Search Results

Search found 15432 results on 618 pages for 'private inheritance'.

Page 53/618 | < Previous Page | 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60  | Next Page >

  • Execute a function to affect different template class instances

    - by Samer Afach
    I have a complicated problem, and I need help. I have a base case, class ParamBase { string paramValue; //... } and a bunch of class templates with different template parameters. template <typename T> class Param : public ParamBase { T value; //... } Now, each instance of Param has different template parameter, double, int, string... etc. To make it easier, I have a vector to their base class pointers that contains all the instances that have been created: vector<ParamBase*> allParamsObjects; The question is: How can I run a single function (global or member or anything, your choice), that converts all of those different instances' strings paramValue with different templates arguments and save the conversion result to the appropriate type in Param::value. This has to be run over all objects that are saved in the vector allParamsObjects. So if the template argument of the first Param is double, paramValue has to be converted to double and saved in value; and if the second Param's argument is int, then the paramValue of the second has to be converted to int and saved in value... etc. I feel it's almost impossible... Any help would be highly appreciated :-)

    Read the article

  • Rails 3 Abstract Class vs Inherited Class

    - by R. Yanchuleff
    In my rails 3 model, I have two classes: Product, Service. I want both to be of type InventoryItem because I have another model called Store and Store has_many :InventoryItems This is what I'm trying to get to, but I'm not sure how to model this in my InventoryItem model and my Product and Service models. Should InventoryItem just be a parent class that Product and Service inherit from, or should InventoryItem be modeled as a class abstract of which Product and Service extend from. Thanks in advance for the advice!

    Read the article

  • Using child visitor in C#

    - by Thomas Matthews
    I am setting up a testing component and trying to keep it generic. I want to use a generic Visitor class, but not sure about using descendant classes. Example: public interface Interface_Test_Case { void execute(); void accept(Interface_Test_Visitor v); } public interface Interface_Test_Visitor { void visit(Interface_Test_Case tc); } public interface Interface_Read_Test_Case : Interface_Test_Case { uint read_value(); } public class USB_Read_Test : Interface_Read_Test_Case { void execute() { Console.WriteLine("Executing USB Read Test Case."); } void accept(Interface_Test_Visitor v) { Console.WriteLine("Accepting visitor."); } uint read_value() { Console.WriteLine("Reading value from USB"); return 0; } } public class USB_Read_Visitor : Interface_Test_Visitor { void visit(Interface_Test_Case tc) { Console.WriteLine("Not supported Test Case."); } void visit(Interface_Read_Test_Case rtc) { Console.WriteLine("Not supported Read Test Case."); } void visit(USB_Read_Test urt) { Console.WriteLine("Yay, visiting USB Read Test case."); } } // Code fragment USB_Read_Test test_case; USB_Read_Visitor visitor; test_case.accept(visitor); What are the rules the C# compiler uses to determine which of the methods in USB_Read_Visitor will be executed by the code fragment? I'm trying to factor out dependencies of my testing component. Unfortunately, my current Visitor class contains visit methods for classes not related to the testing component. Am I trying to achieve the impossible?

    Read the article

  • Generic calls to OnResetDevice() and OnLostDevice()

    - by bobobobo
    This is kind of a COM question to do with DirectX. So, both ID3DXSprite and ID3DXFont and a bunch of the other ID3DX* objects require you to call OnLostDevice() when the d3d device is lost AND OnResetDevice() when the device is reset. What I want to do is maintain an array of all ID3DX* objects and simply call OnResetDevice() and OnLostDevice() on each whenever the device is lost or reset. However I can't seem to find a BASE CLASS for the ID3DX* classes... they all seem to COM-ually inherit from IUnknown. Is there a way to do this or do I have to maintain separate arrays of ID3DXFont* pointers, ID3DXSprite* pointers, etc?

    Read the article

  • XSD: xs:sequence & xs:choice combination for xs:extension elements of a common base type?

    - by bguiz
    Hi, My question is about defining an XML schema that will validate the following XML: <rules> <other>...</other> <bool>...</bool> <other>...</other> <string>...</string> <other>...</other> </rules> The order of the child nodes does not matter. The cardinality of the child nodes is 0..unbounded. All the child elements of the rules node have a common base type, rule, like so: <xs:complexType name="booleanRule"> <xs:complexContent> <xs:extension base="rule"> ... </xs:extension> </xs:complexContent> </xs:complexType> <xs:complexType name="stringFilterRule"> <xs:complexContent> <xs:extension base="filterRule"> ... </xs:extension> </xs:complexContent> </xs:complexType> My current (feeble) attempt at defining the schema for the rules node is below. However, Can I nest xs:choice within xs:sequence? If, where do I specify the maxOccurs="unbounded" attribute? Is there a better way to do this, such as an xs:sequence which specifies only the base type of its child elements? <xs:element name="rules"> <xs:complexType> <xs:sequence> <xs:choice> <xs:element name="bool" type="booleanRule" /> <xs:element name="string" type="stringRule" /> <xs:element name="other" type="someOtherRule" /> </xs:choice> </xs:sequence> </xs:complexType> </xs:element>

    Read the article

  • Python:How to override inner class methods if the inner class is defined as a property of the top cl

    - by Maddy
    I have a code snippet like this class A(object): class b: def print_hello(self): print "Hello world" b = property(b) And I want to override the inner class 'b'(please dont worry about the lowercase name) behaviour. Say, I want to add a new method or I want to change an existing method, like: class C(A): class b(A.b): def print_hello(self): print "Inner Class: Hello world" b = property(b) Now if I create C's object as c = C(), and call c.b I get TypeError: 'property' object is not callable error. How would I get pass this and call print_hello of the extended inner class? Disclaimer: I dont want to change the code for A class.

    Read the article

  • ActiveRecord Validations for Models with has_many, belongs_to associations and STI

    - by keruilin
    I have four models: User Award Badge GameWeek The associations are as follows: User has many awards. Award belongs to user. Badge has many awards. Award belongs to badge. User has many game_weeks. GameWeek belongs to user. GameWeek has many awards. Award belongs to game_week. Thus, user_id, badge_id and game_week_id are foreign keys in awards table. Badge implements an STI model. Let's just say it has the following subclasses: BadgeA and BadgeB. Some rules to note: The game_week_id fk can be nil for BadgeA, but can't be nil for BadgeB. Here are my questions: For BadgeA, how do I write a validation that it can only be awarded one time? That is, the user can't have more than one -- ever. For BadgeB, how do I write a validation that it can only be awarded one time per game week?

    Read the article

  • Using enums or a set of classes when I know I have a finite set of different options?

    - by devoured elysium
    Let's say I have defined the following class: public abstract class Event { public DateTime Time { get; protected set; } protected Event(DateTime time) { Time = time; } } What would you prefer between this: public class AsleepEvent : Event { public AsleepEvent(DateTime time) : base(time) { } } public class AwakeEvent : Event { public AwakeEvent(DateTime time) : base(time) { } } and this: public enum StateEventType { NowAwake, NowAsleep } public class StateEvent : Event { protected StateEventType stateType; public MealEvent(DateTime time, StateEventType stateType) : base(time) { stateType = stateType; } } and why? I am generally more inclined to the first option, but I can't explain why. Is it totally the same or are any advantages in using one instead of the other? Maybe with the first method its easier to add more "states", altough in this case I am 100% sure I will only want two states: now awake, and now asleep (they signal the moments when one awakes and one falls asleep).

    Read the article

  • Attaching methods to prototype from within constructor function

    - by Matthew Taylor
    Here is the textbook standard way of describing a 'class' or constructor function in JavaScript, straight from the Definitive Guide to JavaScript: function Rectangle(w,h) { this.width = w; this.height = h; } Rectangle.prototype.area = function() { return this.width * this.height; }; I don't like the dangling prototype manipulation here, so I was trying to think of a way to encapsulate the function definition for area inside the constructor. I came up with this, which I did not expect to work: function Rectangle(w,h) { this.width = w; this.height = h; this.constructor.prototype.area = function() { return this.width * this.height; }; } I didn't expect this to work because the this reference inside the area function should be pointing to the area function itself, so I wouldn't have access to width and height from this. But it turns out I do! var rect = new Rectangle(2,3); var area = rect.area(); // great scott! it is 6 Some further testing confirmed that the this reference inside the area function actually was a reference to the object under construction, not the area function itself. function Rectangle(w,h) { this.width = w; this.height = h; var me = this; this.constructor.prototype.whatever = function() { if (this === me) { alert ('this is not what you think');} }; } Turns out the alert pops up, and this is exactly the object under construction. So what is going on here? Why is this not the this I expect it to be?

    Read the article

  • Me As Child Type In General Function

    - by Steven
    I have a MustInherit Parent class with two Child classes which Inherit from the Parent. How can I use (or Cast) Me in a Parent function as the the child type of that instance? EDIT: My actual goal is to be able to serialize (BinaryFormatter.Serialize(Stream, Object)) either of my child classes. However, "repeating the code" in each child "seems" wrong. EDIT2: This is my Serialize function. Where should I implement this function? Copying and pasting to each child doesn't seem right, but casting the parent to a child doesn't seem right either. Public Function Serialize() As Byte() Dim bFmt As New BinaryFormatter() Dim mStr As New MemoryStream() bFmt.Serialize(mStr, Me) Return mStr.ToArray() End Function

    Read the article

  • Problem overridding virtual function

    - by William
    Okay, I'm writing a game that has a vector of a pairent class (enemy) that s going to be filled with children classes (goomba, koopa, boss1) and I need to make it so when I call update it calls the childclasses respective update. I have managed to create a example of my problem. #include <stdio.h> class A{ public: virtual void print(){printf("Hello from A");} }; class B : public A{ public: void print(){printf("Hello from B");} }; int main(){ A ab = B(); ab.print(); while(true){} } Output wanted: "Hello from B" Output got: "Hello from A" How do I get it to call B's print function?

    Read the article

  • C++: Create abstract class with abstract method and override the method in a subclass

    - by Martijn Courteaux
    Hi, How to create in C++ an abstract class with some abstract methods that I want to override in a subclass? How should the .h file look? Is there a .cpp, if so how should it look? In Java it would look like this: abstract class GameObject { public abstract void update(); public abstract void paint(Graphics g); } class Player extends GameObject { @Override public void update() { // ... } @Override public void paint(Graphics g) { // ... } } // In my game loop: for (int i = 0; i < objects.size(); i++) { objects.get(i).update(); } for (int i = 0; i < objects.size(); i++) { objects.get(i).paint(g); } Translating this code to C++ is enough for me.

    Read the article

  • Constructor Overload Problem in C++ Inherrentance

    - by metdos
    Here my code snippet: class Request { public: Request(void); ……….. } Request::Request(void) { qDebug()<<"Request: "<<"Hello World"; } class LoginRequest :public Request { public: LoginRequest(void); LoginRequest(QDomDocument); …………… } LoginRequest::LoginRequest(void) { qDebug()<<"LoginRequest: "<<"Hello World"; requestType=LOGIN; requestId=-1; } LoginRequest::LoginRequest(QDomDocument doc){ qDebug()<<"LoginRequest: "<<"Hello World with QDomDocument"; LoginRequest::LoginRequest(); xmlDoc_=doc; } When call constructor of Overrided LoginRequest LoginRequest *test=new LoginRequest(doc); I came up with this result: Request: Hello World LoginRequest: Hello World with QDomDocument Request: Hello World LoginRequest: Hello World Obviously both constructor of LoginRequest called REquest constructor. Is there any way to cape with this situation? I can construct another function that does the job I want to do and have both constructors call that function. But I wonder is there any solution?

    Read the article

  • Using a class within another class in asp.net

    - by Phil
    In my site I have class A which selects the required page module (blog,content,gallery etc). I also have class B which provides sqlclient database objects and sql statements. If I use class B in a web form via "Imports Class B". I am able to access the contents. I now would like to use class B within class A but am struggling to find the correct syntax for importing it. Please can someone give me a basic example. We are coming from a classic asp background, and used to simply use includes. We are using VB Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Python, invoke super constructor

    - by Mike
    class A: def __init__(self): print "world" class B(A): def __init__(self): print "hello" B() hello In all other languages I've worked with the super constructor is invoked implicitly. How does one invoke it in Python? I would expect super(self) but this doesn't work

    Read the article

  • How can I reuse a base class function in a derived class

    - by Armen Ablak
    Let's say we have these four classes: BinaryTree, SplayTree (which is a sub-class of BinaryTree), BinaryNode and SplayNode (which is a sub-class of BinaryNode). In class BinaryTree I have 2 Find functions, like this bool Find(const T &) const; virtual Node<T> * Find(const T &, Node<T> *) const; and in SplayTree I would like to reuse the second one, because it works in the same way (for example) as in SplayTree, the only thing different is the return type, which is SplayNode. I thought it might be enough if I use this line in SplayTree.cpp using BinaryTree::Find; but it isn't. So, how can I do this?

    Read the article

  • How to use a class's type as the type argument for an inherited collection property in C#

    - by Edelweiss Peimann
    I am trying to create a representation of various types of card that inherit from a generic card class and which all contain references to their owning decks. I tried re-declaring them, as suggested here, but it still won't convert to the specific card type. The code I currently have is as such: public class Deck<T> : List<T> where T : Card { void Shuffle() { throw new NotImplementedException("Shuffle not yet implemented."); } } public class Card { public Deck<Card> OwningDeck { get; set; } } public class FooCard : Card { public Deck<FooCard> OwningDeck { get { return (Deck<FooCard>)base.OwningDeck; } set { OwningDeck = value; } } } The compile-time error I am getting: Error 2 Cannot convert type 'Game.Cards.Deck' to 'Game.Cards.Deck' And a warning suggesting I use a new operator to specify that the hiding is intentional. Would doing so be a violation of convention? Is there a better way? My question to stackoverflow is this: Can what I am trying to do be done elegantly in the .NET type system? If so, can some examples be provided?

    Read the article

  • how do I best create a set of list classes to match my business objects

    - by ken-forslund
    I'm a bit fuzzy on the best way to solve the problem of needing a list for each of my business objects that implements some overridden functions. Here's the setup: I have a baseObject that sets up database, and has its proper Dispose() method All my other business objects inherit from it, and if necessary, override Dispose() Some of these classes also contain arrays (lists) of other objects. So I create a class that holds a List of these. I'm aware I could just use the generic List, but that doesn't let me add extra features like Dispose() so it will loop through and clean up. So if I had objects called User, Project and Schedule, I would create UserList, ProjectList, ScheduleList. In the past, I have simply had these inherit from List< with the appropriate class named and then written the pile of common functions I wanted it to have, like Dispose(). this meant I would verify by hand, that each of these List classes had the same set of methods. Some of these classes had pretty simple versions of these methods that could have been inherited from a base list class. I could write an interface, to force me to ensure that each of my List classes has the same functions, but interfaces don't let me write common base functions that SOME of the lists might override. I had tried to write a baseObjectList that inherited from List, and then make my other Lists inherit from that, but there are issues with that (which is really why I came here). One of which was trying to use the Find() method with a predicate. I've simplified the problem down to just a discussion of Dispose() method on the list that loops through and disposes its contents, but in reality, I have several other common functions that I want all my lists to have. What's the best practice to solve this organizational matter?

    Read the article

  • Calling Base Class Functions with Inherited Type

    - by Kein Mitleid
    I can't describe exactly what I want to say but I want to use base class functions with an inherited type. Like I want to declare "Coord3D operator + (Coord3D);" in one class, but if I use it with Vector3D operands, I want it to return Vector3D type instead of Coord3D. With this line of code below, I add two Vector3D's and get a Coord3D in return, as told to me by the typeid().name() function. How do I reorganize my classes so that I get a Vector3D on return? #include <iostream> #include <typeinfo> using namespace std; class Coord3D { public: float x, y, z; Coord3D (float = 0.0f, float = 0.0f, float = 0.0f); Coord3D operator + (Coord3D &); }; Coord3D::Coord3D (float a, float b, float c) { x = a; y = b; z = c; } Coord3D Coord3D::operator+ (Coord3D &param) { Coord3D temp; temp.x = x + param.x; temp.y = y + param.y; temp.z = z + param.z; return temp; } class Vector3D: public Coord3D { public: Vector3D (float a = 0.0f, float b = 0.0f, float c = 0.0f) : Coord3D (a, b, c) {}; }; int main () { Vector3D a (3, 4, 5); Vector3D b (6, 7, 8); cout << typeid(a + b).name(); return 0; }

    Read the article

  • Cant overload python socket.send

    - by ralu
    Code from socket import socket class PolySocket(socket): def __init__(self,*p): print "PolySocket init" socket.__init__(self,*p) def sendall(self,*p): print "PolySocket sendall" return socket.sendall(self,*p) def send(self,*p): print "PolySocket send" return socket.send(self,*p) def connect(self,*p): print "connecting..." socket.connect(self,*p) print "connected" HOST="stackoverflow.com" PORT=80 readbuffer="" s=PolySocket() s.connect((HOST, PORT)) s.send("a") s.sendall("a") Output: PolySocket init connecting... connected PolySocket sendall As we can see, send method is not overloaded.

    Read the article

  • Does Qt support virtual pure slots ?

    - by ereOn
    Hi, My GUI project in Qt has a lot of "configuration pages" classes which all inherit directly from QWidget. Recently, I realized that all these classes share 2 commons slots (loadSettings() and saveSettings()). Regarding this, I have two questions: Does it make sense to write a intermediate base abstract class (lets name it BaseConfigurationPage) with these two slots as virtual pure methods ? (Every possible configuration page will always have these two methods, so I would say "yes") Before I do the heavy change in my code (if I have to) : does Qt support virtual pure slots ? Is there anything I should be aware of ? Here is a code example describing everything: class BaseConfigurationPage : public QWidget { // Some constructor and other methods, irrelevant here. public slots: virtual void loadSettings() = 0; virtual void saveSettings() = 0; }; class GeneralConfigurationPage : public BaseConfigurationPage { // Some constructor and other methods, irrelevant here. public slots: void loadSettings(); void saveSettings(); };

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60  | Next Page >