Search Results

Search found 34893 results on 1396 pages for 'const method'.

Page 4/1396 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Can Eclipse generate method-chaining setters

    - by Chris R
    I'd like to generate method-chaining setters (setters that return the object being set), like so: public MyObject setField (Object value) { this.field = value; return this; } This makes it easier to do one-liner instantiations, which I find easier to read: myMethod (new MyObject ().setField (someValue).setOtherField (someOtherValue)); Can Eclipse's templates be modified to do this? I've changed the content to include return this; but the signature is not changed.

    Read the article

  • Override ActiveRecord#save, Method Alias? Trying to mixin functionality into save method...

    - by viatropos
    Here's the situation: I have a User model, and two modules for authentication: Oauth and Openid. Both of them override ActiveRecord#save, and have a fair share of implementation logic. Given that I can tell when the user is trying to login via Oauth vs. Openid, but that both of them have overridden save, how do "finally" override save such that I can conditionally call one of the modules' implementations of it? Here is the base structure of what I'm describing: module UsesOauth def self.included(base) base.class_eval do def save puts "Saving with Oauth!" end def save_with_oauth save end end end end module UsesOpenid def self.included(base) base.class_eval do def save puts "Saving with OpenID!" end def save_with_openid save end end end end module Sequencer def save if using_oauth? save_with_oauth elsif using_openid? save_with_openid else super end end end class User < ActiveRecord::Base include UsesOauth include UsesOpenid include Sequencer end I was thinking about using alias_method like so, but that got too complicated, because I might have 1 or 2 more similar modules. I also tried using those save_with_oauth methods (shown above), which almost works. The only thing that's missing is that I also need to call ActiveRecord::Base#save (the super method), so something like this: def save_with_oauth # do this and that super.save # the rest end But I'm not allowed to do that in ruby. Any ideas for a clever solution to this?

    Read the article

  • boost::dynamic_pointer_cast with const pointer not working ?

    - by ereOn
    Hi, Let's say I have two classes, A and B, where B is a child class of A. I also have the following function: void foo(boost::shared_ptr<const A> a) { boost::shared_ptr<const B> b = boost::dynamic_pointer_cast<const B>(a); // Error ! } Compilation with gcc gives me the following errors: C:\Boost\include/boost/smart_ptr/shared_ptr.hpp: In constructor 'boost::shared_ptr< <template-parameter-1-1> >::shared_ptr(const boost::shared_ptr<Y>&, boost::detail::dynamic_cast_tag) [with Y = const A, T = const B]': C:\Boost\include/boost/smart_ptr/shared_ptr.hpp:522: instantiated from 'boost::shared_ptr<X> boost::dynamic_pointer_cast(const boost::shared_ptr<U>&) [with T = const B, U = const A]' src\a.cpp:10: instantiated from here C:\Boost\include/boost/smart_ptr/shared_ptr.hpp:259: error: cannot dynamic_cast 'r->boost::shared_ptr<const A>::px' (of type 'const class A* const') to type 'const class B*' (source type is not polymorphic) What could possibly be wrong ? Thank you.

    Read the article

  • When does a const return type interfere with template instantiation?

    - by Rimo
    From Herb Sutter's GotW #6 Return-by-value should normally be const for non-builtin return types. ... Note: Lakos (pg. 618) argues against returning const value, and notes that it is redundant for builtins anyway (for example, returning "const int"), which he notes may interfere with template instantiation. While Sutter seems to disagree on whether to return a const value or non-const value when returning an object of a non-built type by value with Lakos, he generally agrees that returning a const value of a built-in type (e.g const int) is not a good idea. While I understand why that is useless because the return value cannot be modified as it is an rvalue, I cannot find an example of how that might interfere with template instantiation. Please give me an example of how having a const qualifier for a return type might interfere with template instantiation.

    Read the article

  • Python to C/C++ const char question

    - by tsukemonoki
    I am extending Python with some C++ code. One of the functions I'm using has the following signature: int PyArg_ParseTupleAndKeywords(PyObject *arg, PyObject *kwdict, char *format, char **kwlist, ...); (link: http://docs.python.org/release/1.5.2p2/ext/parseTupleAndKeywords.html) The parameter of interest is kwlist. In the link above, examples on how to use this function are given. In the examples, kwlist looks like: static char *kwlist[] = {"voltage", "state", "action", "type", NULL}; When I compile this using g++, I get the warning: warning: deprecated conversion from string constant to ‘char*’ So, I can change the static char* to a static const char*. Unfortunately, I can't change the Python code. So with this change, I get a different compilation error (can't convert char** to const char**). Based on what I've read here, I can turn on compiler flags to ignore the warning or I can cast each of the constant strings in the definition of kwlist to char *. Currently, I'm doing the latter. What are other solutions? Sorry if this question has been asked before. I'm new.

    Read the article

  • Why does Java's invokevirtual need to resolve the called method's compile-time class?

    - by Chris
    Consider this simple Java class: class MyClass { public void bar(MyClass c) { c.foo(); } } I want to discuss what happens on the line c.foo(). At the bytecode level, the meat of c.foo() will be the invokevirtual opcode, and, according to the documentation for invokevirtual, more or less the following will happen: Look up the foo method defined in compile-time class MyClass. (This involves first resolving MyClass.) Do some checks, including: Verify that c is not an initialization method, and verify that calling MyClass.foo wouldn't violate any protected modifiers. Figure out which method to actually call. In particular, look up c's runtime type. If that type has foo(), call that method and return. If not, look up c's runtime type's superclass; if that type has foo, call that method and return. If not, look up c's runtime type's superclass's superclass; if that type has foo, call that method and return. Etc.. If no suitable method can be found, then error. Step #3 alone seems adequate for figuring out which method to call and verifying that said method has the correct argument/return types. So my question is why step #1 gets performed in the first place. Possible answers seem to be: You don't have enough information to perform step #3 until step #1 is complete. (This seems implausible at first glance, so please explain.) The linking or access modifier checks done in #1 and #2 are essential to prevent certain bad things from happening, and those checks must be performed based on the compile-time type, rather than the run-time type hierarchy. (Please explain.)

    Read the article

  • how to pass vector of string to foo(char const *const *const)?

    - by user347208
    Hi, This is my first post so please be nice. I searched in this forum and googled but I still can not find the answer. This problem has bothered me for more than a day, so please give me some help. Thank you. I need to pass a vector of string to a library function foo(char const *const *const). I can not pass the &Vec[0] since it's a pointer to a string. Therefore, I have an array and pass the c_str() to that array. The following is my code (aNames is the vector of string): const char* aR[aNames.size()]; std::transform(aNames.begin(), aNames.end(), aR, boost::bind(&std::string::c_str, _1)); foo(aR); However, it seems it causes some undefined behavior: If I run the above code, then the function foo throw some warnings about illegal characters ('èI' blablabla) in aR. If I print aR before function foo like this: std::copy(aR, aR+rowNames.size(), std::ostream_iterator<const char*>(std::cout, "\n")); foo(aR); Then, everything is fine. My questions are: Does the conversion causes undefined behavior? If so, why? What is the correct way to pass vector of string to foo(char const *const *const)? Thank you very much for your help!

    Read the article

  • Naming Suggestions For A Function Providing Method Chaining In A Different Way

    - by sid3k
    I've coded an experimental function which makes passed objects chainable by using high order functions. It's name is "chain" for now, and here is a usage example; chain("Hello World") (print) // evaluates print function by passing "Hello World" object. (console.log,"Optional","Parameters") (returnfrom) // returns "Hello World" It looks lispy but behaves very different since it's coded in a C based language, I don't know if there is a name for this idiom and I couldn't any name more suitable than "chain". Any ideas, suggestions?

    Read the article

  • Static method , Abstract method , Interface method comparision ?

    - by programmerist
    When i choose these methods? i can not decide which one i must prefer or when will i use one of them?which one give best performance? First Type Usage public abstract class _AccessorForSQL { public virtual bool Save(string sp, ListDictionary ld, CommandType cmdType); public virtual bool Update(); public virtual bool Delete(); public virtual DataSet Select(); } class GenAccessor : _AccessorForSQL { DataSet ds; DataTable dt; public override bool Save(string sp, ListDictionary ld, CommandType cmdType) { } public override bool Update() { return true; } public override bool Delete() { return true; } public override DataSet Select() { DataSet dst = new DataSet(); return dst; } Second Type Usage Also i can write it below codes: public class GenAccessor { public Static bool Save() { } public Static bool Update() { } public Static bool Delete() { } } Third Type Usage Also i can write it below codes: public interface IAccessorForSQL { bool Delete(); bool Save(string sp, ListDictionary ld, CommandType cmdType); DataSet Select(); bool Update(); } public class _AccessorForSQL : IAccessorForSQL { private DataSet ds; private DataTable dt; public virtual bool Save(string sp, ListDictionary ld, CommandType cmdType) { } } } I can use first one below usage: GenAccessor gen = New GenAccessor(); gen.Save(); I can use second one below usage: GenAccessor.Save(); Which one do you prefer? When will i use them? which time i need override method ? which time i need static method?

    Read the article

  • Memory leak dyld dlopen

    - by imthi
    I am getting leak and I cannot detect from where this is happening. The stack trace does not give full info after dyld open. For few leaks I am not getting any stack trace info. All I get is only object memory address. Is anyone else facing the same issue. I am using XCode 3.2 on show leopard. 18 0x103038 17 0x1033c7 16 0x1034a1 15 0x90145f48 14 dyld dlopen 13 dyld dyld::link(ImageLoader*, bool, ImageLoader::RPathChain const&) 12 dyld ImageLoader::link(ImageLoader::LinkContext const&, bool, bool, ImageLoader::RPathChain const&) 11 dyld ImageLoader::recursiveLoadLibraries(ImageLoader::LinkContext const&, bool, ImageLoader::RPathChain const&) 10 dyld dyld::libraryLocator(char const*, bool, char const*, ImageLoader::RPathChain const*) 9 dyld dyld::load(char const*, dyld::LoadContext const&) 8 dyld dyld::loadPhase0(char const*, dyld::LoadContext const&, std::vector<char const*, std::allocator<char const*> >*) 7 dyld dyld::loadPhase1(char const*, dyld::LoadContext const&, std::vector<char const*, std::allocator<char const*> >*) 6 dyld dyld::loadPhase3(char const*, dyld::LoadContext const&, std::vector<char const*, std::allocator<char const*> >*) 5 dyld dyld::loadPhase4(char const*, dyld::LoadContext const&, std::vector<char const*, std::allocator<char const*> >*) 4 dyld dyld::loadPhase5(char const*, dyld::LoadContext const&, std::vector<char const*, std::allocator<char const*> >*) 3 dyld dyld::mkstringf(char const*, ...) 2 dyld strdup 1 dyld mallocenter

    Read the article

  • The Template Method Design Pattern using C# .Net

    - by nijhawan.saurabh
    First of all I'll just put this pattern in context and describe its intent as in the GOF book:   Template Method: Define the skeleton of an algorithm in an operation, deferring some steps to Subclasses. Template Method lets subclasses redefine certain steps of an algorithm without changing the Algorithm's Structure.    Usage: When you are certain about the High Level steps involved in an Algorithm/Work flow you can use the Template Pattern which allows the Base Class to define the Sequence of the Steps but permits the Sub classes to alter the implementation of any/all steps.   Example in the .Net framework: The most common example is the Asp.Net Page Life Cycle. The Page Life Cycle has a few methods which are called in a sequence but we have the liberty to modify the functionality of any of the methods by overriding them.   Sample implementation of Template Method Pattern:   Let's see the class diagram first:            Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0in; mso-para-margin-right:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:8.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0in; line-height:107%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi; mso-font-kerning:1.0pt; mso-ligatures:standard;}   And here goes the code:EmailBase.cs     1 using System;     2 using System.Collections.Generic;     3 using System.Linq;     4 using System.Text;     5 using System.Threading.Tasks;     6      7 namespace TemplateMethod     8 {     9     public abstract class EmailBase    10     {    11     12         public bool SendEmail()    13         {    14             if (CheckEmailAddress() == true) // Method1 in the sequence    15             {    16                 if (ValidateMessage() == true) // Method2 in the sequence    17                 {    18                     if (SendMail() == true) // Method3 in the sequence    19                     {    20                         return true;    21                     }    22                     else    23                     {    24                         return false;    25                     }    26     27                 }    28                 else    29                 {    30                     return false;    31                 }    32     33             }    34             else    35             {    36                 return false;    37     38             }    39     40     41         }    42     43         protected abstract bool CheckEmailAddress();    44         protected abstract bool ValidateMessage();    45         protected abstract bool SendMail();    46     47     48     }    49 }    50    EmailYahoo.cs      1 using System;     2 using System.Collections.Generic;     3 using System.Linq;     4 using System.Text;     5 using System.Threading.Tasks;     6      7 namespace TemplateMethod     8 {     9     public class EmailYahoo:EmailBase    10     {    11     12         protected override bool CheckEmailAddress()    13         {    14             Console.WriteLine("Checking Email Address : YahooEmail");    15             return true;    16         }    17         protected override bool ValidateMessage()    18         {    19             Console.WriteLine("Validating Email Message : YahooEmail");    20             return true;    21         }    22     23     24         protected override bool SendMail()    25         {    26             Console.WriteLine("Semding Email : YahooEmail");    27             return true;    28         }    29     30     31     }    32 }    33   EmailGoogle.cs      1 using System;     2 using System.Collections.Generic;     3 using System.Linq;     4 using System.Text;     5 using System.Threading.Tasks;     6      7 namespace TemplateMethod     8 {     9     public class EmailGoogle:EmailBase    10     {    11     12         protected override bool CheckEmailAddress()    13         {    14             Console.WriteLine("Checking Email Address : GoogleEmail");    15             return true;    16         }    17         protected override bool ValidateMessage()    18         {    19             Console.WriteLine("Validating Email Message : GoogleEmail");    20             return true;    21         }    22     23     24         protected override bool SendMail()    25         {    26             Console.WriteLine("Semding Email : GoogleEmail");    27             return true;    28         }    29     30     31     }    32 }    33   Program.cs      1 using System;     2 using System.Collections.Generic;     3 using System.Linq;     4 using System.Text;     5 using System.Threading.Tasks;     6      7 namespace TemplateMethod     8 {     9     class Program    10     {    11         static void Main(string[] args)    12         {    13             Console.WriteLine("Please choose an Email Account to send an Email:");    14             Console.WriteLine("Choose 1 for Google");    15             Console.WriteLine("Choose 2 for Yahoo");    16             string choice = Console.ReadLine();    17     18             if (choice == "1")    19             {    20                 EmailBase email = new EmailGoogle(); // Rather than newing it up here, you may use a factory to do so.    21                 email.SendEmail();    22     23             }    24             if (choice == "2")    25             {    26                 EmailBase email = new EmailYahoo(); // Rather than newing it up here, you may use a factory to do so.    27                 email.SendEmail();    28             }    29         }    30     }    31 }    32    Final Words: It's very obvious that why the Template Method Pattern is a popular pattern, everything at last revolves around Algorithms and if you are clear with the steps involved it makes real sense to delegate the duty of implementing the step's functionality to the sub classes. Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin-top:0in; mso-para-margin-right:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:8.0pt; mso-para-margin-left:0in; line-height:107%; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:11.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi; mso-font-kerning:1.0pt; mso-ligatures:standard;}

    Read the article

  • static, define, and const in C

    - by yCalleecharan
    Hi, I've read that static variables are used inside function when one doesn't want the variable value to change/initialize each time the function is called. But what about defining a variable static in the main program before "main" e.g. #include <stdio.h> static double m = 30000; int main(void) { value = m * 2 + 3; } Here the variable m has a constant value that won't get modified later in the main program. In the same line of thought what difference does it make to have these instead of using the static definition: const double m = 30000; or #define m 30000 //m or M and then making sure here to use double operations in the main code so as to convert m to the right data type. Thanks a lot...

    Read the article

  • int vs const int&

    - by Valdo
    I've noticed that I usually use constant references as return values or arguments. I think the reason is that it works almost the same as using non-reference in the code. But it definitely takes more space and function declarations become longer. I'm OK with such code but I think some people my find it a bad programming style. What do you think? Is it worth writing const int& over int? I think it's optimized by the compiler anyway, so maybe I'm just wasting my time coding it, a?

    Read the article

  • Ajax method within a added method in jQuery validator

    - by nikospkrk
    Hi, I'm kind of stuck with this pretty simple (I'm sure) jQuery/Javascript issue. Here's the code : jQuery.validator.addMethod("emailExists", function(value, element, param) { var email = value || ''; var valid = 0; $.ajax({ type: "POST", url: param, data: "email=" + email, success: function(msg) { if (msg != '' && msg) { valid = 0; } else { valid = 1; } } }); return valid; }, "* Email address already registered, please login."); This function is called where a user type his email address in a registration form, and everything seems to work perfectly, except that my valid variable returned isn't updated, whereas when I use an alert box it is properly done! It looks like it return the value before the AJAX is done, any idea? Cheers, Nicolas.

    Read the article

  • C# String.format extension method

    - by Paul Roe
    With the addtion of Extension methods to C# we've seen a lot of them crop up in our group. One debate revolves around extension methods like this one: public static class StringExt { /// <summary> /// Shortcut for string.Format. /// </summary> /// <param name="str"></param> /// <param name="args"></param> /// <returns></returns> public static string Format(this string str, params object[] args) { if (str == null) return null; return string.Format(str, args); } } Does this extension method break any programming best practices that you can name? Would you use it anyway, if not why? If I renamed the function to "F" but left the xml comments would that be epic fail or just a wonderful savings of keystrokes?

    Read the article

  • Why setter method when getter method enough in PHP OOP

    - by phphunger
    I am practicing OOP with PHP, and I am struck at setter and getter methods. I can directly access the class properties and methods with getter method then what's the use of setter method? See my example. <?php class MyClass{ public $classVar = "Its a class variable"; public function Getter(){ return $this -> classVar; } } $obj = new MyClass; echo $obj -> Getter(); ?>

    Read the article

  • Why isn't the compiler smarter in this const function overloading problem?

    - by Frank
    The following code does not compile: #include <iostream> class Foo { std::string s; public: const std::string& GetString() const { return s; } std::string* GetString() { return &s; } }; int main(int argc, char** argv){ Foo foo; const std::string& s = foo.GetString(); // error return 0; } I get the following error: const1.cc:11: error: invalid initialization of reference of type 'const std::string&' from expression of type 'std::string* It does make some sense because foo is not of type const Foo, but just Foo, so the compiler wants to use the non-const function. But still, why can't it recognize that I want to call the const GetString function, by looking at the (type of) variable I assign it to? I found this kind of surprising.

    Read the article

  • Better solution then simple factory method when concrete implementations have different attributes

    - by danip
    abstract class Animal { function eat() {..} function sleep() {..} function isSmart() } class Dog extends Animal { public $blnCanBark; function isSmart() { return $this->blnCanBark; } } class Cat extends Animal { public $blnCanJumpHigh; function isSmart() { return $this->blnCanJumpHigh; } } .. and so on up to 10-20 animals. Now I created a factory using simple factory method and try to create instances like this: class AnimalFactory { public static function create($strName) { switch($strName) { case 'Dog': return new Dog(); case 'Cat': return new Cat(); default: break; } } } The problem is I can't set the specific attributes like blnCanBark, blnCanJumpHigh in an efficient way. I can send all of them as extra params to create but this will not scale to more then a few classes. Also I can't break the inheritance because a lot of the basic functionality is the same. Is there a better pattern to solve this?

    Read the article

  • DLL Exports: not all my functions are exported

    - by carmellose
    I'm trying to create a Windows DLL which exports a number of functions, howver all my functions are exported but one !! I can't figure it out. The macro I use is this simple one : __declspec(dllexport) void myfunction(); It works for all my functions except one. I've looked inside Dependency Walker and here they all are, except one. How can that be ? What would be the cause for that ? I'm stuck. Edit: to be more precise, here is the function in the .h : namespace my { namespace great { namespace namespaaace { __declspec(dllexport) void prob_dump(const char *filename, const double p[], int nx, const double Q[], const double xlow[], const char ixlow[], const double xupp[], const char ixupp[], const double A[], int my, const double bA[], const double C[], int mz, const double clow[], const char iclow[], const double cupp[], const char icupp[] ); }}} And in the .cpp file it goes like this: namespace my { namespace great { namespace namespaaace { namespace { void dump_mtx(std::ostream& ostr, const double *mtx, int rows, int cols, const char *ind = 0) { /* some random code there, nothing special, no statics whatsoever */ } } // end anonymous namespace here // dump the problem specification into a file void prob_dump( const char *filename, const double p[], int nx, const double Q[], const double xlow[], const char ixlow[], const double xupp[], const char ixupp[], const double A[], int my, const double bA[], const double C[], int mz, const double clow[], const char iclow[], const double cupp[], const char icupp[] ) { std::ofstream fout; fout.open(filename, std::ios::trunc); /* implementation there */ dump_mtx(fout, Q, nx, nx); } }}} Thanks

    Read the article

  • return value (not a reference) from the function, bound to a const reference in the calling function

    - by brainydexter
    "If you return a value (not a reference) from the function, then bind it to a const reference in the calling function, its lifetime would be extended to the scope of the calling function." So: const BoundingBox Player::GetBoundingBox(void) { return BoundingBox( &GetBoundingSphere() ); } Returns a value of type const BoundingBox from function GetBoundingBox() Called function: (From within function Update() the following is called:) variant I: (Bind it to a const reference) const BoundingBox& l_Bbox = l_pPlayer->GetBoundingBox(); variant II: (Bind it to a const copy) const BoundingBox l_Bbox = l_pPlayer->GetBoundingBox(); Both work fine and I don't see the l_Bbox object going out of scope. (Though, I understand in variant one, the copy constructor is not called and thus is slightly better than variant II). Also, for comparison, I made the following changes. BoundingBox Player::GetBoundingBox(void) { return BoundingBox( &GetBoundingSphere() ); } with Variants: I BoundingBox& l_Bbox = l_pPlayer->GetBoundingBox(); and II: BoundingBox l_Bbox = l_pPlayer->GetBoundingBox(); The objet l_Bbox still does not out scope. So, I don't see how "bind it to a const reference in the calling function, its lifetime would be extended to the scope of the calling function", really extends the lifetime of the object to the scope of the calling function ? Am I missing something trivial here..please explain .. Thanks a lot

    Read the article

  • When should method overloads be refactored?

    - by Ben Heley
    When should code that looks like: DoThing(string foo, string bar); DoThing(string foo, string bar, int baz, bool qux); ... DoThing(string foo, string bar, int baz, bool qux, string more, string andMore); Be refactored into something that can be called like so: var doThing = new DoThing(foo, bar); doThing.more = value; doThing.andMore = otherValue; doThing.Go(); Or should it be refactored into something else entirely? In the particular case that inspired this question, it's a public interface for an XSLT templating DLL where we've had to add various flags (of various types) that can't be embedded into the string XML input.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >