Search Results

Search found 320 results on 13 pages for 'polymorphism'.

Page 5/13 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • runtime/compile time polymorphism

    - by dmadhavaraj
    Hi , In the below code , why b1.subtract() fails . Please explain me the reason ie., what happens in JVM while invoking that method . class Base { public void add() { System.out.println("Base ADD"); } } class Child extends Base { public void add(){ System.out.println("Child ADD"); } public void subtract() { System.out.println("Child Subtract"); } } class MainClass { public static void main(String args[]) { Base b1 = new Base(); Base b2 = new Child(); Child b3 = new Child(); b1.add(); b1.subtract(); // ?????????** b2.add(); b3.subtract(); } }

    Read the article

  • Polymorphism and c#

    - by saurabh
    Here one more basic question asked in MS interview recently Class A { public virtual void Method1(){} public void Method2() { Method1(); } } class B:A { public override void Method1() { } } Class main { A obk = new B(); obk.Method2(); } now tell me which function gets called ? sorry for the typos.

    Read the article

  • Design pattern: Polymorphism for list of objects

    - by ziang
    Suppose I have a class A, and A1, A2 inherits from A. There are 2 functions: List<A1> getListA1(){...} List<A2> getListA2(){...} Now I want to do something similar to both A1 and A2 in another function public void process(List<A>){...} If I want to pass the instance of either ListA1 or ListA2, of course the types doesn't match because the compiler doesn't allow the coercion from List< A1 to List< A. I can't do something like this: List<A1> listA1 = getListA1(); List<A> newList = (List<A>)listA1; //this is not allowed. So what is the best approach to the process()? Is there any way to do it in a universal way rather than write the similar code to both List and List?

    Read the article

  • Not sure I am using inheritance/polymorphism issue?

    - by planker1010
    So for this assignment I have to create a car class(parent) and a certifiedpreowned (child) and I need to have the parent class have a method to check if it is still under warranty. *checkWarrantyStatus(). that method calls the boolean isCoveredUnderWarranty() to veryify if the car still has warranty. My issue is in the certifiedpreowned class I have to call the isCoveredUnderWarranty() as well to see if it is covered under the extended warranty and then have it be called via the checkWarrantyStatus() in the car method. I hope this makes sense. So to sum it up I need to in the child class have it check the isCoveredUnderWarranty with extended warranty info. Then it has to move to the parent class so it can be called via checkWarrantyStatus. Here is my code, I have 1 error. public class Car { public int year; public String make; public String model; public int currentMiles; public int warrantyMiles; public int warrantyYears; int currentYear =java.util.Calendar.getInstance().get(java.util.Calendar.YEAR); /** construct car object with specific parameters*/ public Car (int y, String m, String mod, int mi){ this.year = y; this.make = m; this.model = mod; this.currentMiles = mi; } public int getWarrantyMiles() { return warrantyMiles; } public void setWarrantyMiles(int warrantyMiles) { this.warrantyMiles = warrantyMiles; } public int getWarrantyYears() { return warrantyYears; } public void setWarrantyYears(int warrantyYears) { this.warrantyYears = warrantyYears; } public boolean isCoveredUnderWarranty(){ if (currentMiles < warrantyMiles){ if (currentYear < (year+ warrantyYears)) return true; } return false; } public void checkWarrantyStatus(){ if (isCoveredUnderWarranty()){ System.out.println("Your car " + year+ " " + make+ " "+ model+ " With "+ currentMiles +" is still covered under warranty"); } else System.out.println("Your car " + year+ " " + make+ " "+ model+ " With "+ currentMiles +" is out of warranty"); } } public class CertifiedPreOwnCar extends Car{ public CertifiedPreOwnCar(int y, String m, String mod, int mi) { super(mi, m, mod, y); } public int extendedWarrantyYears; public int extendedWarrantyMiles; public int getExtendedWarrantyYears() { return extendedWarrantyYears; } public void setExtendedWarrantyYears(int extendedWarrantyYears) { this.extendedWarrantyYears = extendedWarrantyYears; } public int getExtendedWarrantyMiles() { return extendedWarrantyMiles; } public void setExtendedWarrantyMiles(int extendedWarrantyMiles) { this.extendedWarrantyMiles = extendedWarrantyMiles; } public boolean isCoveredUnderWarranty() { if (currentMiles < extendedWarrantyMiles){ if (currentYear < (year+ extendedWarrantyYears)) return true; } return false; } } public class TestCar { public static void main(String[] args) { Car car1 = new Car(2014, "Honda", "Civic", 255); car1.setWarrantyMiles(60000); car1.setWarrantyYears(5); car1.checkWarrantyStatus(); Car car2 = new Car(2000, "Ferrari", "F355", 8500); car2.setWarrantyMiles(20000); car2.setWarrantyYears(7); car2.checkWarrantyStatus(); CertifiedPreOwnCar car3 = new CertifiedPreOwnCar(2000, "Honda", "Accord", 65000); car3.setWarrantyYears(3); car3.setWarrantyMiles(30000); car3.setExtendedWarrantyMiles(100000); car3.setExtendedWarrantyYears(7); car3.checkWarrantyStatus(); } }

    Read the article

  • Polymorphism in Rails

    - by Newy
    Say I have two models, Apples and Oranges, and they are both associated with a description in a Text model. Text is a separate class as I'd like to keep track of the different revisions. Is the following correct? Is there a better way to do this? [Apple] has_one :text, :as => :targit, :order => 'id DESC' has_many :revisions, :class_name => 'Text', :as => :targit, :order => 'id', :dependent => :destroy [Text] belongs_to :targit, :polymorphic => true

    Read the article

  • Base class pointer vs inherited class pointer?

    - by Goose Bumper
    Suppose I have a class Dog that inherits from a class Animal. What is the difference between these two lines of code? Animal *a = new Dog(); Dog *d = new Dog(); In one, the pointer is for the base class, and in the other, the pointer is for the derived class. But when would this distinction become important? For polymorphism, either one would work exactly the same, right?

    Read the article

  • Objective-C Pointer to class that implements a protocol

    - by Winder
    I have three classes which implement the same protocol, and have the same parent class which doesn't implement the protocol. Normally I would have the protocol as pure virtual functions in the parent class but I couldn't find an Objective-C way to do that. How can I utilize polymorphism on these subclasses and call the functions implemented in the protocol without warnings? Some pseudocode if that didn't make sense: @interface superclass: NSObject {} @interface child1: superclass<MyProtocol> {} @interface child2: superclass<MyProtocol> {} The consumer of these classes: @class child1 @class child2 @class superclass @interface SomeViewController: UIViewController { child1 *oneView; child2 *otherView; superclass *currentView; } -(void) someMethod { [currentView protocolFunction]; } The only nice way I've found to do pure virtual functions in Objective-C is a hack by putting [self doesNotRecognizeSelector:_cmd]; in the parent class, but it isn't ideal.

    Read the article

  • Invoke a subclass method of an anonymous class

    - by arjacsoh
    I am trying right now to dig into anonymous classes and one question was just arised I 'd prefer not to refer to much details and to pose my question straightforward: How can I invoke the method sizzle() in the following anonymous class: public class Popcorn { public void pop() { System.out.println("popcorn"); } } class Food { Popcorn p = new Popcorn() { public void sizzle() { System.out.println("anonymous sizzling popcorn"); } public void pop() { System.out.println("anonymous popcorn"); } }; public void popIt() { p.pop(); // OK, Popcorn has a pop() method p.sizzle(); // Not Legal! Popcorn does not have sizzle() } } It is known and definite in polymorphism rules that a refernce of a superclass cannot invoke methods of subclass without downcasting (even if it refers to an object of the given subclass). However in the above case what is the "key" to invoke the sizzle() method?

    Read the article

  • Scala: "Parameter type in structural refinement may not refer to an abstract type defined outside th

    - by raichoo
    Hi, I'm having a problem with scala generics. While the first function I defined here seems to be perfectly ok, the compiler complains about the second definition with: error: Parameter type in structural refinement may not refer to an abstract type defined outside that refinement def >>[B](a: C[B])(implicit m: Monad[C]): C[B] = { ^ What am I doing wrong here? trait Lifter[C[_]] { implicit def liftToMonad[A](c: C[A]) = new { def >>=[B](f: A => C[B])(implicit m: Monad[C]): C[B] = { m >>= (c, f) } def >>[B](a: C[B])(implicit m: Monad[C]): C[B] = { m >> a } } } IMPORTANT: This is NOT a question about Monads, it's a question about scala polymorphism in general. Regards, raichoo

    Read the article

  • C ++ virtual function

    - by user2950788
    masters of C++. I am trying to implement polymorphism in C++. I want to write a base class with a virtual function and then redefine that function in the child class. then demonstrate dynamic binding in my driver program. But I just couldn't get it to work. I know how to do it in C#, so I figured that I might have made some syntactical mistakes where I had used C#'s syntax in my C++ code, but these mistakes are not obvious to me at all. So I'd greatly appreciate it if you would correct my mistakes. class polyTest { public: polyTest(); virtual void type(); virtual ~polyTest(); }; void polyTest::type() { cout << "first gen"; } class polyChild: public polyTest { public: void type(); }; void polyChild::type() { cout << "second gen"; } int main() { polyChild * ptr1; polyChild * ptr2; ptr1 = new polyTest(); ptr2 = new polyChild(); ptr1 -> type(); ptr2 -> type(); }

    Read the article

  • list of polymorphic objects

    - by LivingThing
    I have a particular scenario below. The code below should print 'say()' function of B and C class and print 'B says..' and 'C says...' but it doesn't .Any ideas.. I am learning polymorphism so also have commented few questions related to it on the lines of code below. class A { public: // A() {} virtual void say() { std::cout << "Said IT ! " << std::endl; } virtual ~A(); //why virtual destructor ? }; void methodCall() // does it matters if the inherited class from A is in this method { class B : public A{ public: // virtual ~B(); //significance of virtual destructor in 'child' class virtual void say () // does the overrided method also has to be have the keyword 'virtual' { cout << "B Sayssss.... " << endl; } }; class C : public A{ public: //virtual ~C(); virtual void say () { cout << "C Says " << endl; } }; list<A> listOfAs; list<A>::iterator it; # 1st scenario B bObj; C cObj; A *aB = &bObj; A *aC = &cObj; # 2nd scenario // A aA; // B *Ba = &aA; // C *Ca = &aA; // I am declaring the objects as in 1st scenario but how about 2nd scenario, is this suppose to work too? listOfAs.insert(it,*aB); listOfAs.insert(it,*aC); for (it=listOfAs.begin(); it!=listOfAs.end(); it++) { cout << *it.say() << endl; } } int main() { methodCall(); retrun 0; }

    Read the article

  • Recommendations for a C++ polymorphic, seekable, binary I/O interface

    - by Trevor Robinson
    I've been using std::istream and ostream as a polymorphic interface for random-access binary I/O in C++, but it seems suboptimal in numerous ways: 64-bit seeks are non-portable and error-prone due to streampos/streamoff limitations; currently using boost/iostreams/positioning.hpp as a workaround, but it requires vigilance Missing operations such as truncating or extending a file (ala POSIX ftruncate) Inconsistency between concrete implementations; e.g. stringstream has independent get/put positions whereas filestream does not Inconsistency between platform implementations; e.g. behavior of seeking pass the end of a file or usage of failbit/badbit on errors Don't need all the formatting facilities of stream or possibly even the buffering of streambuf streambuf error reporting (i.e. exceptions vs. returning an error indicator) is supposedly implementation-dependent in practice I like the simplified interface provided by the Boost.Iostreams Device concept, but it's provided as function templates rather than a polymorphic class. (There is a device class, but it's not polymorphic and is just an implementation helper class not necessarily used by the supplied device implementations.) I'm primarily using large disk files, but I really want polymorphism so I can easily substitute alternate implementations (e.g. use stringstream instead of fstream for unit tests) without all the complexity and compile-time coupling of deep template instantiation. Does anyone have any recommendations of a standard approach to this? It seems like a common situation, so I don't want to invent my own interfaces unnecessarily. As an example, something like java.nio.FileChannel seems ideal. My best solution so far is to put a thin polymorphic layer on top of Boost.Iostreams devices. For example: class my_istream { public: virtual std::streampos seek(stream_offset off, std::ios_base::seekdir way) = 0; virtual std::streamsize read(char* s, std::streamsize n) = 0; virtual void close() = 0; }; template <class T> class boost_istream : public my_istream { public: boost_istream(const T& device) : m_device(device) { } virtual std::streampos seek(stream_offset off, std::ios_base::seekdir way) { return boost::iostreams::seek(m_device, off, way); } virtual std::streamsize read(char* s, std::streamsize n) { return boost::iostreams::read(m_device, s, n); } virtual void close() { boost::iostreams::close(m_device); } private: T m_device; };

    Read the article

  • Need help with map (c++, STL)

    - by Mike Dooley
    Hi folks! Actually I'm new to C++. I tried something out (actually the map container) but it doesn't work the way I assumed it will... Before posting my code, I will explain it shortly. I created 3 classes: ClassA ClassDerivedA ClassAnotherDerivedA The two last ones are derived from "ClassA". Further I created a map: map<string,ClassA> test_map; I put some objects (from Type ClassDerivedA and ClassAnotherDerivedA) into the map. Keep in mind: the mapped value is from type "ClassA". This will only work because of Polymorphism. Finally I created an iterator which runs over my map and compares the user input with my keys in the map. If they match, it will call a specific method called "printOutput". And there is the Problem: Although i declared "printOutput" as "virtual" the only method called is the one from my base class, but why? and here is the code: #include <iostream> #include <map> using namespace std; class ClassA { public: virtual void printOutput() { cout << "ClassA" << endl; } }; class ClassDerivedA : public ClassA { public: void printOutput() { cout << "ClassDerivedA" << endl; } }; class ClassAnotherDerivedA: public ClassA { public: void printOutput() { cout << "ClassAnotherDerivedA" << endl; } }; int main() { ClassDerivedA class_derived_a; ClassAnotherDerivedA class_another_a; map<string,ClassA> test_map; test_map.insert(pair<string,ClassA>("deriveda", class_derived_a)); test_map.insert(pair<string,ClassA>("anothera", class_another_a)); string s; while( cin >> s ) { if( s != "quit" ) { map<string,ClassA>::iterator it = test_map.find(s); if(it != test_map.end()) it->second.printOutput(); } else break; } } Blockquote

    Read the article

  • C# Different class objects in one list

    - by jeah_wicer
    I have looked around some now to find a solution to this problem. I found several ways that could solve it but to be honest I didn't realize which of the ways that would be considered the "right" C# or OOP way of solving it. My goal is not only to solve the problems but also to develop a good set of code standards and I'm fairly sure there's a standard way to handle this problem. Let's say I have 2 types of printer hardwares with their respective classes and ways of communicating: PrinterType1, PrinterType2. I would also like to be able to later on add another type if neccessary. One step up in abstraction those have much in common. It should be possible to send a string to each one of them as an example. They both have variables in common and variables unique to each class. (One for instance communicates via COM-port and has such an object, while the other one communicates via TCP and has such an object). I would however like to just implement a List of all those printers and be able to go through the list and perform things as "Send(string message)" on all Printers regardless of type. I would also like to access variables like "PrinterList[0].Name" that are the same for both objects, however I would also at some places like to access data that is specific to the object itself (For instance in the settings window of the application where the COM-port name is set for one object and the IP/port number for another). So, in short something like: In common: Name Send() Specific to PrinterType1: Port Specific to PrinterType2: IP And I wish to, for instance, do Send() on all objects regardless of type and the number of objects present. I've read about polymorphism, Generics, interfaces and such, but I would like to know how this, in my eyes basic, problem typically would be dealt with in C# (and/or OOP in general). I actually did try to make a base class, but it didn't quite seem right to me. For instance I have no use of a "string Send(string Message)" function in the base class itself. So why would I define one there that needs to be overridden in the derived classes when I would never use the function in the base class ever in the first place? I'm really thankful for any answers. People around here seem very knowledgeable and this place has provided me with many solutions earlier. Now I finally have an account to answer and vote with too. EDIT: To additionally explain, I would also like to be able to access the objects of the actual printertype. For instance the Port variable in PrinterType1 which is a SerialPort object. I would like to access it like: PrinterList[0].Port.Open() and have access to the full range of functionality of the underlaying port. At the same time I would like to call generic functions that work in the same way for the different objects (but with different implementations): foreach (printer in Printers) printer.Send(message)

    Read the article

  • Polymorphic NHibernate mappings

    - by Ben Aston
    I have an interface IUserLocation and a concrete type UserLocation. When I use ICriteria, specifying the interface IUserLocation, I want NHibernate to instantiate a collection of the concrete UserLocation type. I have created an HBM mapping file using the table per concrete type strategy (shown below). However, when I query NHibernate using ICriteria I get: NHibernate cannot instantiate abstract class or interface MyNamespace.IUserLocation Can anyone see why this is? (source code for the relevant bit of NHibernate here (I think)) My ICriteria: var filter = DetachedCriteria.For<IUserLocation>() .Add(Restrictions.Eq("UserId", userId)); return filter.GetExecutableCriteria(UoW.Session) .List<IUserLocation>(); My mapping file: <hibernate-mapping xmlns="urn:nhibernate-mapping-2.2" default-lazy="true"> <class xmlns="urn:nhibernate-mapping-2.2" name="MyNamespace.IUserLocation,MyAssembly" abstract="true" table="IUserLocations"> <composite-id> <key-property name="UserId" column="UserId" type="System.Guid"></key-property> <key-many-to-one name="Location" column="LocationId" class="MyNamespace.ILocation,MyAssembly"></key-many-to-one> </composite-id> <union-subclass table="UserLocations" name="MyNamespace2.UserLocation,MyAssembly2"> <property name="IsAdmin" /> </union-subclass> </class> </hibernate-mapping>

    Read the article

  • performance of linq extension method ElementAt

    - by Fabiano
    Hi The MSDN library entry to Enumerable.ElementAt(TSource) Method says "If the type of source implements IList, that implementation is used to obtain the element at the specified index. Otherwise, this method obtains the specified element." Let's say we have following example: ICollection<int> col = new List<int>() { /* fill with items */ }; IList<int> list = new List<int>() { /* fill with items */ }; col.ElementAt(10000000); list.ElementAt(10000000); Is there any difference in execution? or does ElementAt recognize that col also implements IList< although it's only declared as ICollection<? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Another design-related C++ question

    - by Kotti
    Hi! I am trying to find some optimal solutions in C++ coding patterns, and this is one of my game engine - related questions. Take a look at the game object declaration (I removed almost everything, that has no connection with the question). // Abstract representation of a game object class Object : public Entity, IRenderable, ISerializable { // Object parameters // Other not really important stuff public: // @note Rendering template will never change while // the object 'lives' Object(RenderTemplate& render_template, /* params */) : /*...*/ { } private: // Object rendering template RenderTemplate render_template; public: /** * Default object render method * Draws rendering template data at (X, Y) with (Width, Height) dimensions * * @note If no appropriate rendering method overload is specified * for any derived class, this method is called * * @param Backend & b * @return void * @see */ virtual void Render(Backend& backend) const { // Render sprite from object's // rendering template structure backend.RenderFromTemplate( render_template, x, y, width, height ); } }; Here is also the IRenderable interface declaration: // Objects that can be rendered interface IRenderable { /** * Abstract method to render current object * * @param Backend & b * @return void * @see */ virtual void Render(Backend& b) const = 0; } and a sample of a real object that is derived from Object (with severe simplifications :) // Ball object class Ball : public Object { // Ball params public: virtual void Render(Backend& b) const { b.RenderEllipse(/*params*/); } }; What I wanted to get is the ability to have some sort of standard function, that would draw sprite for an object (this is Object::Render) if there is no appropriate overload. So, one can have objects without Render(...) method, and if you try to render them, this default sprite-rendering stuff is invoked. And, one can have specialized objects, that define their own way of being rendered. I think, this way of doing things is quite good, but what I can't figure out - is there any way to split the objects' "normal" methods (like Resize(...) or Rotate(...)) implementation from their rendering implementation? Because if everything is done the way described earlier, a common .cpp file, that implements any type of object would generally mix the Resize(...), etc methods implementation and this virtual Render(...) method and this seems to be a mess. I actually want to have rendering procedures for the objects in one place and their "logic implementation" - in another. Is there a way this can be done (maybe alternative pattern or trick or hint) or this is where all this polymorphic and virtual stuff sucks in terms of code placement?

    Read the article

  • How to structure a Genetic Algorithm class hierarchy?

    - by MahlerFive
    I'm doing some work with Genetic Algorithms and want to write my own GA classes. Since a GA can have different ways of doing selection, mutation, cross-over, generating an initial population, calculating fitness, and terminating the algorithm, I need a way to plug in different combinations of these. My initial approach was to have an abstract class that had all of these methods defined as pure virtual, and any concrete class would have to implement them. If I want to try out two GAs that are the same but with different cross-over methods for example, I would have to make an abstract class that inherits from GeneticAlgorithm and implements all the methods except the cross-over method, then two concrete classes that inherit from this class and only implement the cross-over method. The downside to this is that every time I want to swap out a method or two to try out something new I have to make one or more new classes. Is there another approach that might apply better to this problem?

    Read the article

  • Mixing policy-based design with CRTP in C++

    - by Eitan
    I'm attempting to write a policy-based host class (i.e., a class that inherits from its template class), with a twist, where the policy class is also templated by the host class, so that it can access its types. One example where this might be useful is where a policy (used like a mixin, really), augments the host class with a polymorphic clone() method. Here's a minimal example of what I'm trying to do: template <template <class> class P> struct Host : public P<Host<P> > { typedef P<Host<P> > Base; typedef Host* HostPtr; Host(const Base& p) : Base(p) {} }; template <class H> struct Policy { typedef typename H::HostPtr Hptr; Hptr clone() const { return Hptr(new H((Hptr)this)); } }; Policy<Host<Policy> > p; Host<Policy> h(p); int main() { return 0; } This, unfortunately, fails to compile, in what seems to me like circular type dependency: try.cpp: In instantiation of ‘Host<Policy>’: try.cpp:10: instantiated from ‘Policy<Host<Policy> >’ try.cpp:16: instantiated from here try.cpp:2: error: invalid use of incomplete type ‘struct Policy<Host<Policy> >’ try.cpp:9: error: declaration of ‘struct Policy<Host<Policy> >’ try.cpp: In constructor ‘Host<P>::Host(const P<Host<P> >&) [with P = Policy]’: try.cpp:17: instantiated from here try.cpp:5: error: type ‘Policy<Host<Policy> >’ is not a direct base of ‘Host<Policy>’ If anyone can spot an obvious mistake, or has successfuly mixing CRTP in policies, I would appreciate any help.

    Read the article

  • Generic type parameters using out

    - by Mikael
    Im trying to make a universal parser using generic type parameters, but i can't grasp the concept 100% private bool TryParse<T>(XElement element, string attributeName, out T value) where T : struct { if (element.Attribute(attributeName) != null && !string.IsNullOrEmpty(element.Attribute(attributeName).Value)) { string valueString = element.Attribute(attributeName).Value; if (typeof(T) == typeof(int)) { int valueInt; if (int.TryParse(valueString, out valueInt)) { value = valueInt; return true; } } else if (typeof(T) == typeof(bool)) { bool valueBool; if (bool.TryParse(valueString, out valueBool)) { value = valueBool; return true; } } else { value = valueString; return true; } } return false; } As you might guess, the code doesn't compile, since i can't convert int|bool|string to T (eg. value = valueInt). Thankful for feedback, it might not even be possible to way i'm doing it. Using .NET 3.5

    Read the article

  • C# .NET 4.0 and Generics

    - by Mr Snuffle
    I was wondering if anyone could tell me if this kind of behaviour is possible in C# 4.0 I have an object hierarchy I'd like to keep strongly typed. Something like this class ItemBase {} class ItemType<T> where T : ItemBase { T Base { get; set; } } class EquipmentBase : ItemBase {} class EquipmentType : ItemType<EquipmentBase> {} What I want to be able to do to have something like this ItemType item = new EquipmentType(); And I want item.Base to return type ItemBase. Basically I want to know if it's smart enough to strongly typed generic to a base class without the strong typing. Benefit of this being I can simply cast an ItemType back to an EquipmentType and get all the strongly typedness again. I may be thinking about this all wrong...

    Read the article

  • How to treat an instance variable as an instance of another type in C#

    - by Ben Aston
    I have a simple inheritance heirarchy with MyType2 inheriting from MyType1. I have an instance of MyType1, arg, passed in as an argument to a method. If arg is an instance of MyType2, then I'd like to perform some logic, transforming the instance. My code looks something like the code below. Having to create a new local variable b feels inelegant - is there a way of achieving the same behavior without the additional local variable? public MyType1 MyMethod(MyType1 arg) { if(arg is MyType2) { MyType2 b = arg as MyType2; //use b (which modifies "arg" as "b" is a reference to it)... } return arg; }

    Read the article

  • Polymorphic call

    - by harigm
    I am new to java, I have seen in the code at many places where my seniors have declared as List myList = new ArrayList(); (option1) Instead of ArrayList myList = new ArrayList(); (option2) Can you please tell me why people use Option1, is there any advantages? If we use option2, do we miss out any advantages or features?

    Read the article

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