Search Results

Search found 17407 results on 697 pages for 'static constructor'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 38/697 | < Previous Page | 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45  | Next Page >

  • Are there any tools for performing static analysis of Scala code?

    - by Roman Kagan
    Are there any tools for performing static analysis of Scala code, similar to FindBugs and PMD for Java or Splint for C/C++? I know that FindBugs works on the bytecode produced by compiling Java, so I'm curious as to how it would work on Scala. Google searches (as of 27 October 2009) reveal very little. Google searches (as of 01 February 2010) reveal this question.

    Read the article

  • Android Custom View Constructor

    - by Mitch
    I'm learning about using Custom Views from the following: http://developer.android.com/guide/topics/ui/custom-components.html#modifying The description says: Class Initialization As always, the super is called first. Furthermore, this is not a default constructor, but a parameterized one. The EditText is created with these parameters when it is inflated from an XML layout file, thus, our constructor needs to both take them and pass them to the superclass constructor as well. Is there a better description? I've been trying to figure out what the constructor(s) should look like and I've come up with 4 possible choices (see example at end of post). I'm not sure what these 4 choices do (or don't do), why I should implement them, or what the parameters mean. Is there a description of these? Thanks. Mitch public MyCustomView() { super(); } public MyCustomView(Context context) { super(context); } public MyCustomView(Context context, AttributeSet attrs) { super(context, attrs); } public MyCustomView(Context context, AttributeSet attrs, Map params) { super(context, attrs, params); }

    Read the article

  • Boost Python : How to only expose the constructor of a class with virtual (pure & impure) methods

    - by fallino
    Hello, I'm a newbie with Boost::Python but I tried to search on the web to do so I want to expose a 3rd party library to Python. One of the class of the library (.hpp) is composed of a public constructor with arguments a protected constructor and functions various regular functions various pure virtual functions various non pure virtual functions First, I did not succeed in building it without having errors about this protected constructor. I finally commented it. A first question would be : Is there a way to exclude these protected functions since I don't want to expose them ? (I know it's possible and easy with Py++, but I started without using it) Then I tried to expose all of my functions, beginning with the pure virtual ones (commenting them all except one), which wasn't a success too So I finally decided not to expose these virtual functions (which in fact seems logical...), but, here again, I didn't manage building it with a simple constructor with arguments (without no_init). So my second question is : Is there a way to exclude these virtual functions since I don't want to expose them ? Sorry if it seems trivial but I didn't find anything explicit on the web and I need something rather explicit :). Thanks in advance

    Read the article

  • Swig: No Constructor defined

    - by wheaties
    I added %allowexcept to my *.i file when building a Python <-- C++ bridge using Swig. Then I removed that preprocessing directive. Now I can't get the Python produced code to recognize the constructor of a C++ class. Here's the class file: #include <exception> class Swig_Foo{ public: Swig_Foo(){} virtual ~Swig_Foo(){} virtual getInt() =0; virtual throwException() { throw std::exception(); } }; And here's the code Swig produces from it: class Swig_Foo: __swig_setmethods__ = {} __setattr__ = lambda self, name, value: _swig_setattr(self, Swig_Foo, name, value) __swig_getmethods__ = {} __getattr__ = lambda self, name: _swig_getattr(self, Swig_Foo, name) def __init__(self): raise AttributeError, "No constructor defined" __repr__ = _swig_repr __swig_destroy__ = _foo.delete_Swig_Foo __del__ = lambda self : None; def getInt(*args): return apply(_foo.Swig_Foo_getInt, args) def throwOut(*args): return apply(_foo.Swig_Foo_throwOut, args) Swig_Foo_swigregister = _foo.Swig_Foo_swigregister Swig_Foo_swigregister(Swig_Foo) The problem is the def __init__self): raise AttributeError, "No constructor defined" portion. It never did this before I added the %allowexception and now that I've removed it, I can't get it to create a real constructor. All the other classes have actual constructors. Quite baffled. Anyone know how I can get it to stop doing this?

    Read the article

  • Constructor and Destructors in C++ [Not a question] [closed]

    - by Jack
    I am using gcc. Please tell me if I am wrong - Lets say I have two classes A & B class A { public: A(){cout<<"A constructor"<<endl;} ~A(){cout<<"A destructor"<<endl;} }; class B:public A { public: B(){cout<<"B constructor"<<endl;} ~B(){cout<<"B destructor"<<endl;} }; 1) The first line in B's constructor should be a call to A's constructor ( I assume compiler automatically inserts it). Also the last line in B's destructor will be a call to A's destructor (compiler does it again). Why was it built this way? 2) When I say A * a = new B(); compiler creates a new B object and checks to see if A is a base class of B and if it is it allows 'a' to point to the newly created object. I guess that is why we don't need any virtual constructors. ( with help from @Tyler McHenry , @Konrad Rudolph) 3) When I write delete a compiler sees that a is an object of type A so it calls A's destructor leading to a problem which is solved by making A's destructor virtual. As user - Little Bobby Tables pointed out to me all destructors have the same name destroy() in memory so we can implement virtual destructors and now the call is made to B's destructor and all is well in C++ land. Please comment.

    Read the article

  • Dependency Properties, change notification and setting values in the constructor

    - by stefan.at.wpf
    Hello, I have a clas with 3 dependency properties A,B,C. The values of these properties are set by the constructor and every time one of the properties A, B or C changes, the method recalculate() is called. Now during execution of the constructor these method is called 3 times, because the 3 properties A, B, C are changed. Hoewever this isn't necessary as the method recalculate() can't do anything really useful without all 3 properties set. So what's the best way for property change notification but circumventing this change notification in the constructor? I thought about adding the property changed notification in the constructor, but then each object of the DPChangeSample class would always add more and more change notifications. Thanks for any hint! class DPChangeSample : DependencyObject { public static DependencyProperty AProperty = DependencyProperty.Register("A", typeof(int), typeof(DPChangeSample), new PropertyMetadata(propertyChanged)); public static DependencyProperty BProperty = DependencyProperty.Register("B", typeof(int), typeof(DPChangeSample), new PropertyMetadata(propertyChanged)); public static DependencyProperty CProperty = DependencyProperty.Register("C", typeof(int), typeof(DPChangeSample), new PropertyMetadata(propertyChanged)); private static void propertyChanged(DependencyObject d, DependencyPropertyChangedEventArgs e) { ((DPChangeSample)d).recalculate(); } private void recalculate() { // Using A, B, C do some cpu intensive caluclations } public DPChangeSample(int a, int b, int c) { SetValue(AProperty, a); SetValue(BProperty, b); SetValue(CProperty, c); } }

    Read the article

  • Attaching methods to prototype from within constructor function

    - by Matthew Taylor
    Here is the textbook standard way of describing a 'class' or constructor function in JavaScript, straight from the Definitive Guide to JavaScript: function Rectangle(w,h) { this.width = w; this.height = h; } Rectangle.prototype.area = function() { return this.width * this.height; }; I don't like the dangling prototype manipulation here, so I was trying to think of a way to encapsulate the function definition for area inside the constructor. I came up with this, which I did not expect to work: function Rectangle(w,h) { this.width = w; this.height = h; this.constructor.prototype.area = function() { return this.width * this.height; }; } I didn't expect this to work because the this reference inside the area function should be pointing to the area function itself, so I wouldn't have access to width and height from this. But it turns out I do! var rect = new Rectangle(2,3); var area = rect.area(); // great scott! it is 6 Some further testing confirmed that the this reference inside the area function actually was a reference to the object under construction, not the area function itself. function Rectangle(w,h) { this.width = w; this.height = h; var me = this; this.constructor.prototype.whatever = function() { if (this === me) { alert ('this is not what you think');} }; } Turns out the alert pops up, and this is exactly the object under construction. So what is going on here? Why is this not the this I expect it to be?

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

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