Search Results

Search found 3678 results on 148 pages for 'constructor chaining'.

Page 5/148 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Python constructor does weird things with optional parameters

    - by christangrant
    Can you help me understand of the behaviour and implications of the python __init__ constructor. It seems like when there is an optional parameter and you try and set an existing object to a new object the optional value of the existing object is preserved and copied. Ok that was confusing... so look at an example I concocted below. In the code below I am trying to make a tree structure with nodes and possibly many children . In the first class NodeBad, the constructor has two parameters, the value and any possible children. The second class NodeGood only takes the value of the node as a parameter. Both have an addchild method to add a child to a node. When creating a tree with the NodeGood class, it works as expected. However, when doing the same thing with the NodeBad class, it seems as though a child can only be added once! The code below will result in the following output: Good Tree 1 2 3 [< 3 >] Bad Tree 1 2 2 [< 2 >, < 3 >] Que Pasa? Here is the Example: #!/usr/bin/python class NodeBad: def __init__(self, value, c=[]): self.value = value self.children = c def addchild(self, node): self.children.append(node) def __str__(self): return '< %s >' % self.value def __repr__(self): return '< %s >' % self.value class NodeGood: def __init__(self, value): self.value = value self.children = [] def addchild(self, node): self.children.append(node) def __str__(self): return '< %s >' % self.value def __repr__(self): return '< %s >' % self.value if __name__ == '__main__': print 'Good Tree' ng = NodeGood(1) # Root Node rootgood = ng ng.addchild(NodeGood(2)) # 1nd Child ng = ng.children[0] ng.addchild(NodeGood(3)) # 2nd Child print rootgood.value print rootgood.children[0].value print rootgood.children[0].children[0].value print rootgood.children[0].children print 'Bad Tree' nb = NodeBad(1) # Root Node rootbad = nb nb.addchild(NodeBad(2)) # 1st Child nb = nb.children[0] nb.addchild(NodeBad(3)) # 2nd Child print rootbad.value print rootbad.children[0].value print rootbad.children[0].children[0].value print rootbad.children[0].children

    Read the article

  • Constructor Injection and when to use a Service Locator

    - by Simon
    I'm struggling to understand parts of StructureMap's usage. In particular, in the documentation a statement is made regarding a common anti-pattern, the use of StructureMap as a Service Locator only instead of constructor injection (code samples straight from Structuremap documentation): public ShippingScreenPresenter() { _service = ObjectFactory.GetInstance<IShippingService>(); _repository = ObjectFactory.GetInstance<IRepository>(); } instead of: public ShippingScreenPresenter(IShippingService service, IRepository repository) { _service = service; _repository = repository; } This is fine for a very short object graph, but when dealing with objects many levels deep, does this imply that you should pass down all the dependencies required by the deeper objects right from the top? Surely this breaks encapsulation and exposes too much information about the implementation of deeper objects. Let's say I'm using the Active Record pattern, so my record needs access to a data repository to be able to save and load itself. If this record is loaded inside an object, does that object call ObjectFactory.CreateInstance() and pass it into the active record's constructor? What if that object is inside another object. Does it take the IRepository in as its own parameter from further up? That would expose to the parent object the fact that we're access the data repository at this point, something the outer object probably shouldn't know. public class OuterClass { public OuterClass(IRepository repository) { // Why should I know that ThingThatNeedsRecord needs a repository? // that smells like exposed implementation to me, especially since // ThingThatNeedsRecord doesn't use the repo itself, but passes it // to the record. // Also where do I create repository? Have to instantiate it somewhere // up the chain of objects ThingThatNeedsRecord thing = new ThingThatNeedsRecord(repository); thing.GetAnswer("question"); } } public class ThingThatNeedsRecord { public ThingThatNeedsRecord(IRepository repository) { this.repository = repository; } public string GetAnswer(string someParam) { // create activeRecord(s) and process, returning some result // part of which contains: ActiveRecord record = new ActiveRecord(repository, key); } private IRepository repository; } public class ActiveRecord { public ActiveRecord(IRepository repository) { this.repository = repository; } public ActiveRecord(IRepository repository, int primaryKey); { this.repositry = repository; Load(primaryKey); } public void Save(); private void Load(int primaryKey) { this.primaryKey = primaryKey; // access the database via the repository and set someData } private IRepository repository; private int primaryKey; private string someData; } Any thoughts would be appreciated. Simon

    Read the article

  • Constructor versus setter injection

    - by Chris
    Hi, I'm currently designing an API where I wish to allow configuration via a variety of methods. One method is via an XML configuration schema and another method is through an API that I wish to play nicely with Spring. My XML schema parsing code was previously hidden and therefore the only concern was for it to work but now I wish to build a public API and I'm quite concerned about best-practice. It seems that many favor javabean type PoJo's with default zero parameter constructors and then setter injection. The problem I am trying to tackle is that some setter methods implementations are dependent on other setter methods being called before them in sequence. I could write anal setters that will tolerate themselves being called in many orders but that will not solve the problem of a user forgetting to set the appropriate setter and therefore the bean being in an incomplete state. The only solution I can think of is to forget about the objects being 'beans' and enforce the required parameters via constructor injection. An example of this is in the default setting of the id of a component based on the id of the parent components. My Interface public interface IMyIdentityInterface { public String getId(); /* A null value should create a unique meaningful default */ public void setId(String id); public IMyIdentityInterface getParent(); public void setParent(IMyIdentityInterface parent); } Base Implementation of interface: public abstract class MyIdentityBaseClass implements IMyIdentityInterface { private String _id; private IMyIdentityInterface _parent; public MyIdentityBaseClass () {} @Override public String getId() { return _id; } /** * If the id is null, then use the id of the parent component * appended with a lower-cased simple name of the current impl * class along with a counter suffix to enforce uniqueness */ @Override public void setId(String id) { if (id == null) { IMyIdentityInterface parent = getParent(); if (parent == null) { // this may be the top level component or it may be that // the user called setId() before setParent(..) } else { _id = Helpers.makeIdFromParent(parent,getClass()); } } else { _id = id; } } @Override public IMyIdentityInterface getParent() { return _parent; } @Override public void setParent(IMyIdentityInterface parent) { _parent = parent; } } Every component in the framework will have a parent except for the top level component. Using the setter type of injection, then the setters will have different behavior based on the order of the calling of the setters. In this case, would you agree, that a constructor taking a reference to the parent is better and dropping the parent setter method from the interface entirely? Is it considered bad practice if I wish to be able to configure these components using an IoC container? Chris

    Read the article

  • Java: How can a constructor return a value?

    - by HH
    $ cat Const.java public class Const { String Const(String hello) { return hello; } public static void main(String[] args) { System.out.println(new Const("Hello!")); } } $ javac Const.java Const.java:7: cannot find symbol symbol : constructor Const(java.lang.String) location: class Const System.out.println(new Const("Hello!")); ^ 1 error

    Read the article

  • how to write a constructor...

    - by Nima
    is that correct to write a constructor like this? class A { A::A(const A& a) { .... } }; if yes, then is it correct to invoke it like this: A* other; ... A* instance = new A(*(other)); if not, what do you suggest? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Can a constructor return a NULL value?

    - by Sanctus2099
    I know constructors don't "return" anything but for instance if I call CMyClass *object = new CMyClass() is there any way to make object to be NULL if the constructor fails? In my case I have some images that have to be loaded and if the file reading fails I'd like it to return null. Is there any way to do that? Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • conditionally enabling constructor

    - by MK
    Here is how I can conditionally enable a constructor of a class : struct Foo { template<class T> Foo( T* ptr, boost::enable_if<is_arithmetic<T> >::type* = NULL ) {} }; I would like to know why I need to do the enabling via a dummy parameter. Why can I not just write : struct Foo { template<class T> Foo( boost::enable_if<is_arithmetic<T>, T>::type* = NULL ) {} };

    Read the article

  • destructor and copy-constructor calling..(why does it get called at these times)

    - by sil3nt
    Hello there, I have the following code #include <iostream> using namespace std; class Object { public: Object(int id){ cout << "Construct(" << id << ")" << endl; m_id = id; } Object(const Object& obj){ cout << "Copy-construct(" << obj.m_id << ")" << endl; m_id = obj.m_id; } Object& operator=(const Object& obj){ cout << m_id << " = " << obj.m_id << endl; m_id = obj.m_id; return *this; } ~Object(){ cout << "Destruct(" << m_id << ")" << endl; } private: int m_id; }; Object func(Object var) { return var; } int main(){ Object v1(1); cout << "( a )" << endl; Object v2(2); v2 = v1; cout << "( b )" << endl; Object v4 = v1; Object *pv5; pv5 = &v1; pv5 = new Object(5); cout << "( c )" << endl; func(v1); cout << "( d )" << endl; delete pv5; } which outputs Construct(1) ( a ) Construct(2) 2 = 1 ( b ) Copy-construct(1) Construct(5) ( c ) Copy-construct(1) Copy-construct(1) Destruct(1) Destruct(1) ( d ) Destruct(5) Destruct(1) Destruct(1) Destruct(1) I have some issues with this, firstly why does Object v4 = v1; call the copy constructor and produce Copy-construct(1) after the printing of ( b ). Also after the printing of ( c ) the copy-constructor is again called twice?, Im not certain of how this function works to produce that Object func(Object var) { return var; } and just after that Destruct(1) gets called twice before ( d ) is printed. sorry for the long question, I'm confused with the above.

    Read the article

  • Segfault on copy constructor for string

    - by user2756569
    I'm getting a segfault on a line where I'm creating a c++ string with the copy constructor. I've looked at some of the similar issues, but they're all due to passing in a bad c++ string object. I'm just passing in a raw string, so I'm not sure what my issue is. I'll paste the relevant snippets of code (it's taken from several different files, so it might look a bit jumbled). The segfault occurs in the 4th line of the default constructor for the Species class. Species::Species(string _type) { program_length = 0; cout << _type << " 1\n"; cout << type << " 2\n"; type = string(_type); } Grid::Grid(int _width, int _height) { *wall = Species("wall"); *empty = Species("empty"); turn_number = 0; width = _width; height = _height; for(int a= 0; a < 100; a++) for(int b = 0; b< 100; b++) { Creature empty_creature = Creature(*empty,a,b,NORTH,this); (Grid::map)[a][b] = empty_creature; } } int main() { Grid world = Grid(8,8); } class Grid { protected: Creature map[100][100]; int width,height; int turn_number; Species *empty; Species *wall; public: Grid(); Grid(int _width, int _height); void addCreature(Species &_species, int x, int y, Direction orientation); void addWall(int x, int y); void takeTurn(); void infect(int x, int y, Direction orientation, Species &_species); void hop(int x, int y, Direction orientation); bool ifWall(int x, int y, Direction orientation); bool ifEnemy(int x, int y, Direction orientation, Species &_species); bool ifEmpty(int x, int y, Direction orientation); void print(); }; class Species { protected: int program_length; string program[100]; string type; public: species(string _type); void addInstruction(string instruction); bool isWall(); bool isEmpty(); bool isEnemy(Species _enemy); string instructionAt(int index); string getType(); };

    Read the article

  • C++ copy-construct construct-and-assign question

    - by Andy
    Blockquote Here is an extract from item 56 of the book "C++ Gotchas": It's not uncommon to see a simple initialization of a Y object written any of three different ways, as if they were equivalent. Y a( 1066 ); Y b = Y(1066); Y c = 1066; In point of fact, all three of these initializations will probably result in the same object code being generated, but they're not equivalent. The initialization of a is known as a direct initialization, and it does precisely what one might expect. The initialization is accomplished through a direct invocation of Y::Y(int). The initializations of b and c are more complex. In fact, they're too complex. These are both copy initializations. In the case of the initialization of b, we're requesting the creation of an anonymous temporary of type Y, initialized with the value 1066. We then use this anonymous temporary as a parameter to the copy constructor for class Y to initialize b. Finally, we call the destructor for the anonymous temporary. To test this, I did a simple class with a data member (program attached at the end) and the results were surprising. It seems that for the case of b, the object was constructed by the copy constructor rather than as suggested in the book. Does anybody know if the language standard has changed or is this simply an optimisation feature of the compiler? I was using Visual Studio 2008. Code sample: #include <iostream> class Widget { std::string name; public: // Constructor Widget(std::string n) { name=n; std::cout << "Constructing Widget " << this->name << std::endl; } // Copy constructor Widget (const Widget& rhs) { std::cout << "Copy constructing Widget from " << rhs.name << std::endl; } // Assignment operator Widget& operator=(const Widget& rhs) { std::cout << "Assigning Widget from " << rhs.name << " to " << this->name << std::endl; return *this; } }; int main(void) { // construct Widget a("a"); // copy construct Widget b(a); // construct and assign Widget c("c"); c = a; // copy construct! Widget d = a; // construct! Widget e = "e"; // construct and assign Widget f = Widget("f"); return 0; } Output: Constructing Widget a Copy constructing Widget from a Constructing Widget c Assigning Widget from a to c Copy constructing Widget from a Constructing Widget e Constructing Widget f Copy constructing Widget from f I was most surprised by the results of constructing d and e.

    Read the article

  • Java: initialization problem with private-final-int-value and empty constructor

    - by HH
    $ javac InitInt.java InitInt.java:7: variable right might not have been initialized InitInt(){} ^ 1 error $ cat InitInt.java import java.util.*; import java.io.*; public class InitInt { private final int right; InitInt(){} public static void main(String[] args) { // I don't want to assign any value. // just initialize it, how? InitInt test = new InitInt(); System.out.println(test.getRight()); // later assiging a value } public int getRight(){return right;} } Initialization problem with Constructor InitInt{ // Still the error, "may not be initialized" // How to initialise it? if(snippetBuilder.length()>(charwisePos+25)){ right=charwisePos+25; }else{ right=snippetBuilder.length()-1; } }

    Read the article

  • Why is the base() constructor not necessary?

    - by Earlz
    Hello, I have a class structure like abstract class Animal { public Animal(){ //init stuff.. } } class Cat : Animal { public Cat(bool is_keyboard) : base() //NOTE here { //other init stuff } } Now then, look at the noted line. If you remove : base() then it will compile without an error. Why is this? Is there a way to disable this behavior? I have had multiple bugs now from forgetting the base() which I would have thought to be required on such a special thing as a constructor.

    Read the article

  • Spring: Inject static member (System.in) via constructor

    - by Julian Lettner
    I wrote some sort of console client for a simple application. To be more flexible, I thought it would be nice to only depend on java.io.Input-/OutputStream, instead of accessing System.in/out directly. I renamed the class ConsoleClient to StreamClient, added setters and made sure that the instance fields are used instead of System.in/out. At the moment my client code looks like this: ApplicationContext appCtx = new ClassPathXmlApplicationContext("..."); StreamClient cc = (StreamClient) appCtx.getBean("streamClient"); cc.setInputStream(System.in); cc.setOutputStream(System.out); cc.run(); // start client Question: Is there a way to move lines 3 and 4 into the Spring configuration (preferably constructor injection)? Thanks for your time.

    Read the article

  • Returning in a static class constructor

    - by Martijn Courteaux
    Hello, This isn't valid code: public class MyClass { private static boolean yesNo = false; static { if (yesNo) { System.out.println("Yes"); return; // The return statement is the problem } System.exit(0); } } This is a stupid example, but in a static class constructor we can't return;. Why? Are there good reasons for this? Does someone know something more about this? So the reason why I should do return is to end constructing there. Thanks

    Read the article

  • Better to use constructor or method factory pattern?

    - by devoured elysium
    I have a wrapper class for the Bitmap .NET class called BitmapZone. Assuming we have a WIDTH x HEIGHT bitmap picture, this wrapper class should serve the purpose of allowing me to send to other methods/classes itself instead of the original bitmap. I can then better control what the user is or not allowed to do with the picture (and I don't have to copy the bitmap lots of times to send for each method/class). My question is: knowing that all BitmapZone's are created from a Bitmap, what do you find preferrable? Constructor syntax: something like BitmapZone bitmapZone = new BitmapZone(originalBitmap, x, y, width, height); Factory Method Pattern: BitmapZone bitmapZone = BitmapZone.From(originalBitmap, x , y, width, height); Factory Method Pattern: BitmapZone bitmapZone = BitmapZone.FromBitmap(originalBitmap, x, y, width, height); Other? Why? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Relevance of 'public' constructor in abstract class.

    - by Amby
    Is there any relevance of a 'public' constructor in an abstract class? I can not think of any possible way to use it, in that case shouldn't it be treated as error by compiler (C#, not sure if other languages allow that). Sample Code: internal abstract class Vehicle { public Vehicle() { } } The C# compiler allows this code to compile, while there is no way i can call this contructor from the outside world. It can be called from derived classes only. So shouldn't it allow 'protected' and 'private' modifiers only. Please comment.

    Read the article

  • C++ Singleton Constructor and Destructor

    - by Aaron
    Does it matter if the constructor/destructor implementation is provided in the header file or the source file? For example, which way is preferred and why? Way 1: class Singleton { public: ~Singleton() { } private: Singleton() { } }; Way 2: class Singleton { public: ~Singleton(); private: Singleton(); }; In the source .cc file: Singleton::Singleton() { } Singleton::~Singleton() { } Initially, I have the implementation in a source file, but I was asked to remove it. Does anyone know why?

    Read the article

  • Handling Exceptions that happen in a asp.net MVC Controller Constructor

    - by Jason
    What's the best way to handle exceptions that happen from within a controller's constructor? All I can think of to do is use Application_OnError() or put a try/catch in my ControllerFactory. Neither of these solutions seem ideal. Application_OnError is to broad - I have some non-mvc content in the site that has its own error handling. Using a try/catch block seems kinda hacky. If I'm serving different content type -html/text/json/rss.... I would like to be able to handle the exception from within the action method instead of having to write all kinds of conditions to determine what kind of error message to serve. Am I missing something here, or has anyone else dealt with this?

    Read the article

  • Template class implicit copy constructor issues

    - by Nate
    Stepping through my program in gdb, line 108 returns right back to the calling function, and doesn't call the copy constructor in class A, like (I thought) it should: template <class S> class A{ //etc... A( const A & old ){ //do stuff... } //etc... }; template <class T> class B{ //etc... A<T> ReturnsAnA(){ A<T> result; // do some stuff with result return result; //line 108 } //etc... }; Any hints? I've banged my head against the wall about this for 4 hours now, and can't seem to come up with what's happening here.

    Read the article

  • Error Instantiating an Inner Class in Parent's Constructor...

    - by stormin986
    In my application's main class (subclass of Application), I have a public inner class that simply contains 3 public string objects. In the parent class I declare an object of that inner class. public class MainApplication extends Application { public class Data { public String x; public String y; public String z; } private Data data; MainApplication() { data = new Data() data.x = "String"; } } After I instantiate the object in the constructor, I get a runtime error when I try to assign any of the inner class object's variables. Any idea what's up here??

    Read the article

  • C++ Constructor Initializer List - using member functions of initialized members

    - by Andy
    I've run into the following a few times with initializer lists and I've never been able to explain it well. Can anyone explain why exactly the following fails (I don't have a compiler to catch typos, so bear with me): class Foo { public: Foo( int i ) : m_i( i ) {} //works with no problem int getInt() {return m_i;} ~Foo {} private: int m_i; }; class Bar { public: Bar() : m_foo( 5 ), //this is ok m_myInt( m_foo.getInt() ) //runtime error, seg 11 {} ~Bar() {} private: Foo m_foo; int m_myInt; }; When trying to call member functions of members initialized higher up the initializer list, I get seg faults. I seem to recall this is a known problem (or perhaps somehow by design) but I've never seen it well described. The attached example is contrived with plain old data types, but substitute the Bar::m_myInt with another object lacking a default (empty) constructor and the issue is more real. Can anyone enlighten me? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Constructor with non-instance variable assistant?

    - by Robert Fischer
    I have a number of classes that look like this: class Foo(val:BasicData) extends Bar(val) { val helper = new Helper(val) val derived1 = helper.getDerived1Value() val derived2 = helper.getDerived2Value() } ...except that I don't want to hold onto an instance of "helper" beyond the end of the constructor. In Java, I'd do something like this: public class Foo { final Derived derived1, derived2; public Foo(BasicData val) { Helper helper = new Helper(val); derived1 = helper.getDerived1Value(); derived2 = helper.getDerived2Value(); } } So how do I do something like that in Scala? I'm aware of creating a helper object of the same name of the class with an apply method: I was hoping for something slightly more succinct.

    Read the article

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