Search Results

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

Page 6/663 | < Previous Page | 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13  | 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 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

  • How to generate a private/public key pair to use for a Linux server on Windows Azure?

    - by MainMa
    Following Windows Azure documentation, I generated a pair of private/public keys on an Ubuntu machine using the exact comment as given: openssl req -x509 -nodes -days 365 -newkey rsa:2048 -keyout myPrivateKey.key -out myCert.pem When I open the private key in puttygen, the following error is displayed: Couldn't load private key (unrecognised key type) The private key generated by openssl looks correct: -----BEGIN PRIVATE KEY----- MIIEvQIBADANBgkqhkiG6w0xAQEFAASCBKcwggSjAgEsAoIBAQC6OEZ5ULe6F6u2 Cybhqqfqqh2ao9sd2tpqB+HGIoMMHrmnD3YegRgZJIddTQaWKdwaKrYul21YNt5y ... P0RyfL9kDnX/XmIOM38FOoucGvO+Zozsbmgmvw6AUhE0sPhkZnlaodAU1OnfaWJz KpBxkXulBaCJnC8w29dGKng= -----END PRIVATE KEY----- Note that the comments to Azure documentation (the same link as above) report that the pair should be generated using OpenSSL for Windows instead of openssl on Linux. This doesn't help, since the same error appears for a private key generated by OpenSSL for Windows. What am I doing wrong?

    Read the article

  • Invoke private method with interface as argument

    - by Stephanie
    Hi, I've been attempting to invoke a private method whose argument is a parameter and I can't quite seem to get it right. Here's kind of how the code looks so far: public class TestClass { public TestClass(){ } private void simpleMethod( Map<String, Integer> testMap) { //code logic } } Then I attempt to use this to invoke the private method: //Hashmap Map <String, Integer> testMap = new HashMap <String, Integer>(); //method I want to invoke Method simpleMethod = TestClass.class.getDeclaredMethod("simpleMethod", Map.class); simpleMethod.setAccessible(true); simpleMethod.invoke(testClassObject, testMap); //Throws an IllegalArgumentException As you can see, it throws an IllegalArgumentException. I've attempted to cast the hashmap back to a map, but that didn't work. What am I doing wrong?

    Read the article

  • Test-driven Development: Writing tests for private / protected variables

    - by Chetan
    I'm learning TDD, and I have a question about private / protected variables. My question is: If a function I want to test is operating on a private variable, how should I test it? Here is the example I'm working with: I have a class called Table that contains an instance variable called internalRepresentation that is a 2D array. I want to create a function called multiplyValuesByN that multiplies all the values in the 2D array by the argument n. So I write the test for it (in Python): def test_multiplyValuesByN (self): t = Table(3, 3) # 3x3 table, filled with 0's t.set(0, 0, 4) # Set value at position (0,0) to 4 t.multiplyValuesByN(3) assertEqual(t.internalRepresentation, [[12, 0, 0], [0, 0, 0], [0, 0, 0]]) Now, if I make internalRepresentation private or protected, this test will not work. How am I supposed to write the test so it doesn't depend on internalRepresentation but still tests that it looks correct after calling multiplyValuesByN?

    Read the article

  • C++ private pointer "leaking"?

    - by jbu
    I'm going to create a class to hold a long list of parameters that will be passed to a function. Let's use this shorter example: class ParamList{ public: ParamList(string& a_string); string& getString(); //returns my_string private: string& my_string; } My question is this: my_string is private, yet I'm returning the reference to it. Isn't that called something like private pointer leaking in C++? Is this not good programming practice? I want callers of getString to be able to get the reference and also modify it. Please let me know. Thanks, jbu edit1: callers will use getString() and modify the string that was returned.

    Read the article

  • C++ privately contructed class

    - by Nona Urbiz
    How can I call a function and keep my constructor private? If I make the class static, I need to declare an object name which the compiler uses to call the constructor, which it cannot if the constructor is private (also the object would be extraneous). Here is the code I am attempting to use (it is not compilable): I want to keep the constructor private because I will later be doing a lot of checks before adding an object, modifying previous objects when all submitted variables are not unique rather than creating new objects. #include <iostream> #include <fstream> #include <regex> #include <string> #include <list> #include <map> using namespace std; using namespace tr1; class Referral { public: string url; map<string, int> keywords; static bool submit(string url, string keyword, int occurrences) { //if(Referrals.all.size == 0){ // Referral(url, keyword, occurrences); //} } private: list<string> urls; Referral(string url, string keyword, int occurrences) { url = url; keywords[keyword] = occurrences; Referrals.all.push_back(this); } }; struct All { list<Referral> all; }Referrals; int main() { Referral.submit("url", "keyword", 1); }

    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

  • Closest Ruby representation of a 'private static final' and 'public static final' class variable in

    - by Hosh
    Given the Java code below, what's the closest you could represent these two static final variables in a Ruby class? And, is it possible in Ruby to distinguish between private static and public static variables as there is in Java? public class DeviceController { ... private static final Device myPrivateDevice = Device.getDevice("mydevice"); public static final Device myPublicDevice = Device.getDevice("mydevice"); ... public static void main(String args[]) { ... } }

    Read the article

  • Connecting private IPs

    - by Greg Roberts
    A friend of mine told me there was a way to connect two private IPs without using a proxy server. The idea was that both computers connected to a public server and some how the server joined the private connections and won't use any more bandwidth. Is this true? How's this technique named? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Error code while trying to use private variables in a function

    - by Cortopasta
    I get an error that says Parse error: syntax error, unexpected T_PRIVATE in E:\PortableApps\xampp\htdocs\SN\AC\ACclass.php on line 6 while trying to run my script. I'm new to classes in PHP and was wondering if someone could point out my error. Here's the code for that part. <?php class ac { public function authentication() { private $plain_username = $_POST['username']; private $md5_password = md5($_POST['password']); $ac = new ac();

    Read the article

  • functional test for rails controller private method

    - by mohit
    I have a private method in my controller. which is used for some database update. this method i am calling from another controller method. and it works fine. But when i am trying to write a test case for that method then It is tripping on accessing (session variable and params) in my functional all other methods are working fine the problem is only with private method? In my setup method in functional test, I am setting session also.?

    Read the article

  • final and private static

    - by xdevel2000
    I read that doing: public final void foo() {} is equals to: private static void foo() {} both meaning that the method is not overridable! But I don't see the equivalence if a method is private it's automatically not accessible...

    Read the article

  • Are private members inherited in C#?

    - by Petr
    Just seen one tutorial saying that: Class Dog { private string Name; } Class SuperDog:Dog { private string Mood; } Then there was an UML displaying that SuperDog will inherit Name as well. I have tried but to me it seems that only public members are inherited. At least I could not access Name unless it was declared as public.

    Read the article

  • C# - are private members inherited?

    - by Petr
    Hi, Just seen one tutorial saying that: Class Dog { private string Name; } Class SuperDog:Dog { private string Mood; } Then there was an UML displaying that SuperDog will inherit Name as well. I have tried but to me it seems that only public members are inherited. At least I could not access Name unless it was declared as public. Thanks

    Read the article

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