Search Results

Search found 9518 results on 381 pages for 'explicit implementation'.

Page 38/381 | < Previous Page | 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45  | Next Page >

  • Should '#include' and 'using' statements be repeated in both header and implementation files (C++)?

    - by Dr. Monkey
    I'm fairly new to C++, but my understanding is that a #include statement will essentially just dump the contents of the #included file into the location of that statement. This means that if I have a number of '#include' and 'using' statements in my header file, my implementation file can just #include the header file, and the compiler won't mind if I don't repeat the other statements. What about people though? My main concern is that if I don't repeat the '#include', 'using', and also 'typedef' (now that I think of it) statements, it takes that information away from the file in which it's used, which could lead to confusion. I am just working on small projects at the moment where it won't really cause any issues, but I can imagine that in larger projects with more people working on them it could become a significant issue. An example follows: //Unit.h #include <string> #include <ostream> #include "StringSet.h" using std::string; using std::ostream; class Unit { public: //public members private: //private members //unrelated side-question: should private members //even be included in the header file? } ; //Unit.cpp #include "Unit.h" //The following are all redundant from a compiler perspective: #include <string> #include <ostream> #include "StringSet.h" using std::string; using std::ostream; //implementation goes here

    Read the article

  • Is False == 0 and True == 1 in Python an implementation detail or guaranteed by the language?

    - by EOL
    Is it guaranteed that False == 0 and True == 1, in Python? For instance, is it in any way guaranteed that the following code will always produce the same results, whatever the version of Python (existing and in the foreseeable future)? 0 == False # True 1 == True # True ['zero', 'one'][False] # is 'zero' Any reference to the official documentation would be much appreciated! Other comments would be appreciated too… :) Edit: As noted in many answers, bool inherits from int. The question can therefore be recast as: "Is this an implementation detail that might change in the future, or does the documentation officially say that programmers can rely on booleans inheriting from integers?". This question is relevant for writing robust code that won't fail because of implementation details! Edit 2: The original question is still open, I believe (even though I accepted what I thought was the closest answer): even though Python 3 officially recognizes booleans as integers, I have not yet seen any official integer values for False and True… It therefore looks to me like it is best to stay clear from the assumption that False==0 and True==1.

    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

  • Is this a valid, lazy, thread-safe Singleton implementation for C#?

    - by Matthew
    I implemented a Singleton pattern like this: public sealed class MyClass { ... public static MyClass Instance { get { return SingletonHolder.instance; } } ... static class SingletonHolder { public static MyClass instance = new MyClass (); } } From Googling around for C# Singleton implementations, it doesn't seem like this is a common way to do things in C#. I found one similar implementation, but the SingletonHolder class wasn't static, and included an explicit (empty) static constructor. Is this a valid, lazy, thread-safe way to implement the Singleton pattern? Or is there something I'm missing?

    Read the article

  • Is there any working implementation of reverse mode automatic differentiation for Haskell?

    - by Ian Fiske
    The closest-related implementation in Haskell I have seen is the forward mode at http://hackage.haskell.org/packages/archive/fad/1.0/doc/html/Numeric-FAD.html. The closest related related research appears to be reverse mode for another functional language related to Scheme at http://www.bcl.hamilton.ie/~qobi/stalingrad/. I see reverse mode in Haskell as kind of a holy grail for a lot of tasks, with the hopes that it could use Haskell's nested data parallelism to gain a nice speedup in heavy numerical optimization.

    Read the article

  • Using IoC and Dependency Injection, how do I wrap an existing implementation with a new layer of imp

    - by Dividnedium
    I'm trying to figure out how this would be done in practice, so as not to violate the Open Closed principle. Say I have a class called HttpFileDownloader that has one function that takes a url and downloads a file returning the html as a string. This class implements an IFileDownloader interface which just has the one function. So all over my code I have references to the IFileDownloader interface and I have my IoC container returning an instance of HttpFileDownloader whenever an IFileDownloader is Resolved. Then after some use, it becomes clear that occasionally the server is too busy at the time and an exception is thrown. I decide that to get around this, I'm going to auto-retry 3 times if I get an exception, and wait 5 seconds in between each retry. So I create HttpFileDownloaderRetrier which has one function that uses HttpFileDownloader in a for loop with max 3 loops, and a 5 second wait between each loop. So that I can test the "retry" and "wait" abilities of the HttpFileDownloadRetrier I have the HttpFileDownloader dependency injected by having the HttpFileDownloaderRetrier constructor take an IFileDownloader. So now I want all Resolving of IFileDownloader to return the HttpFileDownloaderRetrier. But if I do that, then HttpFileDownloadRetrier's IFileDownloader dependency will get an instance of itself and not of HttpFileDownloader. So I can see that I could create a new interface for HttpFileDownloader called IFileDownloaderNoRetry, and change HttpFileDownloader to implement that. But that means I'm changing HttpFileDownloader, which violates Open Closed. Or I could implement a new interface for HttpFileDownloaderRetrier called IFileDownloaderRetrier, and then change all my other code to refer to that instead of IFileDownloader. But again, I'm now violating Open Closed in all my other code. So what am I missing here? How do I wrap an existing implementation (downloading) with a new layer of implementation (retrying and waiting) without changing existing code? Here's some code if it helps: public interface IFileDownloader { string Download(string url); } public class HttpFileDownloader : IFileDownloader { public string Download(string url) { //Cut for brevity - downloads file here returns as string return html; } } public class HttpFileDownloaderRetrier : IFileDownloader { IFileDownloader fileDownloader; public HttpFileDownloaderRetrier(IFileDownloader fileDownloader) { this.fileDownloader = fileDownloader; } public string Download(string url) { Exception lastException = null; //try 3 shots of pulling a bad URL. And wait 5 seconds after each failed attempt. for (int i = 0; i < 3; i++) { try { fileDownloader.Download(url); } catch (Exception ex) { lastException = ex; } Utilities.WaitForXSeconds(5); } throw lastException; } }

    Read the article

  • What am I not getting about this abstract class implementation?

    - by Schnapple
    PREFACE: I'm relatively inexperienced in C++ so this very well could be a Day 1 n00b question. I'm working on something whose long term goal is to be portable across multiple operating systems. I have the following files: Utilities.h #include <string> class Utilities { public: Utilities() { }; virtual ~Utilities() { }; virtual std::string ParseString(std::string const& RawString) = 0; }; UtilitiesWin.h (for the Windows class/implementation) #include <string> #include "Utilities.h" class UtilitiesWin : public Utilities { public: UtilitiesWin() { }; virtual ~UtilitiesWin() { }; virtual std::string ParseString(std::string const& RawString); }; UtilitiesWin.cpp #include <string> #include "UtilitiesWin.h" std::string UtilitiesWin::ParseString(std::string const& RawString) { // Magic happens here! // I'll put in a line of code to make it seem valid return ""; } So then elsewhere in my code I have this #include <string> #include "Utilities.h" void SomeProgram::SomeMethod() { Utilities *u = new Utilities(); StringData = u->ParseString(StringData); // StringData defined elsewhere } The compiler (Visual Studio 2008) is dying on the instance declaration c:\somepath\somecode.cpp(3) : error C2259: 'Utilities' : cannot instantiate abstract class due to following members: 'std::string Utilities::ParseString(const std::string &)' : is abstract c:\somepath\utilities.h(9) : see declaration of 'Utilities::ParseString' So in this case what I'm wanting to do is use the abstract class (Utilities) like an interface and have it know to go to the implemented version (UtilitiesWin). Obviously I'm doing something wrong but I'm not sure what. It occurs to me as I'm writing this that there's probably a crucial connection between the UtilitiesWin implementation of the Utilities abstract class that I've missed, but I'm not sure where. I mean, the following works #include <string> #include "UtilitiesWin.h" void SomeProgram::SomeMethod() { Utilities *u = new UtilitiesWin(); StringData = u->ParseString(StringData); // StringData defined elsewhere } but it means I'd have to conditionally go through the different versions later (i.e., UtilitiesMac(), UtilitiesLinux(), etc.) What have I missed here?

    Read the article

  • Where can I find a good software implementation plan template?

    - by Corpsekicker
    This is not "programming" related as much as it is "software engineering" related. I am required to produce an implementation for additional functionality to a complete system. All I am armed with is knowledge of the existing architecture and a functional spec with visual requirements, user stories and use cases. Is there a standardised way to go about this? I suck at documentation.

    Read the article

  • Which implementation of OrderedDict should be used in python2.6?

    - by Jorge Vargas
    As some of you may know in python2.7/3.2 we'll get OrderedDict with PEP372 however one of the reason the PEP existed was because everyone did their own implementation and they were all sightly incompatible. So which one of the 8 current implementations link text is backwards compatible with the 2.7 odict from python 2.7 in a way we can start using that now and depend on 2.7 in a couple of months?

    Read the article

  • what should I take into consideration when choosing a session implementation?

    - by Satoru.Logic
    Hi, all. Yesterday, my supervisor told me that tmp-file-based session should be THE answer to session implementation, and I should abandon any idea of making sessions persistent. He argues that file-based session is much faster and eaiser to use than other choices like db-based or memcached-based implementations. What he said was really a shock to my past learning experience, so please tell me whether he was wrong and why? Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Is there a Javascript cron implementation somewhere that I'm missing?

    - by user173491
    I'm aware of timing issues in Javascript, how its not exact/off by milliseconds etc, but I need something to at least attempt to do browser-based scheduling. In terms of features, I'm thinking something along the lines of scheduling patterns described here: http://www.sauronsoftware.it/projects/cron4j/manual.php#p02 Anything out there? I've done google searches and haven't found any implementation worth nothing.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45  | Next Page >