Search Results

Search found 16573 results on 663 pages for 'private constructor'.

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

Page 5/663 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • XCode project complains about missing files if a linked framework contains private headers

    - by darklight
    My Problem is this: My framework contains public and private headers - the public headers import private headers in the framework My app that links against this framework imports public headers Now when I compile it, XCode complains about missing files (the private headers that are indirectly imported via the frameworks public headers). I read somewhere on stackoverflow that I should do this: "In the public header file use @class to include other interfaces and use #import in the implementation file (.m)." I find this solution pretty unsatisfying - you have to use it for circular dependencies, too. Is there any better way to keep my headers private?

    Read the article

  • Accomplishing boost::shared_from_this() in constructor via boost::shared_from_raw(this)

    - by Kyle
    Googling and poking around the boost code, it appears that it's now possible to construct a shared_ptr to this in a constructor, by inheriting from enable_shared_from_raw and calling shared_from_raw(this) Is there any documentation or examples of this? I'm finding nothing with google. Why am I not finding any useful buzz on this on google? I would have thought using shared_from_this in a constructor would be a hot/desirable item. Should I be inheriting from both enable_shared_from_raw and enable_shared_from_this, and restricting my usage of enable_shared_from_raw when I have to? If so, why? Is there a performance hit with shared_from_raw?

    Read the article

  • Ruby module_function, invoking module's private method, invoked in class method style on module shows error

    - by Jignesh
    test_module.rb module MyModule def module_func_a puts "module_func_a invoked" private_b end module_function :module_func_a private def private_b puts "private_b invoked" end end class MyClass include MyModule def test_module module_func_a end end Invoking module function from class c = MyClass.new c.test_module Output 1: $ ruby test_module.rb module_func_a invoked private_b invoked Invoking module function on module in class method style ma = MyModule.module_func_a Output 2: module_func_a invoked test_module.rb:5:in `module_func_a': undefined local variable or method `private_b' for MyModule:Module (NameError) from test_module.rb:31 As can be seen from the Output 1 and Output 2 when including the module in a class, no issue occurs when a module's private method gets invoked from a module function while in case when directly invoking the module function on the module in class method style the module's private method, invoked from module function, is not found. Can anybody make me understand the reason behind above behavior and whether invoking module function (which in turn invokes module's private method) on module in class method style is possible or not? If possible, then what rectifications are required in my code to do the same? Thanks, Jignesh

    Read the article

  • Copy constructor with more than one parameter

    - by Ravi Gupta
    I am learning C++ and was reading copy constructor from the C++: The Complete Reference. The books says that It is permissible for a copy constructor to have additional parameters as long as they have default arguments defined for them. However, in all cases the first parameter must be a reference to the object doing the initializing. But I am confused that how we are going to pass those additional parameters? I am sure there should be some way which is not given in the book and which I am unable to figure out. Can anyone help me out? EDIT: Also is it possible to pass these extra parameters in all three cases i.e. ¦ When one object explicitly initializes another, such as in a declaration ¦ When a copy of an object is made to be passed to a function ¦ When a temporary object is generated (most commonly, as a return value)

    Read the article

  • Const parameter at constructor causes stackoverflow

    - by Luca
    I've found this strange behavior with VS2005 C++ compiler. Here is the situation: I cannot publish the code, but situation is very simple. Here is initial code: it work perfectly class Foo { public: Foo(Bar &bar) { ... } } The constructor implementation stores a reference, setup some members... indeed nothing special. If I change the code in the following way: class Foo { public: Foo(const Bar &bar) { ... } } I've added a const qualifier to the only constructor routine parameter. It compiles correctly, but the compiler outputs a warning saying that the routine Foo::Foo will cause a stackoverflow (even if the execution path doesn't construct any object Foo); effectively this happens. So, why the code without the const parameter works perfectly, while the one with the const qualifier causes a stackoverflow? What can cause this strange behavior?

    Read the article

  • Constructor Type Coercion in C++

    - by Robert Mason
    Take the following class: class mytype { double num; public: mytype(int a) { num = sqrt(a); } void print() { cout << num; } } Say there is a method which takes a mytype: void foo(mytype a) { a.print(); } Is it legal c++ (or is there a way to implement this) to call foo(4), which would (in theory) output 2? From what I can glean you can overload type casts from a user defined class, but not to. Can constructor do this in a standards-compliant manner (assuming, of course, the constructor is not explicit). Hopefully there is a way to in the end have this legal: int a; cin >> a; foo(a); Note: this is quite obviously not the actual issue, but just an example for posting purposes. I can't just overload the function because of inheritance and other program-specific issues.

    Read the article

  • C# - Adding to an existing (generated) constructor

    - by Vaccano
    I have a constructor that is in generated code. I don't want to change the generated code (cause it would get overwritten when I regenerate), but I need to add some functionality to the constructor. Here is some example code: // Generated file public partial class MyGeneratedClass { public MyGeneratedClass() { Does some generated stuff } } The only solution I can come up with is this: // My hand made file public partial class MyGeneratedClass { public MyGeneratedClass(bool useOtherConstructor):this() { do my added functinallity } } I am fairly sure this will work, but I then have a lame unused param to my constructors and I have to go change them all. Is there a better way? If not that is fine, but I thought I would ask.

    Read the article

  • Passing dependent objects to a parent constructor in Scala

    - by Nick Johnson
    Suppose I have the following class heirarchy: class A() class B(a:A) class C(b:B) class BaseClass(b:B, c:C) Now I want to implement a subclass of BaseClass, which is given an instance of A, and constructs instances of B and C, which it passes to its superclass constructor. If I could use arbitrary expressions, I'd do something like this: b = new B(a) c = new C(b) super(b, c) Because the second argument to the parent constructor depends on the value of the first argument, though, I can't see any way to do this, without using a factory function, or a gratuitous hack, such as : class IntermediateSubclass(b:B) extends BaseClass(b, new C(b)) class RealSubclass(a:A) extends IntermediateSubclass(new B(a)) Is there clean way to do this?

    Read the article

  • initializing properties with private sets in .Net

    - by Martin Neal
    public class Foo { public string Name { get; private set;} // <-- Because set is private, } void Main() { var bar = new Foo {Name = "baz"}; // <-- This doesn't compile /*The property or indexer 'UserQuery.Foo.Name' cannot be used in this context because the set accessor is inaccessible*/ using (DataContext dc = new DataContext(Connection)) { // yet the following line works. **How**? IEnumerable<Foo> qux = dc.ExecuteQuery<Foo>( "SELECT Name FROM Customer"); } foreach (q in qux) Console.WriteLine(q); } I have just been using the private modifier because it works and kept me from being stupid with my code, but now that I need to create a new Foo, I've just removed the private modifier from my property. I'm just really curious, why does the ExecuteQuery into an IEnumerable of Foo's work?

    Read the article

  • Problem accessing base member in derived constructor

    - by LeopardSkinPillBoxHat
    Given the following classes: class Foo { struct BarBC { protected: BarBC(uint32_t aKey) : mKey(aKey) mOtherKey(0) public: const uint32_t mKey; const uint32_t mOtherKey; }; struct Bar : public BarBC { Bar(uint32_t aKey, uint32_t aOtherKey) : BarBC(aKey), mOtherKey(aOtherKey) // Compile error here }; }; I am getting a compilation error at the point indicated: error: class `Foo::Bar' does not have any field named `mOtherKey'. Can anyone explain this? I suspect it's a syntactical problem due to my Bar class being defined within the Foo class, but can't seem to find a way around it. This is simple public inheritance, so mOtherKey should be accessible from the Bar constructor. Right? Or is it something to do with the fact that mOtherKey is const and I have already initialised it to 0 in the BarBC constructor?

    Read the article

  • Constructor/Destructor involving a class and a struct

    - by Bogdan Maier
    I am working on a program and need to make an array of objects, specifically I have a 31x1 array where each position is an object, (each object is basically built out of 6 ints). Here is what I have but something is wrong and i could use some help thank you. 31x1 struct header" const int days=31; struct Arr{ int days; int *M; }; typedef Arr* Array; 31x1 matrix constructor: void constr(){ int *M; M = new Expe[31]; // Expe is the class class header: class Expe { private: //0-HouseKeeping, 1-Food, 2-Transport, 3-Clothing, 4-TelNet, 5-others int *obj; } Class object constructor: Expe::Expe() { this->obj=new int[6]; } help please... because i`m pretty lost.

    Read the article

  • C# COM+ component isn't getting the constructor string

    - by Kyle W
    I've created a COM+ component in C# with a strong name, COM Visible, ProgId, etc... I've then registered the assembly with regasm, and imported it into the COM+ Applications in Component Services. It runs just fine, and loads up the DLL, except that the constructor string that is passed in is always empty. The method signature is protected override void Construct(string constructString), and it is being called before the method on the actual component. In the component details in COM+ Applications, the constructor string is checked and a value is entered. Any help is appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Why isn't the copy constructor elided here?

    - by Jesse Beder
    (I'm using gcc with -O2.) This seems like a straightforward opportunity to elide the copy constructor, since there are no side-effects to accessing the value of a field in a bar's copy of a foo; but the copy constructor is called, since I get the output meep meep!. #include <iostream> struct foo { foo(): a(5) { } foo(const foo& f): a(f.a) { std::cout << "meep meep!\n"; } int a; }; struct bar { foo F() const { return f; } foo f; }; int main() { bar b; int a = b.F().a; return 0; }

    Read the article

  • Calling private event handler from outside class

    - by Azodious
    i've two classes. One class (say A) takes a textbox in c'tor. and registers TextChanged event with private event-handler method. 2nd class (say B) creates the object of class A by providing a textbox. how to invoke the private event handler of class A from class B? it also registers the MouseClick event. is there any way to invoke private eventhandlers?

    Read the article

  • C++ constructor problem, values not being set

    - by 2Real
    Hi, I'm new to C++ and I'm trying to figure out this problem I'm having with my constructor for one of my classes. What happens is... all my variables are initialized properly except two (health and type). #pragma once #include <irrlicht.h> #include <vector> #include <cassert> using namespace irr; using namespace core; using namespace scene; enum { PLAYER = 0, NPC = 1, SOLDIER = 2, CHAINGUNNER = 3 }; class Model { public: Model(void); Model(int id, std::vector<ISceneNode*> modelVec, int modType); ~Model(void); std::vector<int> path; std::vector<ISceneNode*> model; int endNode; int type; int animate; int health; u32 lastAnimation; private: int mId; }; #include "Model.h" Model::Model(void) { //assert(false); } Model::Model(int id, std::vector<ISceneNode*> modelVec, int modType) { path = std::vector<int>(); model = modelVec; endNode = 0; type = modType; animate = 0; health = 100; lastAnimation = 0; mId = id; } Model::~Model(void) {} I create a model with Model soldier(id, model, SOLDIER) Everything is set properly except type and health. I've tried many different things, but I cannot figure out my problem. I'm not sure but the default constructor is being called. It doesn't make sense because I make no called to that constructor. Thanks,

    Read the article

  • IOC Container Handling State Params in Non-Default Constructor

    - by Mystagogue
    For the purpose of this discussion, there are two kinds of parameters an object constructor might take: state dependency or service dependency. Supplying a service dependency with an IOC container is easy: DI takes over. But in contrast, state dependencies are usually only known to the client. That is, the object requestor. It turns out that having a client supply the state params through an IOC Container is quite painful. I will show several different ways to do this, all of which have big problems, and ask the community if there is another option I'm missing. Let's begin: Before I added an IOC container to my project code, I started with a class like this: class Foobar { //parameters are state dependencies, not service dependencies public Foobar(string alpha, int omega){...}; //...other stuff } I decide to add a Logger service depdendency to the Foobar class, which perhaps I'll provide through DI: class Foobar { public Foobar(string alpha, int omega, ILogger log){...}; //...other stuff } But then I'm also told I need to make class Foobar itself "swappable." That is, I'm required to service-locate a Foobar instance. I add a new interface into the mix: class Foobar : IFoobar { public Foobar(string alpha, int omega, ILogger log){...}; //...other stuff } When I make the service locator call, it will DI the ILogger service dependency for me. Unfortunately the same is not true of the state dependencies Alpha and Omega. Some containers offer a syntax to address this: //Unity 2.0 pseudo-ish code: myContainer.Resolve<IFoobar>( new parameterOverride[] { {"alpha", "one"}, {"omega",2} } ); I like the feature, but I don't like that it is untyped and not evident to the developer what parameters must be passed (via intellisense, etc). So I look at another solution: //This is a "boiler plate" heavy approach! class Foobar : IFoobar { public Foobar (string alpha, int omega){...}; //...stuff } class FoobarFactory : IFoobarFactory { public IFoobar IFoobarFactory.Create(string alpha, int omega){ return new Foobar(alpha, omega); } } //fetch it... myContainer.Resolve<IFoobarFactory>().Create("one", 2); The above solves the type-safety and intellisense problem, but it (1) forced class Foobar to fetch an ILogger through a service locator rather than DI and (2) it requires me to make a bunch of boiler-plate (XXXFactory, IXXXFactory) for all varieties of Foobar implementations I might use. Should I decide to go with a pure service locator approach, it may not be a problem. But I still can't stand all the boiler-plate needed to make this work. So then I try this: //code named "concrete creator" class Foobar : IFoobar { public Foobar(string alpha, int omega, ILogger log){...}; static IFoobar Create(string alpha, int omega){ //unity 2.0 pseudo-ish code. Assume a common //service locator, or singleton holds the container... return Container.Resolve<IFoobar>( new parameterOverride[] {{"alpha", alpha},{"omega", omega} } ); } //Get my instance: Foobar.Create("alpha",2); I actually don't mind that I'm using the concrete "Foobar" class to create an IFoobar. It represents a base concept that I don't expect to change in my code. I also don't mind the lack of type-safety in the static "Create", because it is now encapsulated. My intellisense is working too! Any concrete instance made this way will ignore the supplied state params if they don't apply (a Unity 2.0 behavior). Perhaps a different concrete implementation "FooFoobar" might have a formal arg name mismatch, but I'm still pretty happy with it. But the big problem with this approach is that it only works effectively with Unity 2.0 (a mismatched parameter in Structure Map will throw an exception). So it is good only if I stay with Unity. The problem is, I'm beginning to like Structure Map a lot more. So now I go onto yet another option: class Foobar : IFoobar, IFoobarInit { public Foobar(ILogger log){...}; public IFoobar IFoobarInit.Initialize(string alpha, int omega){ this.alpha = alpha; this.omega = omega; return this; } } //now create it... IFoobar foo = myContainer.resolve<IFoobarInit>().Initialize("one", 2) Now with this I've got a somewhat nice compromise with the other approaches: (1) My arguments are type-safe / intellisense aware (2) I have a choice of fetching the ILogger via DI (shown above) or service locator, (3) there is no need to make one or more seperate concrete FoobarFactory classes (contrast with the verbose "boiler-plate" example code earlier), and (4) it reasonably upholds the principle "make interfaces easy to use correctly, and hard to use incorrectly." At least it arguably is no worse than the alternatives previously discussed. One acceptance barrier yet remains: I also want to apply "design by contract." Every sample I presented was intentionally favoring constructor injection (for state dependencies) because I want to preserve "invariant" support as most commonly practiced. Namely, the invariant is established when the constructor completes. In the sample above, the invarient is not established when object construction completes. As long as I'm doing home-grown "design by contract" I could just tell developers not to test the invariant until the Initialize(...) method is called. But more to the point, when .net 4.0 comes out I want to use its "code contract" support for design by contract. From what I read, it will not be compatible with this last approach. Curses! Of course it also occurs to me that my entire philosophy is off. Perhaps I'd be told that conjuring a Foobar : IFoobar via a service locator implies that it is a service - and services only have other service dependencies, they don't have state dependencies (such as the Alpha and Omega of these examples). I'm open to listening to such philosophical matters as well, but I'd also like to know what semi-authorative reference to read that would steer me down that thought path. So now I turn it to the community. What approach should I consider that I havn't yet? Must I really believe I've exhausted my options?

    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

  • 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

  • call parent constructor in ruby

    - by Stas
    Hi! How can I call parents constructor ? module C attr_accessor :c, :cc def initialization c, cc @c, @cc = c, cc end end class B attr_accessor :b, :bb def initialization b, bb @b, @bb = b, bb end end class A < B include C attr_accessor :a, :aa def initialization (a, b, c, aa, bb, cc) #call B::initialization - ? #call C::initialization - ? @a, @aa = a, aa end end Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Kohana 3 - Constructor

    - by pigfox
    I attempted to use public function __construct(){} but got the error ErrorException [ Strict ]: Creating default object from empty value. The reason behind this is that I use a controller that is protected for logged in users only, I don't want to have to call $this-protect(); from every action in the controller. Hence my attempt to use a constructor that calls $this-protect();

    Read the article

  • Java constructor and modify the object properties at runtime

    - by lupin
    Note: This is an assignment Hi, I have the following class/constructor. import java.io.*; class Set { public int numberOfElements = 0; public String[] setElements = new String[5]; public int maxNumberOfElements = 5; // constructor for our Set class public Set(int numberOfE, int setE, int maxNumberOfE) { int numberOfElements = numberOfE; String[] setElements = new String[setE]; int maxNumberOfElements = maxNumberOfE; } // Helper method to shorten/remove element of array since we're using basic array instead of ArrayList or HashSet from collection interface :( static String[] removeAt(int k, String[] arr) { final int L = arr.length; String[] ret = new String[L - 1]; System.arraycopy(arr, 0, ret, 0, k); System.arraycopy(arr, k + 1, ret, k, L - k - 1); return ret; } int findElement(String element) { int retval = 0; for ( int i = 0; i < setElements.length; i++) { if ( setElements[i] != null && setElements[i].equals(element) ) { return retval = i; } retval = -1; } return retval; } void add(String newValue) { int elem = findElement(newValue); if( numberOfElements < maxNumberOfElements && elem == -1 ) { setElements[numberOfElements] = newValue; numberOfElements++; } } int getLength() { if ( setElements != null ) { return setElements.length; } else { return 0; } } String[] emptySet() { setElements = new String[0]; return setElements; } Boolean isFull() { Boolean True = new Boolean(true); Boolean False = new Boolean(false); if ( setElements.length == maxNumberOfElements ){ return True; } else { return False; } } Boolean isEmpty() { Boolean True = new Boolean(true); Boolean False = new Boolean(false); if ( setElements.length == 0 ) { return True; } else { return False; } } void remove(String newValue) { for ( int i = 0; i < setElements.length; i++) { if ( setElements[i].equals(newValue) ) { setElements = removeAt(i,setElements); } } } int isAMember(String element) { int retval = -1; for ( int i = 0; i < setElements.length; i++ ) { if (setElements[i] != null && setElements[i].equals(element)) { return retval = i; } } return retval; } void printSet() { for ( int i = 0; i < setElements.length; i++) { System.out.println("Member elements on index: "+ i +" " + setElements[i]); } } String[] getMember() { String[] tempArray = new String[setElements.length]; for ( int i = 0; i < setElements.length; i++) { if(setElements[i] != null) { tempArray[i] = setElements[i]; } } return tempArray; } Set union(Set x, Set y) { String[] newXtemparray = new String[x.getLength()]; String[] newYtemparray = new String[y.getLength()]; Set temp = new Set(1,20,20); newXtemparray = x.getMember(); newYtemparray = x.getMember(); for(int i = 0; i < newXtemparray.length; i++) { temp.add(newYtemparray[i]); } for(int j = 0; j < newYtemparray.length; j++) { temp.add(newYtemparray[j]); } return temp; } } // This is the SetDemo class that will make use of our Set class class SetDemo { public static void main(String[] args) { //get input from keyboard BufferedReader keyboard; InputStreamReader reader; String temp = ""; reader = new InputStreamReader(System.in); keyboard = new BufferedReader(reader); try { System.out.println("Enter string element to be added" ); temp = keyboard.readLine( ); System.out.println("You entered " + temp ); } catch (IOException IOerr) { System.out.println("There was an error during input"); } /* ************************************************************************** * Test cases for our new created Set class. * ************************************************************************** */ Set setA = new Set(1,10,10); setA.add(temp); setA.add("b"); setA.add("b"); setA.add("hello"); setA.add("world"); setA.add("six"); setA.add("seven"); setA.add("b"); int size = setA.getLength(); System.out.println("Set size is: " + size ); Boolean isempty = setA.isEmpty(); System.out.println("Set is empty? " + isempty ); int ismember = setA.isAMember("sixb"); System.out.println("Element six is member of setA? " + ismember ); Boolean output = setA.isFull(); System.out.println("Set is full? " + output ); setA.printSet(); int index = setA.findElement("world"); System.out.println("Element b located on index: " + index ); setA.remove("b"); setA.emptySet(); int resize = setA.getLength(); System.out.println("Set size is: " + resize ); setA.printSet(); Set setB = new Set(0,10,10); Set SetA = setA.union(setB,setA); SetA.printSet(); } } I have two question here, why I when I change the class property declaration to: class Set { public int numberOfElements; public String[] setElements; public int maxNumberOfElements; // constructor for our Set class public Set(int numberOfE, int setE, int maxNumberOfE) { int numberOfElements = numberOfE; String[] setElements = new String[setE]; int maxNumberOfElements = maxNumberOfE; } I got this error: \ javaprojects>java SetDemo Enter string element to be added a You entered a Exception in thread "main" java.lang.NullPointerException at Set.findElement(Set.java:30) at Set.add(Set.java:43) at SetDemo.main(Set.java:169) Second, on the union method, why the result of SetA.printSet still printing null, isn't it getting back the return value from union method? Thanks in advance for any explaination. lupin

    Read the article

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

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