Search Results

Search found 3956 results on 159 pages for 'constructor overloading'.

Page 61/159 | < Previous Page | 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68  | Next Page >

  • Selecting size of vector of vectors

    - by xbonez
    I have a class called Grid that declares a vector of vectors like this: typedef vector<int> row; typedef vector<row> myMatrix; myMatrix sudoku_; The constructor looks like this: grid::grid() : sudoku_(9,9) { } As you can see, the constructor is initializing it to be a 9x9 grid. How can I make it work so that the user is asked for a number, say n, and the grid is initialized n x n ?

    Read the article

  • What is the accepted way to replace java.util.Date(year,month,day)

    - by dagw
    I'm trying to do something really simple, but starting to realize that dates in Java are a bit of minefield. All I want is to get passed groups of three ints ( a year, a month and a date) create some Date objects, do some simple test on them (along the lines of as date A before date B and after January 1 1990), convert them to java.sql.Date objects and pass them off to the database via JDBC. All very simple and works fine using the java.util.Date(int year,int month,int day) constructor. Of course that constructor is depreciated, and I'd like to avoid using depreciated calls in new code I'm writing. However all the other options to solve this simple problem seem stupidly complicated. Is there really no simple way to do what I want without using depreciated constructors? I know the standard answer to all Java date related questions is "use joda time", but I really don't want to start pulling in third party libraries for such a seemingly trivial problem.

    Read the article

  • How to make c# don't call destructor of a instance

    - by Bình Nguyên
    I have two forms and form1 needs to get data from form2, i use a parameter in form2 constructor to gets form1's instance like this: public form2(Form form1) { this.f = form1; } and in form1: Form form2 = new Form(this); But it seem form1 destruct was called when i closed form1. my question is how can i avoid this problem? EDIT: I have many typing mistakes in my question, i'm so sorry, fixed: I have two forms and form2 needs to get data from form1, i use a parameter in form1 constructor to gets form1's instance like this: private Form f; public form2(Form form1) { this.f = form1; } and in form1: Form form2 = new Form(this); But it seem form1 destruct was called when i closed form2. my question is how can i avoid this problem?

    Read the article

  • What did I do wrong here when trying to unit test a class that references a web service

    - by zachary
    So I had a class that referenced a class that referenced another class that called a web service. So I learn how to create an interface using partial classes. I inject the web service through the constructor. Then my unit test fails because I am newing up the actual web service in the second level of the class. So I end up modifying all three classes to pass the web service down through the constructor... was not happy :-( gave up.... what should I be doing in this case?

    Read the article

  • Problems using Custom Layout in XML

    - by Kevin
    I've created a new GridLayout class that I want to use in an XML File. The class is in another project. I've created the attrs.xml file in the other project with my properties but when the constructor gets called with the AttributeSet, none of the values are set. In my xml for my screen layout, I refer to the layout with the following: xmlns:gridLayout="@com.mastertechsoftware.AndroidUtil:http://schemas.android.com/apk/res/com.mastertechsoftware.AndroidUtil" Not sure if that is right. I have the attrs.xml file being compiled to R.java in com/mastertechsoftware/AndroidUtil. All the right styleable values are there. In my constructor, I use: TypedArray a = c .obtainStyledAttributes(attrs, R.styleable.GridLayout); this.numRows = a.getInt(R.styleable.GridLayout_numRows, -1); Nothing comes back (-1 does but that means nothing is there) If I use int n = a.getIndexCount(); I get 0.

    Read the article

  • Returning and instance of a Class given its .class (MyClass.class)

    - by jax
    I have an enum that will hold my algorithms. I cannot instantiate these classes because I need the application context which is only available once the application has started. I want to load the class at runtime when I choose by calling getAlgorithm(Context cnx). How do I easily instantiate a class at runtime given its .class (and my constructor takes arguments)? All my classes are subclasses of Algorithm. public enum AlgorithmTypes { ALL_FROM_9_AND_LAST_FROM_10_ID(AlgorithmFactory.AlgorithmAllFrom9AndLastFrom10Impl.class), ALL_FROM_9_AND_LAST_FROM_10_CURRENCY_ID(AlgorithmFactory.AlgorithmAllFrom9AndLastFrom10Impl.class), DIVIDE_BY_9_LESS_THAN_100(AlgorithmFactory.AlgorithmAllFrom9AndLastFrom10Impl.class), TABLES_BEYOND_5_BY_5(AlgorithmFactory.AlgorithmAllFrom9AndLastFrom10Impl.class); private Class<? extends Algorithm> algorithm; AlgorithmTypes(Class<? extends Algorithm> c) { algorithm = c; } public Algorithm getAlgorithm(Context cnx) { return //needs to return the current algoriths constructor which takes the Context Algorithm(Context cnx); } }

    Read the article

  • Using Boost statechart, how can I transition to a state unconditionally?

    - by nickb
    I have a state A that I would like to transition to its next state B unconditionally, once the constructor of A has completed. Is this possible? I tried posting an event from the constructor, which does not work, even though it compiles. Thanks. Edit: Here is what I've tried so far: struct A : sc::simple_state< A, Active > { public: typedef sc::custom_reaction< EventDoneA > reactions; A() { std::cout << "Inside of A()" << std::endl; post_event( EventDoneA() ); } sc::result react( const EventDoneA & ) { return transit< B >(); } }; This yields the following runtime assertion failure: Assertion failed: get_pointer( pContext_ ) != 0, file /includ e/boost/statechart/simple_state.hpp, line 459

    Read the article

  • Confusion over C++ new operator and classes

    - by Nils
    Hi all I created a simple class in C++ which has a private dynamic array. In the constructor I initialize the array using new and in the destructor I free it using delete. When I instantiate the class using Class a = Class(..); it works as expected, however it seems I cannot instantiate it using the new operator (Like Class *a = new Class(..);), I always get a segmentation fault. What I don't understand is when I should use new to instantiate a class and when just call the constructor or should it be possible to instantiate a class either with new or by just calling the constructor. float** A = new float*[3]; for (int i=0; i<3; i++) { A[i] = new float[3]; } A[0][0] = 3; A[0][1] = 3; A[0][2] = 4; A[1][0] = 5; A[1][1] = 6; A[1][2] = 7; A[2][0] = 1; A[2][1] = 2; A[2][2] = 3; Matrix *M = new Matrix(A, 3, 3); delete[] A; delete M; Below the class definition.. class Matrix { private: int width; int height; int stride; float* elements; public: Matrix(float** a, int n, int m); ~Matrix(); }; Matrix::Matrix(float** a, int n, int m) { // n: num rows // m: elem per rows elements = new float[n*m]; for (int i=0; i<n; i++) { for (int j=0; j<m; j++) { elements[i*n + j] = a[n][m]; } } } Matrix::~Matrix() { delete[] elements; }

    Read the article

  • Creating immutable objects from javabean

    - by redzedi
    Hi All, I am involved in this project where we are building on good bit of legacy code. I have a particular situation about one big java bean object which has to be transferred over wire. So my first thought was to make it immutable and serializable to do the trick .At this point I am faced with a few difficult choices :- 1 Ideally I want some way to automatically generate an immutable, serializable version of this class. I dont have the scope to refactor or alter this class in any way and i would really really hate to have to copy paste the class with a different name ?? 2 Assuming that i gave up on 1 i.e i actually chose to duplicate code of the HUGE javabean class , i still will be in the unsavoury situation of having to write a constructor with some 20-25 parameters to make this class immutable. what is a better way to make a class immutable other than constructor injection ?? Thanks and Regards,

    Read the article

  • Fast check if an object will be successfully instantiated in PHP?

    - by Gremo
    How can I check if an object will be successfully instantiated with the given argument, without actually creating the instance? Actually I'm only checking (didn't tested this code, but should work fine...) the number of required parameters, ignoring types: // Filter definition and arguments as per configuration $filter = $container->getDefinition($serviceId); $args = $activeFilters[$filterName]; // Check number of required arguments vs arguments in config $constructor = $reflector->getConstructor(); $numRequired = $constructor->getNumberOfRequiredParameters(); $numSpecified = is_array($args) ? count($args) : 1; if($numRequired < $numSpecified) { throw new InvalidFilterDefinitionException( $serviceId, $numRequired, $numSpecified ); }

    Read the article

  • i need help to designe code in c++

    - by user344987
    ) Design and implement a Graph data structure. Use adjacency matrix to implement the unweighted graph edges. The Graph must support the following operations: 1.Constructor 2.Destructor 3.Copy constructor 4.A function to add an edge between two nodes in the graph 5.A display function that outputs all the edges of the graph 6.A function edge that accepts two nodes, the function returns true if there is an edge between the passed nodes, and returns false otherwise. B.(100 points) Depth first search and Breadth first search functions. C.(100 points) A function to output a spanning tree of the graph, use any algorithm you find appropriate, also, make the necessary changes on the data structure in A to implement your algorithm.

    Read the article

  • How to avoid double construction of proxy with DynamicProxy::CreateClassProxyWithTarget?

    - by Belvasis
    I am decorating an existing object using the CreateClassProxyWithTarget method. However, the constructor and therefore, initialization code, is being called twice. I already have a "constructed" instance (the target). I understand why this happens, but is there a way to avoid it, other than using an empty constructor? Edit: Here is some code: First the proxy creation: public static T Create<T>(T i_pEntity) where T : class { object pResult = m_pGenerator.CreateClassProxyWithTarget(typeof(T), new[] { typeof(IEditableObject), typeof(INotifyPropertyChanged) , typeof(IMarkerInterface), typeof(IDataErrorInfo) }, i_pEntity, ProxyGenerationOptions.Default, new BindingEntityInterceptor<T>(i_pEntity)); return (T)pResult; } I use this for example with an object of the following class: public class KatalogBase : AuditableBaseEntity { public KatalogBase() { Values = new HashedSet<Values>(); Attributes = new HashedSet<Attributes>(); } ... } If i now call BindingFactory.Create(someKatalogBaseObject); the Values and Attributes properties are beeing initialized again.

    Read the article

  • Where to register for C# events?

    - by themaninthesuitcase
    I am currently transitioning from VB to C# and am having some issues with regards to registering my interest in an event. When using VB it was simply a case of specifying that a method Handles and event, often this was generated by using the object events list. While I can easily use the Class.event += delegate in C# I am unsure where the best place is to place the code to do this. Am I best placing it inside of the InitializeComponent() as per the generated code (say if you select the event in the from designer) or should I place it inside the constructor for better readability/maintenance. If inside the constructor, should it be before or after the call to InitializeComponent()?

    Read the article

  • Constructors + Dependency Injection

    - by Sunny
    If I am writing up a class with more than 1 constructor parameter like: class A{ public A(Dependency1 d1, Dependency2 d2, ...){} } I usually create a "argument holder"-type of class like: class AArgs{ public Dependency1 d1 { get; private set; } public Dependency2 d2 { get; private set; } ... } and then: class A{ public A(AArgs args){} } Typically, using a DI-container I can configure the constructor for dependencies & resolve them & so there is minimum impact when the constructors need to change. Is this considered an anti-pattern and/or any arguments against doing this?

    Read the article

  • how to create a dynamic class at runtime in Java

    - by Mrityunjay
    hi, is it possible to create a new java file from existing java file after changing some of its attributes at runtime?? Suppose i have a java file pubic class Student{ private int rollNo; private String name; // getters and setters // constructor } is it possible to create something like this, provided that rollNo is key element for the table.. public class Student { private StudentKey key; private String name; //getters and setters //constructor } public class StudentKey { private int rollNo; // getters and setters // construcotors } please help..

    Read the article

  • Why can't I enforce derived classes to have parameterless constructors?

    - by FrisbeeBen
    I am trying to do the following: public class foo<T> where T : bar, new() { public foo() { _t = new T(); } private T _t; } public abstract class bar { public abstract void someMethod(); // Some implementation } public class baz : bar { public overide someMethod(){//Implementation} } And I am attempting to use it as follows: foo<baz> fooObject = new foo<baz>(); And I get an error explaining that 'T' must be a non-abstract type with a public parameterless constructor in order to use it as parameter 'T' in the generic type or method. I fully understand why this must be, and also understand that I could pass a pre-initialized object of type 'T' in as a constructor argument to avoid having to 'new' it, but is there any way around this? any way to enforce classes that derive from 'bar' to supply parameterless constructors?

    Read the article

  • How can Java assignment be made to point to an object instead of making a copy?

    - by Matthew Piziak
    In a class, I have: private Foo bar; public Constructor(Foo bar) { this.bar = bar; } Instead of creating a copy of bar from the object provided in the parameter, is it possible to include a pointer to bar in the constructor such that changing the original bar changes the field in this object? Another way of putting it: int x = 7; int y = x; x = 9; System.out.print(y); //Prints 7. It is possible to set it up so that printing y prints 9 instead of 7?

    Read the article

  • as3 this.graphics calls do nothing

    - by zzz
    class A: [SWF(width='800',height='600',frameRate='24')] public class A extends MovieClip { private var b:B; public function A(){ super(); b = new B(); addChild(b); addEventListener(Event.ENTER_FRAME, update); } private function update(e:Event):void { b.draw(); } } class B: public class B extends MovieClip { public function draw():void { //! following code works well if put in constructor, but not here this.graphics.beginFill(0xff0000); this.graphics.drawCircle(200,200,50); } } this.graphics calls do nothing in draw method, but work fine inside B`s constructor, what i am doing wrong ?

    Read the article

  • How to access the service instance from host object in WCF?

    - by user1048677
    I am trying to incarnate some sort of ad hoc WCF service. I already managed to launch it and make it call its own web methods as some other guy's methods. The issue that I am facing is instance management. I have set [ServiceBehavior(InstanceContextMode = InstanceContextMode.Single)] so it now has a global instance with the same properties for all clients. But besides that I need it to call other services of its kind while listening to incoming requests from clients (similar crazy services). While debugging I noticed that the ServiceHost's constructor calls the constructor of the service class. So, I assumed it has access to the global instance of this class and I need to find a way to call methods of this instance. Please don't ask what I have been smoking, I just have to make it ad hoc.

    Read the article

  • Django GenericRelation doesn't save related object's id - is this a bug or am I doing it wrong?

    - by pinkeen
    I have a model with a generic relation (call it A), when creating an instance of this object I pass an instance of another model (call it B) as the initializer of the content_object field (via kwargs of the constructor). If I don't save B before creating A then when saving A the content_object_id is saved to the db as NULL. If I save B before passing it to the constructor of A then everything's allright. It's not logical. I assumed that the ID of the related object (B) is fetched when doing A.save() and it should throw some kind of an exception if B isn't saved yet but it just fails silently. I don't like the current solution (saving B beforhand) because we don't know yet if I will be always willing to keep the object, not just scrap it, and there are performance considerations - what if I will add some another data and save it once more shortly after. class BaseNodeData(models.Model): ... extnodedata_content_type = models.ForeignKey(ContentType, null=True) extnodedata_object_id = models.PositiveIntegerField(null=True) extnodedata = generic.GenericForeignKey(ct_field='extnodedata_content_type', fk_field='extnodedata_object_id') class MarkupNodeData(models.Model): raw_content = models.TextField() Suppose we do: markup = MarkupNodeData(raw_content='...') base = BaseNodeData(..., extnodedata=markup) markup.save() base.save() # both records are inserted to the DB but base is stored with extnodedata_object_id=NULL markup = MarkupNodeData(raw_content='...') base = BaseNodeData(..., extnodedata=markup) base.save() markup.save() # no exception is thrown and everything is the same as above markup = MarkupNodeData(raw_content='...') markup.save() base = BaseNodeData(..., extnodedata=markup) base.save() # this works as expected Of course I can do it this way, but it doesn't change anything: base = BaseNodeData(...) base.extnodedata = markup My question is - is this a bug in django which I should report or maybe I'm doing something wrong. Docs on GenericRelations aren't exactly verbose.

    Read the article

  • Javascript: Inherit method from base class and return the subclass's private variable

    - by marisbest2
    I have the following BaseClass defined: function BaseClass (arg1,arg2,arg3) { //constructor code here then - var privateVar = 7500; this.getPrivateVar = function() { return privateVar; }; } I want to have the following subclass which allows changing privateVar like so: function SubClass (arg1,arg2,arg3,privateVar) { //constructor code here then - var privateVar = privateVar; } SubClass.prototype = new BaseClass(); Now I want SubClass to inherit the getPrivateVar method. However, when I try this, it always returns 7500 which is the value in the BaseClass and not the value of privateVar. In other words, is it possible to inherit a BaseClass's public methods but have any references in them refer to the SubClass's properties? And how would I do that?

    Read the article

  • Changing the value of a macro at run time

    - by BrandiNo
    I'm working in Visual Studio 2010, using C++ code. What I'm trying to do is change the value of a preprocessor directive during run time, not sure if it's possible but i've tried this.. somefile.h static int mValue = 0; #define POO = mValue; ... #if POO 0 //define class methods #else //define class methods differently } main.cpp main() { //Code calls constructor and methods allowed when POO is 0 //Code increments mValue //Code calls constructor and methods allowed when POO is 1 } How can POO be changed so that class objects uses a different implementation of other methods? Or if it's not possible, what's a another approach to this?

    Read the article

  • Create Object using ObjectBuilder

    - by dhinesh
    Want to create objects using ObjectBuilder or ObjectBuilder2. I do not want to use StructureMap I was able to create the object having parameterless constructor using the code mentioned below. public class ObjectFactory : BuilderBase<BuilderStage> { public static T BuildUp<T>() { var builder = new Builder(); var locator = new Locator { { typeof(ILifetimeContainer), new LifetimeContainer() } }; var buildUp = builder.BuildUp<T>(locator, null, null); return buildUp; } for creating object of customer you just call ObjectFactory.BuildUp<Customer> However this creates object of class which has no parameters, however I need to create object which are having constructor with parameters.

    Read the article

  • C#: Optional Parameters - Pros and Pitfalls

    - by James Michael Hare
    When Microsoft rolled out Visual Studio 2010 with C# 4, I was very excited to learn how I could apply all the new features and enhancements to help make me and my team more productive developers. Default parameters have been around forever in C++, and were intentionally omitted in Java in favor of using overloading to satisfy that need as it was though that having too many default parameters could introduce code safety issues.  To some extent I can understand that move, as I’ve been bitten by default parameter pitfalls before, but at the same time I feel like Java threw out the baby with the bathwater in that move and I’m glad to see C# now has them. This post briefly discusses the pros and pitfalls of using default parameters.  I’m avoiding saying cons, because I really don’t believe using default parameters is a negative thing, I just think there are things you must watch for and guard against to avoid abuses that can cause code safety issues. Pro: Default Parameters Can Simplify Code Let’s start out with positives.  Consider how much cleaner it is to reduce all the overloads in methods or constructors that simply exist to give the semblance of optional parameters.  For example, we could have a Message class defined which allows for all possible initializations of a Message: 1: public class Message 2: { 3: // can either cascade these like this or duplicate the defaults (which can introduce risk) 4: public Message() 5: : this(string.Empty) 6: { 7: } 8:  9: public Message(string text) 10: : this(text, null) 11: { 12: } 13:  14: public Message(string text, IDictionary<string, string> properties) 15: : this(text, properties, -1) 16: { 17: } 18:  19: public Message(string text, IDictionary<string, string> properties, long timeToLive) 20: { 21: // ... 22: } 23: }   Now consider the same code with default parameters: 1: public class Message 2: { 3: // can either cascade these like this or duplicate the defaults (which can introduce risk) 4: public Message(string text = "", IDictionary<string, string> properties = null, long timeToLive = -1) 5: { 6: // ... 7: } 8: }   Much more clean and concise and no repetitive coding!  In addition, in the past if you wanted to be able to cleanly supply timeToLive and accept the default on text and properties above, you would need to either create another overload, or pass in the defaults explicitly.  With named parameters, though, we can do this easily: 1: var msg = new Message(timeToLive: 100);   Pro: Named Parameters can Improve Readability I must say one of my favorite things with the default parameters addition in C# is the named parameters.  It lets code be a lot easier to understand visually with no comments.  Think how many times you’ve run across a TimeSpan declaration with 4 arguments and wondered if they were passing in days/hours/minutes/seconds or hours/minutes/seconds/milliseconds.  A novice running through your code may wonder what it is.  Named arguments can help resolve the visual ambiguity: 1: // is this days/hours/minutes/seconds (no) or hours/minutes/seconds/milliseconds (yes) 2: var ts = new TimeSpan(1, 2, 3, 4); 3:  4: // this however is visually very explicit 5: var ts = new TimeSpan(days: 1, hours: 2, minutes: 3, seconds: 4);   Or think of the times you’ve run across something passing a Boolean literal and wondered what it was: 1: // what is false here? 2: var sub = CreateSubscriber(hostname, port, false); 3:  4: // aha! Much more visibly clear 5: var sub = CreateSubscriber(hostname, port, isBuffered: false);   Pitfall: Don't Insert new Default Parameters In Between Existing Defaults Now let’s consider a two potential pitfalls.  The first is really an abuse.  It’s not really a fault of the default parameters themselves, but a fault in the use of them.  Let’s consider that Message constructor again with defaults.  Let’s say you want to add a messagePriority to the message and you think this is more important than a timeToLive value, so you decide to put messagePriority before it in the default, this gives you: 1: public class Message 2: { 3: public Message(string text = "", IDictionary<string, string> properties = null, int priority = 5, long timeToLive = -1) 4: { 5: // ... 6: } 7: }   Oh boy have we set ourselves up for failure!  Why?  Think of all the code out there that could already be using the library that already specified the timeToLive, such as this possible call: 1: var msg = new Message(“An error occurred”, myProperties, 1000);   Before this specified a message with a TTL of 1000, now it specifies a message with a priority of 1000 and a time to live of -1 (infinite).  All of this with NO compiler errors or warnings. So the rule to take away is if you are adding new default parameters to a method that’s currently in use, make sure you add them to the end of the list or create a brand new method or overload. Pitfall: Beware of Default Parameters in Inheritance and Interface Implementation Now, the second potential pitfalls has to do with inheritance and interface implementation.  I’ll illustrate with a puzzle: 1: public interface ITag 2: { 3: void WriteTag(string tagName = "ITag"); 4: } 5:  6: public class BaseTag : ITag 7: { 8: public virtual void WriteTag(string tagName = "BaseTag") { Console.WriteLine(tagName); } 9: } 10:  11: public class SubTag : BaseTag 12: { 13: public override void WriteTag(string tagName = "SubTag") { Console.WriteLine(tagName); } 14: } 15:  16: public static class Program 17: { 18: public static void Main() 19: { 20: SubTag subTag = new SubTag(); 21: BaseTag subByBaseTag = subTag; 22: ITag subByInterfaceTag = subTag; 23:  24: // what happens here? 25: subTag.WriteTag(); 26: subByBaseTag.WriteTag(); 27: subByInterfaceTag.WriteTag(); 28: } 29: }   What happens?  Well, even though the object in each case is SubTag whose tag is “SubTag”, you will get: 1: SubTag 2: BaseTag 3: ITag   Why?  Because default parameter are resolved at compile time, not runtime!  This means that the default does not belong to the object being called, but by the reference type it’s being called through.  Since the SubTag instance is being called through an ITag reference, it will use the default specified in ITag. So the moral of the story here is to be very careful how you specify defaults in interfaces or inheritance hierarchies.  I would suggest avoiding repeating them, and instead concentrating on the layer of classes or interfaces you must likely expect your caller to be calling from. For example, if you have a messaging factory that returns an IMessage which can be either an MsmqMessage or JmsMessage, it only makes since to put the defaults at the IMessage level since chances are your user will be using the interface only. So let’s sum up.  In general, I really love default and named parameters in C# 4.0.  I think they’re a great tool to help make your code easier to read and maintain when used correctly. On the plus side, default parameters: Reduce redundant overloading for the sake of providing optional calling structures. Improve readability by being able to name an ambiguous argument. But remember to make sure you: Do not insert new default parameters in the middle of an existing set of default parameters, this may cause unpredictable behavior that may not necessarily throw a syntax error – add to end of list or create new method. Be extremely careful how you use default parameters in inheritance hierarchies and interfaces – choose the most appropriate level to add the defaults based on expected usage. Technorati Tags: C#,.NET,Software,Default Parameters

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68  | Next Page >