphism rule that we can send it via parameter like this code interface Animal { void whoAmI(); } class A implements Animal{ @Override public void whoAmI() { // TODO Auto-generated method stub System.out.println("A"); } } class B implements Animal{ @Override public void whoAmI() { // TODO Auto-generated method stub System.out.println("B"); } } class RuntimePolymorphismDemo { public void WhoRU(List t){ System.out.println(t.getClass()); } public static void main(String[] args) { A a = new A(); B b = new B(); RuntimePolymorphismDemo rp = new RuntimePolymorphismDemo(); rp.WhoRU(a); rp.WhoRU(b); } } but List<Example> examples = new ArrayList<Example>(); This code,I'm don't understand why we must use List. why we can't use like this? ArrayList<Example> examples = new ArrayList<Example>(); Because when we use List we can't use method that only have in ArrayList class like trimToSize() and How I know when to use or not use?

    Read the article

  • 1067: Implicit coercion of a value of type theplayclass to an unrelated type main

    - by Minelava
    I need help because I want to create a gameover screen that display score. However, there's an error that prevent me from transferring the score from theplayclass.as to thegameoverclass.as. Are there ways to pass a value to another movieclip without causing any errors. I refer the source code from this website : http://www.emanueleferonato.com/2008/12/17/designing-the-structure-of-a-flash-game-as3-version/ Here's the error C:\Users\xxx\Downloads\Migrate\test\theplayclass.as, Line 54, Column 41 1067: Implicit coercion of a value of type theplayclass to an unrelated type main. main.as package { import flash.display.MovieClip; import flash.events.Event; public class main extends MovieClip { public var playClass:theplayclass; public var gameOverClass:thegameoverclass; public function main() { showWin(); } public function showWin() { playClass = new theplayclass(this); addChild(playClass); } public function showGameOver() { gameOverClass = new thegameoverclass(this); addChild(gameOverClass); removeChild(playClass); playClass = null; } } } theplayclass.as package { import flash.display.MovieClip; import flash.events.*; public class theplayclass extends MovieClip { private var mainClass:main; var gameScore:Number; var gameOverScore:thegameoverclass; public function theplayclass(passedClass:main) { mainClass = passedClass; scoreText.text ="0"; gameScore = 0; win.addEventListener(MouseEvent.CLICK, showwinFunction); next.addEventListener(MouseEvent.CLICK, showgameoverFunction); addEventListener(Event.ADDED_TO_STAGE, addToStage); addEventListener(Event.ENTER_FRAME, changeScore); } public function addToStage(e:Event):void { this.x = 0; this.y = 0; } private function showwinFunction(e:MouseEvent):void { gameScore+=50; } private function changeScore(e:Event):void { scoreText.text =""+gameScore; } public function showgameoverFunction(e:MouseEvent) { mainClass.showGameOver(); gameOverScore = new thegameoverclass(this); gameOverScore.setTextScore(gameScore); } } } thegameoverclass.as package { import flash.display.MovieClip; import flash.events.MouseEvent; import flash.events.*; public class thegameoverclass extends MovieClip { var mainClass:main; var scorePoints:Number; public function thegameoverclass(passedClass:main) { mainClass = passedClass; finalScore.text = "test"; } public function setTextScore(textToSet:Number) { finalScore.text = ""+scorePoints; } } }

    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

  • Is this a reasonable way to handle getters/setters in a PHP class?

    - by Mark Biek
    I'm going to try something with the format of this question and I'm very open to suggestions about a better way to handle it. I didn't want to just dump a bunch of code in the question so I've posted the code for the class on refactormycode. base-class-for-easy-class-property-handling My thought was that people can either post code snippets here or make changes on refactormycode and post links back to their refactorings. I'll make upvotes and accept an answer (assuming there's a clear "winner") based on that. At any rate, on to the class itself: I see a lot of debate about getter/setter class methods and is it better to just access simple property variables directly or should every class have explicit get/set methods defined, blah blah blah. I like the idea of having explicit methods in case you have to add more logic later. Then you don't have to modify any code that uses the class. However I hate having a million functions that look like this: public function getFirstName() { return $this->firstName; } public function setFirstName($firstName) { return $this->firstName; } Now I'm sure I'm not the first person to do this (I'm hoping that there's a better way of doing it that someone can suggest to me). Basically, the PropertyHandler class has a __call magic method. Any methods that come through __call that start with "get" or "set" are then routed to functions that set or retrieve values into an associative array. The key into the array is the name of the calling method after get or set. So, if the method coming into __call is "getFirstName", the array key is "FirstName". I liked using __call because it will automatically take care of the case where the subclass already has a "getFirstName" method defined. My impression (and I may be wrong) is that the __get & __set magic methods don't do that. So here's an example of how it would work: class PropTest extends PropertyHandler { public function __construct() { parent::__construct(); } } $props = new PropTest(); $props->setFirstName("Mark"); echo $props->getFirstName(); Notice that PropTest doesn't actually have "setFirstName" or "getFirstName" methods and neither does PropertyHandler. All that's doing is manipulating array values. The other case would be where your subclass is already extending something else. Since you can't have true multiple inheritance in PHP, you can make your subclass have a PropertyHandler instance as a private variable. You have to add one more function but then things behave in exactly the same way. class PropTest2 { private $props; public function __construct() { $this->props = new PropertyHandler(); } public function __call($method, $arguments) { return $this->props->__call($method, $arguments); } } $props2 = new PropTest2(); $props2->setFirstName('Mark'); echo $props2->getFirstName(); Notice how the subclass has a __call method that just passes everything along to the PropertyHandler __call method. Another good argument against handling getters and setters this way is that it makes it really hard to document. In fact, it's basically impossible to use any sort of document generation tool since the explicit methods to be don't documented don't exist. I've pretty much abandoned this approach for now. It was an interesting learning exercise but I think it sacrifices too much clarity.

    Read the article

  • Can you explain this generics behavior and if I have a workaround?

    - by insta
    Sample program below: using System; using System.Collections.Generic; using System.Linq; using System.Text; namespace GenericsTest { class Program { static void Main(string[] args) { IRetrievable<int, User> repo = new FakeRepository(); Console.WriteLine(repo.Retrieve(35)); } } class User { public int Id { get; set; } public string Name { get; set; } } class FakeRepository : BaseRepository<User>, ICreatable<User>, IDeletable<User>, IRetrievable<int, User> { // why do I have to implement this here, instead of letting the // TKey generics implementation in the baseclass handle it? //public User Retrieve(int input) //{ // throw new NotImplementedException(); //} } class BaseRepository<TPoco> where TPoco : class,new() { public virtual TPoco Create() { return new TPoco(); } public virtual bool Delete(TPoco item) { return true; } public virtual TPoco Retrieve<TKey>(TKey input) { return null; } } interface ICreatable<TPoco> { TPoco Create(); } interface IDeletable<TPoco> { bool Delete(TPoco item); } interface IRetrievable<TKey, TPoco> { TPoco Retrieve(TKey input); } } This sample program represents the interfaces my actual program uses, and demonstrates the problem I'm having (commented out in FakeRepository). I would like for this method call to be generically handled by the base class (which in my real example is able to handle 95% of the cases given to it), allowing for overrides in the child classes by specifying the type of TKey explicitly. It doesn't seem to matter what parameter constraints I use for the IRetrievable, I can never get the method call to fall through to the base class. Also, if anyone can see an alternate way to implement this kind of behavior and get the result I'm ultimately looking for, I would be very interested to see it. Thoughts?

    Read the article

  • interact with an interface?

    - by ajsie
    from what i've read it seems that one can interact with an interface? eg. lets say that i've got an interface with an empty method "eat()" then 2 subclasses are implementing this interface. can my controller interact with only the interface and use it's eat() method? have a look at the picture in this link strategy

    Read the article

  • Inheriting and overriding interfaces in C#

    - by Daniel A. White
    Please note: I am writing this question. I have these interfaces in a library/framework I am working on: interface IRepository<TKey,TModel> { void Remove(TModel entity); } interface IRepository<T> : IRepository<int, T> { } interface ISoftDeleteRepository<TKey,TModel> : IRepository<TKey, TModel> { } interface ISoftDeleteRepository<TModel> : ISoftDeleteRepository<int, TModel>, IRepository<TModel> { } and these implementations class Repository : IRepository { void Remove(TModel entity) { // actually Delete } } interface IRepository<T> : IRepository<int, T> { } interface ISoftDeleteRepository<TKey,TModel> : IRepository<TKey, TModel> { } interface ISoftDeleteRepository<TModel> : ISoftDeleteRepository<int, TModel>, IRepository<TModel> { }

    Read the article

  • override __set in __construct() in php?

    - by user151841
    I have a class based on database values. I'm using __set to automatically sync database values with the class properties. Set checks an array of database fields that it is allowed to update in the database. The field 'id' isn't in the list, so __set will throw an exception if you try to do $objDbRow->id = 5;. However, there is one time when I do want to set the id property of the object, and that's on instantiation. So in __constuct, I have $this->id = $id (where $id is passed to __construct). However, __set seems to be intercepting the setting here, because an exception is being thrown on construction. What's the way to get around this? I suppose I also have a boolean flag, like $instantiated, that __set() would check before it does it's field whitelist checking. But that feels inelegant.

    Read the article

  • Dilemma with two types and operator +

    - by user35443
    I have small problem with operators. I have this code: public class A { public string Name { get; set; } public A() { } public A(string Name) { this.Name = Name; } public static implicit operator B(A a) { return new B(a.Name); } public static A operator+(A a, A b) { return new A(a.Name + " " + b.Name); } } public class B { public string Name { get; set; } public B() { } public B(string Name) { this.Name = Name; } public static implicit operator A(B b) { return new A(b.Name); } public static B operator +(B b, B a) { return new B(b.Name + " " + a.Name); } } Now I want to know, which's conversion operator will be called and which's addition operator will be called in this operation: new A("a") + new B("b"); Will it be operator of A, or of B? (Or both?) Thanks....

    Read the article

  • Generic overloading tells me this is the same function. Not agree.

    - by serhio
    base class: Class List(Of T) Function Contains(ByVal value As T) As Boolean derived class: Class Bar : List(Of Exception) ' Exception type as example ' Function Contains(Of U)(ByVal value As U) As Boolean compiler tells me that that two are the same, so I need to declare Overloads/new this second function. But I want use U to differentiate the type (one logic) like NullReferenceException, ArgumentNull Exception, etc. but want to leave the base function(no differentiation by type - other logic) as well.

    Read the article

  • How should nested components interact with model in a GUI application?

    - by fig-gnuton
    Broad design/architecture question. If you have nested components in a GUI, what's the most common way for those components to interact with data? For example, let's say a component receives a click on one of its buttons to save data. Should the save request be delegated up that component's ancestors, with the uppermost ancestor ultimately passing the request to a controller? Or are models/datastores in a GUI application typically singletons, so that a component at any level of a hierarchy can directly get/set data? Or is a controller injected as a dependency down the hierarchy of components, so that any given component is only one intermediary away from the datastore/model?

    Read the article

  • How to implement copy operator for such C++ structure?

    - by Kabumbus
    So having struct ResultStructure { ResultStructure(const ResultStructure& other) { // copy code in here ? using memcpy ? how??? } ResultStructure& operator=(const ResultStructure& other) { if (this != &other) { // copy code in here ? } return *this } int length; char* ptr; }; How to implement copy? (sorry - I am C++ nube)

    Read the article

  • AS3 Passing data between objects/classes

    - by 1337holiday
    So i a building a categorized menu of different foods. I have a class for "categories" (buttons) which essentially will return a string "salads", "drinks", etc. I now have another class "menuItems" for items within categories and this handles sizes such as "small", "med", "large", etc. My problem now is that when i return "salads", i want to invoke an array which contains all the elements of salads, send it to menuItems which will populate the menu. So far i have both the category objects and the menu object setup. I just cant seem to be able to send the data that the category object is returning and pass it to the menu object. Both of which are added to the stage as shown below: If there was a way that i could say add all these classes to one class so that they can talk to each other that would be great but i dont know how to do this. Been stuck for hours, please any help is greatly appreciated.

    Read the article

  • how can I get around no arrays as class constants in php?

    - by user151841
    I have a class with a static method. There is an array to check that a string argument passed is a member of a set. But, with the static method, I can't reference the class property in an uninstantiated class, nor can I have an array as a class constant. I suppose I could hard code the array in the static method, but then if I need to change it, I'd have to remember to change it in two places. I'd like to avoid this.

    Read the article

  • Updating the Jpanel of a class

    - by ivor
    Hi, After some advice on using jpanel - I'm new to java and playing around with the GUI elements. Bascially what I'm curious about is if I can set up a Jpanel in one class, then somehow add labels etc to the that container, but from another class. Is this possible ? or do i have to set the entire GUI up in one class, but then I guess I would have the same issue, if I wanted to update those fields I had set up in the main class from another class? Apologies I don't really have any code that's usefull to demostrate here - I'm just trying to get the idea going, working out if its possible before I go ahead. And I'm not even sure if this is possible. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks

    Read the article

  • Hash Tables - Java

    - by Antony
    Am about to do a homework, and i need to store quite a lot of information (Dictionary) in a data structure of my choice. I heard people in my classroom saying hash-tables are the way to go. How come?

    Read the article

  • What is an instance of a field called?

    - by waxwing
    This might be an odd question, but it has actually caused me some headache. In Object oriented programming, there are accepted names for key concepts. In our model, we have classes with methods and fields. Now, going to the data world: An instance of a class is called an object. An instance of a field is called... what? A value? Isn't the term value a little broad for this? I have been offered "property" as well, but isn't property also part of the model and not the data? (This is not purely academic, I am actually coding these concepts.)

    Read the article

  • How to output multiple rows from an SQL query using the mysqli object

    - by Jonathan
    Assuming that the mysqli object is already instantiatied (and connected) with the global variable $mysql, here is the code I am trying to work with. class Listing { private $mysql; function getListingInfo($l_id = "", $category = "", $subcategory = "", $username = "", $status = "active") { $condition = "`status` = '$status'"; if (!empty($l_id)) $condition .= "AND `L_ID` = '$l_id'"; if (!empty($category)) $condition .= "AND `category` = '$category'"; if (!empty($subcategory)) $condition .= "AND `subcategory` = '$subcategory'"; if (!empty($username)) $condition .= "AND `username` = '$username'"; $result = $this->mysql->query("SELECT * FROM listing WHERE $condition") or die('Error fetching values'); $this->listing = $result->fetch_array() or die('could not create object'); foreach ($this->listing as $key => $value) : $info[$key] = stripslashes(html_entity_decode($value)); endforeach; return $info; } } there are several hundred listings in the db and when I call $result-fetch_array() it places in an array the first row in the db. however when I try to call the object, I can't seem to access more than the first row. for instance: $listing_row = new Listing; while ($listing = $listing_row-getListingInfo()) { echo $listing[0]; } this outputs an infinite loop of the same row in the db. Why does it not advance to the next row? if I move the code: $this->listing = $result->fetch_array() or die('could not create object'); foreach ($this->listing as $key => $value) : $info[$key] = stripslashes(html_entity_decode($value)); endforeach; if I move this outside the class, it works exactly as expected outputting a row at a time while looping through the while statement. Is there a way to write this so that I can keep the fetch_array() call in the class and still loop through the records?

    Read the article

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