Search Results

Search found 33640 results on 1346 pages for 'java generics'.

Page 413/1346 | < Previous Page | 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420  | Next Page >

  • How can I make the C# compiler infer these type parameters automatically?

    - by John Feminella
    I have some code that looks like the following. First I have some domain classes and some special comparators for them. public class Fruit { public int Calories { get; set; } public string Name { get; set; } } public class FruitEqualityComparer : IEqualityComparer<Fruit> { // ... } public class BasketEqualityComparer : IEqualityComparer<IEnumerable<Fruit>> { // ... } Next, I have a helper class called ConstraintChecker. It has a simple BaseEquals method that makes sure some simple base cases are considered: public static class ConstraintChecker { public static bool BaseEquals(T lhs, T rhs) { bool sameObject = l == r; bool leftNull = l == null; bool rightNull = r == null; return sameObject && !leftNull && !rightNull; } There's also a SemanticEquals method which is just a BaseEquals check and a comparator function that you specify. public static bool SemanticEquals<T>(T lhs, T rhs, Func<T, T, bool> f) { return BaseEquals(lhs, rhs) && f(lhs, rhs); } And finally there's a SemanticSequenceEquals method which accepts two IEnumerable<T> instances to compare, and an IEqualityComparer instance that will get called on each pair of elements in the list via Enumerable.SequenceEquals. public static bool SemanticSequenceEquals<T, U, V>(U lhs, U rhs, V comparator) where U : IEnumerable<T> where V : IEqualityComparer<T> { return SemanticEquals(lhs, rhs, (l, r) => lhs.SequenceEqual(rhs, comparator)); } } // end of ConstraintChecker The point of SemanticSequenceEquals is that you don't have to define two comparators whenever you want to compare both IEnumerable<T> and T instances; now you can just specify an IEqualityComparer<T> and it will also handle lists when you invoke SemanticSequenceEquals. So I could get rid of the BasketEqualityComparer class, which would be nice. But there's a problem. The C# compiler can't figure out the types involved when you invoke SemanticSequenceEquals: return ConstraintChecker.SemanticSequenceEquals(lhs, rhs, new FruitEqualityComparer()); If I specify them explicitly, it works: return ConstraintChecker.SemanticSequenceEquals< Fruit, IEnumerable<Fruit>, IEqualityComparer<Fruit> > (lhs, rhs, new FruitEqualityComparer()); What can I change here so that I don't have to write the type parameters explicitly?

    Read the article

  • What is the "Dispatcher" design pattern?

    - by Ben Farmer
    What is the "dispatcher" pattern and how would I implement it in code? I have a property bag of generic objects and would like to have the retrieval delegated to a generic method. Currently, I have properties looking for a specific key in the bag. For example: private Dictionary<String, Object> Foo { get; set; } private const String WidgetKey = "WIDGETKEY"; public Widget? WidgetItem { get { return Foo.ContainsKey(WidgetKey) ? Foo[WidgetKey] as Widget: null; } set { if (Foo.ContainsKey(WidgetKey)) Foo[WidgetKey] = value; else Foo.Add(WidgetKey, value); } } It was suggested that this could be more generic with the "dispatcher" pattern, but I've been unable to find a good description or example. I'm looking for a more generic way to handle the property bag store/retrieve.

    Read the article

  • C# BinarySearch breaks when inheriting from something that implements IComparable<T>?

    - by Ender
    In .NET the BinarySearch algorithm (in Lists, Arrays, etc.) appears to fail if the items you are trying to search inherit from an IComparable instead of implementing it directly: List<B> foo = new List<B>(); // B inherits from A, which implements IComparable<A> foo.Add(new B()); foo.BinarySearch(new B()); // InvalidOperationException, "Failed to compare two elements in the array." Where: public abstract class A : IComparable<A> { public int x; public int CompareTo(A other) { return x.CompareTo(other.x); } } public class B : A {} Is there a way around this? Implementing CompareTo(B other) in class B doesn't seem to work.

    Read the article

  • Setting generic type at runtime

    - by destroyer of evil
    I have a class public class A<T> { public static string B(T obj) { return TransformThisObjectToAString(obj); } } I can call the static function like this just fine on a known/specified type: string s= A<KnownType>.B(objectOfKnownType); How do I make this call, if I don't know T beforehand, rather I have a variable of type Type that holds the type. If I do this: Type t= typeof(string); string s= A<t>.B(someStringObject); I get this compiler error: Cannot implicitly convert type 't' to 'object'

    Read the article

  • Why does this work?

    - by Fizz
    Why does this work? I'm not complaining, just want to know. void Test() { int a = 1; int b = 2; What<int>(a, b); // Why does this next line work? What(a, b); } void What<T>(T a, T b) { }

    Read the article

  • Implementing IComparer<T> For IComparer<DictionaryEntry>

    - by Phil Sandler
    I am using the ObservableSortedDictionary from Dr. WPF. The constructor looks like this: public ObservableSortedDictionary(IComparer<DictionaryEntry> comparer) I am really struggling to create an implementation that satisfies the constructor and works. My current code (that won't compile) is: public class TimeCreatedComparer<T> : IComparer<T> { public int Compare(T x, T y) { var myclass1 = (IMyClass)((DictionaryEntry)x).Value; var myclass2 = (IMyClass)((DictionaryEntry)y).Value; return myclass1.TimeCreated.CompareTo(myclass2.TimeCreated); } } It says I can't cast from T to DictionaryEntry. If I cast directly to IMyClass, it compiles, but I get a runtime error saying I can't cast from DictionaryEntry to IMyClass. At runtime, x and y are instances of DictionaryEntry, which each have the correct IMyClass as their Value.

    Read the article

  • How can i convert this to a factory/abstract factory?

    - by Amitd
    I'm using MigraDoc to create a pdf document. I have business entities similar to the those used in MigraDoc. public class Page{ public List<PageContent> Content { get; set; } } public abstract class PageContent { public int Width { get; set; } public int Height { get; set; } public Margin Margin { get; set; } } public class Paragraph : PageContent{ public string Text { get; set; } } public class Table : PageContent{ public int Rows { get; set; } public int Columns { get; set; } //.... more } In my business logic, there are rendering classes for each type public interface IPdfRenderer<T> { T Render(MigraDoc.DocumentObjectModel.Section s); } class ParagraphRenderer : IPdfRenderer<MigraDoc.DocumentObjectModel.Paragraph> { BusinessEntities.PDF.Paragraph paragraph; public ParagraphRenderer(BusinessEntities.PDF.Paragraph p) { paragraph = p; } public MigraDoc.DocumentObjectModel.Paragraph Render(MigraDoc.DocumentObjectModel.Section s) { var paragraph = s.AddParagraph(); // add text from paragraph etc return paragraph; } } public class TableRenderer : IPdfRenderer<MigraDoc.DocumentObjectModel.Tables.Table> { BusinessEntities.PDF.Table table; public TableRenderer(BusinessEntities.PDF.Table t) { table =t; } public MigraDoc.DocumentObjectModel.Tables.Table Render(Section obj) { var table = obj.AddTable(); //fill table based on table } } I want to create a PDF page as : var document = new Document(); var section = document.AddSection();// section is a page in pdf var page = GetPage(1); // get a page from business classes foreach (var content in page.Content) { //var renderer = createRenderer(content); // // get Renderer based on Business type ?? // renderer.Render(section) } For createRenderer() i can use switch case/dictionary and return type. How can i get/create the renderer generically based on type ? How can I use factory or abstract factory here? Or which design pattern better suits this problem?

    Read the article

  • Why does this return zero results?

    - by Jon
    I have a List<List<string>> and when I try to search with the List<string> it returns no results. Any ideas? Thanks List<List<string>> test = new List<List<string>>(); List<string> ff = new List<string>(); ff.Add("1"); ff.Add("ABC 1"); test.Add(ff); ff = new List<string>(); ff.Add("2"); ff.Add("ABC 2"); test.Add(ff); var result = test.Where(x=>x.Contains("ABC")); //result.Count(); is 0

    Read the article

  • generic programming in C with void pointer.

    - by Nyan
    Hi everyone, even though it is possible to write generic code in C using void pointer(generic pointer), I find that it is quite difficult to debug the code since void pointer can take any pointer type without warning from compiler. (e.g function foo() take void pointer which is supposed to be pointer to struct, but compiler won't complain if char array is passed.) What kind of approach/strategy do you all use when using void pointer in C?

    Read the article

  • How to perform a binary search on IList<T>?

    - by Daniel Brückner
    Simple question - given an IList<T> how do you perform a binary search without writing the method yourself and without copying the data to a type with build-in binary search support. My current status is the following. List<T>.BinarySearch() is not a member of IList<T> There is no equivalent of the ArrayList.Adapter() method for List<T> IList<T> does not inherit from IList, hence using ArrayList.Adapter() is not possible I tend to believe that is not possible with build-in methods, but I cannot believe that such a basic method is missing from the BCL/FCL. If it is not possible, who can give the shortest, fastest, smartest, or most beatiful binary search implementation for IList<T>? UPDATE We all know that a list must be sorted before using binary search, hence you can assume that it is. But I assume (but did not verify) it is the same problem with sort - how do you sort IList<T>? CONCLUSION There seems to be no build-in binary search for IList<T>. One can use First() and OrderBy() LINQ methods to search and sort, but it will likly have a performance hit. Implementing it yourself (as an extension method) seems the best you can do.

    Read the article

  • .net runtime type casting when using reflection

    - by Mike
    I have need to cast a generic list of a concrete type to a generic list of an interface that the concrete types implement. This interface list is a property on an object and I am assigning the value using reflection. I only know the value at runtime. Below is a simple code example of what I am trying to accomplish: public void EmployeeTest() { IList<Employee> initialStaff = new List<Employee> { new Employee("John Smith"), new Employee("Jane Doe") }; Company testCompany = new Company("Acme Inc"); //testCompany.Staff = initialStaff; PropertyInfo staffProperty = testCompany.GetType().GetProperty("Staff"); staffProperty.SetValue(testCompany, (staffProperty.PropertyType)initialStaff, null); } Classes are defined like so: public class Company { private string _name; public string Name { get { return _name; } set { _name = value; } } private IList<IEmployee> _staff; public IList<IEmployee> Staff { get { return _staff; } set { _staff = value; } } public Company(string name) { _name = name; } } public class Employee : IEmployee { private string _name; public string Name { get { return _name; } set { _name = value; } } public Employee(string name) { _name = name; } } public interface IEmployee { string Name { get; set; } } Any thoughts? I am using .NET 4.0. Would the new covariant or contravariant features help? Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Do I have to allocate and free records when using TList<T> in Delphi?

    - by afrazier
    The question more or less says it all. Given the following record structure: type TPerson = record Name: string; Age: Integer; end; PPerson = ^TPerson; TPersonList = TList<TPerson>; Is the following code valid? procedure ReadPeople(DataSet: TDataSet; PersonList: TPersonList); begin PersonList.Count := DataSet.RecordCount; if DataSet.RecordCount = 0 then Exit; DataSet.First; while not DataSet.Eof do begin PersonList[DataSet.RecNo].Name := DataSet.FieldByName('Name').AsString; PersonList[DataSet.RecNo].Age := DataSet.FieldByName('Age').AsInteger; DataSet.Next; end; end; Do I have to use GetMem/FreeMem to allocate and free records an instance of TPersonList, or am I free to directly access the TPersonList entries directly? My gut says that the code should be valid, though I'm not sure if there's any wrinkles related to record initialization or finalization.

    Read the article

  • Hot to get generic type from object type

    - by Murat
    My Classes are; class BaseClass { } class DerivedClass1 : BaseClass { } class GenericClass<T> { } class DerivedClass2 : BaseClass { GenericClass<DerivedClass1> subItem; } I want to access all fields of DerivedClass2 class. I use System.Reflection and FieldInfo.GetValue() method; Bu I cant get subItem field. FieldInfo.GetValue() method return type is "object". And I cant cast to GenericClass<DerivedClass1> or I cant get DerivedClass1 type. I try this with BaseClass BaseClass instance = FieldInfo.Getvalue(this) as GenericClass<BaseClass>; but instance is null. How to get instance with type or how to get only type?

    Read the article

  • Type patterns and generic classes in Haskell

    - by finnsson
    I'm trying to understand type patterns and generic classes in Haskell but can't seem to get it. Could someone explain it in laymen's terms? In [1] I've read that "To apply functions generically to all data types, we view data types in a uniform manner: except for basic predefined types such as Float, IO, and ?, every Haskell data type can be viewed as a labeled sum of possibly labeled products." and then Unit, :*: and :+: are mentioned. Are all data types in Haskell automatically versions of the above mentioned and if so how do I figure out how a specific data type is represented in terms of :*:, etc? The users guide for generic classes (ch. 7.16) at haskell.org doesn't mention the predefined types but shouldn't they be handled in every function if the type patterns should be exhaustive? [1] Comparing Approaches to Generic Programming in Haskell, Ralf Hinze, Johan Jeuring, and Andres Löh

    Read the article

  • XML Serializing a class with a Dictionary<string, List<string>> object

    - by Matt
    Is it possible to implement IXmlSerializable and in my XML file capture an object of type Dictionary ? I have the following public class coolio : IXmlSerializable { private int a; private bool b; private string c; private Dictionary<string, List<string>> coco; public coolio(int _a, bool _b, string _c, Dictionary<string, List<string>> _coco) { a=_a; b=_b; c=_c; coco=_coco; } public System.Xml.Schema.XmlSchema GetSchema() { return null; } public void WriteXml(XmlWriter writer) { const string myType = "coolio"; writer.WriteStartElement(myType); writer.WriteAttributeString("a", a.ToString()); writer.WriteAttributeString("b", b.ToString()); writer.WriteAttributeString("c", c); // How do I add a subelement for Dictionary<string, List<string>> coco? writer.WriteEndElement(); } public void ReadXml(XmlReader reader) { if (reader.MoveToContent() != XmlNodeType.Element || reader.LocalName != "coolio") return; a= int.Parse(reader["a"]); b = bool.Parse(reader["b"]); c= reader["c"]; // How do I read subelement into Dictionary<string, List<string>> coco? } } But I am stumped as to how I could add the Dictionary (XML seriliazed to my XML file)

    Read the article

  • Is there a way to achieve covariance of generic types in C# 3.0?

    - by nullDev
    This has been introduced in C# 4.0, but is there a way to achieve this in c# 3.0? For e.g., consider the following code: class Base { } class Derived1 : Base { } class Derived2 : Base { } class User<T> where T : Base { } class User1 : User<Derived1> { } Now, I would like to have a list of User<T>, in which I can store User<Derived1> as well as User<Derived2>, but the following code fails to compile in C# 3.0: List<User<Base>> users = new List<User<Base>>(); users.Add(new User1()); Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • Casting Generic Types

    - by David Rutten
    Public Function CastToT(Of T)(ByVal GenericType(Of Object) data) As GenericType(Of T) Return DirectCast(data, GenericType(Of T)) End Function The above clearly does not work. Is there any way to perform this cast if I know that all objects inside data are in fact of Type T?

    Read the article

  • Use component id in Castle Windsor generic object configuration

    - by ChoccyButton
    2 questions in one, but very much related. Is it possible with Castle Windsor to resolve a configuration entry such as - Assembly.Namespace.Object1`2[[${ComponentId1}],[${ComponentId2}]], Assembly Where ComponentId1 and ComponentId2 are defined as components. Castle Windsor doesn't seem to be resolving the ComponentId, it is just looking for ComponentId1 in the Castle.Windsor assembly. The second question comes in to play if you can't do the first question. If you have to use a full assembly reference instead of a ComponentId, how can you pass any parameters to the object being created? eg to set ComponentId1.Field1 = "blah", or pass something to the constructor of ComponentId1 Hope that makes sense Update - Following the request for code I've knocked together the following - Objects public class Wrapper<T, T1> where T : ICollector where T1:IProcessor { private T _collector; private T1 _processor; public Wrapper(T collector, T1 processor) { _collector = collector; _processor = processor; } public void GetData() { _collector.CollectData(); _processor.ProcessData(); } } public class Collector1 : ICollector { public void CollectData() { Console.WriteLine("Collecting data from Collector1 ..."); } } public class Processor1 : IProcessor { public void ProcessData() { Console.WriteLine("Processing data from Processor1 ..."); } } repeated so 3 of each type of object in the example Config <components> <component id="Collector1" service="CastleWindsorPlay.ICollector, CastleWindsorPlay" type="CastleWindsorPlay.Collector1, CastleWindsorPlay"/> <component id="Collector2" service="CastleWindsorPlay.ICollector, CastleWindsorPlay" type="CastleWindsorPlay.Collector2, CastleWindsorPlay"/> <component id="Collector3" service="CastleWindsorPlay.ICollector, CastleWindsorPlay" type="CastleWindsorPlay.Collector3, CastleWindsorPlay"/> <component id="Processor1" service="CastleWindsorPlay.IProcessor, CastleWindsorPlay" type="CastleWindsorPlay.Processor1, CastleWindsorPlay"/> <component id="Processor2" service="CastleWindsorPlay.IProcessor, CastleWindsorPlay" type="CastleWindsorPlay.Processor2, CastleWindsorPlay"/> <component id="Processor3" service="CastleWindsorPlay.IProcessor, CastleWindsorPlay" type="CastleWindsorPlay.Processor3, CastleWindsorPlay"/> <component id="Wrapper1" type="CastleWindsorPlay.Wrapper`2[[CastleWindsorPlay.Collector1, CastleWindsorPlay],[CastleWindsorPlay.Processor3, CastleWindsorPlay]], CastleWindsorPlay" /> </components> Instantiation var wrapper = (Wrapper<ICollector, IProcessor>) container.Resolve("Wrapper1"); wrapper.GetData(); This brief example errors with this error message though - Can't create component 'Wrapper1' as it has dependencies to be satisfied. Wrapper1 is waiting for the following dependencies: Services: - CastleWindsorPlay.Collector1 which was not registered. - CastleWindsorPlay.Processor3 which was not registered. The curious part about this is that I can get it to resolve Collector1 and Processor3 individually before the call to the wrapper, but the wrapper still can't see them. This is a basic example, the next thing I'd like to be able to do is when instantiating the Wrapper, set a property on the collector and/or processor. So it could be something like Collector.Id = 10, but set in the config where the wrapper is defined. Setting against the Collector component definition wouldn't work as I'd want to be able to instantiate multiple copies of each Collector, using different Id's Update 2 What I'm actually trying to do is have - <components> <component id="Wrapper1" type="CastleWindsorPlay.Wrapper`2[${Collector1}(id=1)],[${Processor3}]], CastleWindsorPlay" /> <component id="Wrapper2" type="CastleWindsorPlay.Wrapper`2[${Collector1}(id=3)],[${Processor3}]], CastleWindsorPlay" /> </components> Then have another object defined as <component id="Manager" type="CastleWindsorPlay.Manager,CastleWindsorPlay"> <parameters> <wrappers> <array> <item>${Wrapper1}</item> <item>${Wrapper2}</item> </array> </wrappers> </parameters> Then finally in code just be able to call - var manager = (Manager)container.Resolve("Manager"); This should return the manager object, with an array of wrappers populated and the wrappers configured with the correct Collector and Convertor. I know there are errors in the Castle config here, that's why I'm asking the question, I don't know how to set the config up to do what I'm after, or even if it's possible to do it in Castle Windsor

    Read the article

  • Generic property- specify the type at runtime

    - by Lirik
    I was reading a question on making a generic property, but I'm a little confused at by the last example from the first answer (I've included the relevant code below): You have to know the type at compile time. If you don't know the type at compile time then you must be storing it in an object, in which case you can add the following property to the Foo class: public object ConvertedValue { get { return Convert.ChangeType(Value, Type); } } That's seems strange: it's converting the value to the specified type, but it's returning it as an object when the value was stored as an object. Doesn't the returned object still require un-boxing? If it does, then why bother with the conversion of the type? I'm also trying to make a generic property whose type will be determined at run time: public class Foo { object Value {get;set;} Type ValType{get;set;} Foo(object value, Type type) { Value = value; ValType = type; } // I need a property that is actually // returned as the specified value type... public object ConvertedValue { get { return Convert.ChangeType(Value, ValType); } } } Is it possible to make a generic property? Does the return property still require unboxing after it's accessed?

    Read the article

  • Converting Generic Type into reference type after checking its type using GetType(). How ?

    - by Shantanu Gupta
    i am trying to call a function that is defined in a class RFIDeas_Wrapper(dll being used). But when i checked for type of reader and after that i used it to call function it shows me error Cannot convert type T to RFIDeas_Wrapper. EDIT private List<string> GetTagCollection<T>(T Reader) { TagCollection = new List<string>(); if (Reader.GetType() == typeof(RFIDeas_Wrapper)) { ((RFIDeas_Wrapper)Reader).OpenDevice(); // here Reader is of type RFIDeas_Wrapper //, but i m not able to convert Reader into its datatype. string Tag_Id = ((RFIDeas_Wrapper)Reader).TagID(); //Adds Valid Tag Ids into the collection if(Tag_Id!="0") TagCollection.Add(Tag_Id); } else if (Reader.GetType() == typeof(AlienReader)) TagCollection = ((AlienReader)Reader).TagCollection; return TagCollection; } ((RFIDeas_Wrapper)Reader).OpenDevice(); , ((AlienReader)Reader).TagCollection; I want this line to be executed without any issue. As Reader will always be of the type i m specifying. How to make compiler understand the same thing.

    Read the article

  • Generic overriding 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

< Previous Page | 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420  | Next Page >