Search Results

Search found 17407 results on 697 pages for 'static constructor'.

Page 62/697 | < Previous Page | 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69  | Next Page >

  • Can you make an Extension Method Static/Shared?

    - by Matt Thrower
    OK, I've probably misunderstood something here but, as far as I can see ... An extension method has to be contained in a module, not a class You can't make methods in modules Static/Shared Therefore you can't use an extension method on a class without instantiating it. In other words you can't make an extension method on String called "MyExtensionMethod" and use: String.MyExtensionMethod("String") But instead .. Dim test As String test.MyExtensionMethod("string") Is this correct? Or is there a way I can get extension methods to work as static methods?

    Read the article

  • public (static) swap() method vs. redundant (non-static) private ones...

    - by Helper Method
    I'm revisiting data structures and algorithms to refresh my knowledge and from time to time I stumble across this problem: Often, several data structures do need to swap some elements on the underlying array. So I implement the swap() method in ADT1, ADT2 as a private non-static method. The good thing is, being a private method I don't need to check on the parameters, the bad thing is redundancy. But if I put the swap() method in a helper class as a public static method, I need to check the indices every time for validity, making the swap call very unefficient when many swaps are done. So what should I do? Neglect the performance degragation, or write small but redundant code?

    Read the article

  • Best way to delay access to static web pages until services become available with J2EE

    - by Dean Povey
    I have a J2EE application front-ended by a bunch of GWT pages. When the server is starting up, it is possible that these static pages can be accessed before the services required to implement the GWT RPC calls (database etc) are available. I wondering what the best approach is to prevent a user accessing this static content before these services become available. For the purpose of this exercise, assume that there is an isInitialized() method somewhere. I am happy with either a page displaying an error message or simply refusing the connection.

    Read the article

  • Static assembly initialization

    - by ph0enix
    I'm attempting to develop an Interceptor framework (in C#) where I can simply implement some interfaces, and through the use of some static initialization, register all my Interceptors with a common Dispatcher to be invoked at a later time. The problem lies in the fact that my Interceptor implementations are never actually referenced by my application so the static constructors never get called, and as a result, the Interceptors are never registered. If possible, I would like to keep all references to my Interceptor libraries out of my application, as this is my way of (hopefully) enforcing loose coupling across different modules. Hopefully this makes some sense. Let me know if there's anything I can clarify... Does anyone have any ideas, or perhaps a better way to go about implementing my Interceptor pattern? TIA, Jeremy

    Read the article

  • C++ Static Array Initialization - Memory Issue

    - by donalmg
    Hi, I have a header file which contains a member variable declaration of a static char array: class ABC { public: static char newArray[4]; // other variables / functions private: void setArray(int i, char * ptr); } In the CPP file, I have the array initialized to NULL: char ABC::newArray[4] = {0}; In the ABC constructor, I need to overwrite this value with a value constructed at runtime, such as the encoding of an integer: ABC::ABC() { int i; //some int value defined at runtime memset(newArray, 0, 4); // not sure if this is necessary setArray(i,newArray); } ... void setArray(int i, char * value) { // encoding i to set value[0] ... value [3] } When I return from this function, and print the modified newArray value, it prints out many more characters than the 4 specified in the array declaration. Any ideas why this is the case. I just want to set the char array to 4 characters and nothing further. Thanks...

    Read the article

  • How to configure IIS7 to Redirect member of An active Directory group to static page

    - by user1759075
    On IIS, we have disabled Anonymous authentication and enabled Windows Authentication What we need is to only allow users who are members of an Active Directory security group to access the Access Point at all. All other users should be directed to a static web page that will give them instructions on how to request access. By adding the security group to the website permissions, and removing the \Users group, we have almost achieved this. Users in the group are allowed through, those not in the group are asked for a (Windows) username and password. Instead of requesting the username and password, we want IIS to redirect them to the static page. Please advise me on how can this be done.

    Read the article

  • Removing Unused (Unreferenced) Static Global Variable Constants in C++

    - by Synetech inc.
    Hi, I have a header file with a few common constants like names and stuff that are automatically included in each project (an example follows). The thing is that they are included in the compiled binary (EXE) whether they are used (referenced) or not. If I use DEFINEs instead, then naturally they are not included if they are not used, but of course consts are better than defines so… I tried Googling it, but the closest thing I could find was a question right here on SO that did not quite help. Matters of i18n aside, how can I keep the ones that are not used out of the binary, while still keeping it easy to use like this? Thanks. //COMMON.H: static const CString s_Company _T("Acme inc."); //etc. static const CString s_Digits _T("0123456789"); //TEST.CPP: #include common.h int main() { AfxMessageBox(s_Company); } //s_Company should be in the final EXE, but s_Digits should not be, but is

    Read the article

  • Good Design for Initialization of Static Array

    - by jplot
    I have a question regarding good design in C++. I have a class A, and all objects of this class use an integer array of constant values (they should share the same array, as their values are constant). The array needs to be computed (just once) before any object A. I thought about having another class B which contains the integer array as a static member, an init() method which would fill this array according to some formula and a static boolean flag initialized (if this variable if true then the init() method would do nothing), but I'm not sure this is the best way to solve my design issue. So my question is, what would be a good design/way to accomplish this ? Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • error: no matching function for call to ‘BSTreeNode<int, int>::BSTreeNode(int, int, NULL, NULL)’ - what's wrong?

    - by Alexander Suraphel
    error: no matching function for call to ‘BSTreeNode::BSTreeNode(int, int, NULL, NULL)’ candidates are: BSTreeNode::BSTreeNode(KF, DT&, BSTreeNode*, BSTreeNode*) [with KF = int, DT = int] here is how I used it: BSTreeNode<int, int> newNode(5,9, NULL, NULL) ; I defined it as follows: BSTreeNode(KF sKey, DT &data, BSTreeNode *lt, BSTreeNode *rt):key(sKey),dataItem(data), left(lt), right(rt){} what's wrong with using my constructor this way? i've been pulling out my hair all night please help me ASAP!!

    Read the article

  • Boost singleton and restricted

    - by Ockonal
    Hello, I'm using boost singleton from thread/detail. There is in manual, that constructor should have signlature: boost::restricted. But I can't find any reference for this type in boost library. Why do I need in this and where I can find it?

    Read the article

  • Reading a file with a supplied name in C++

    - by Cosmina
    I must read a file with a given name (it's caled "hamlet.txt"). The class used to read the file is defined like this #ifndef READWORDS_H #define READWORDS_H /** * ReadWords class. Provides mechanisms to read a text file, and return * capitalized words from that file. */ using namespace std; #include <string> #include <fstream> class ReadWords { public: /** * Constructor. Opens the file with the default name "text.txt". * Program exits with an error message if the file does not exist. */ ReadWords(); /** * Constructor. Opens the file with the given filename. * Program exits with an error message if the file does not exist. * @param filename - a C string naming the file to read. */ ReadWords(char *filename); My definition of the members of the classis this: #include<string> #include<fstream> #include<iostream> #include "ReadWords.h" using namespace std; ReadWords::ReadWords() { wordfile.open("text.txt"); if( !wordfile ) { cout<<"Errors while opening the file!"<<endl; } } ReadWords::ReadWords(char *filename) { wordfile.open(filename); if ( !wordfile ) { cout<<"Errors while opening the file!"<<endl; } wordfile>>nextword; } And the main to test it. using namespace std; #include #include #include "ReadWords.h" int main() { char name[30]; cout<<"Please input a name for the file that you wish to open"; cin>>name; ReadWords x( name[] ); } When I complie it gives me the error: main.cpp:14: error: expected primary-expression before ']' token I know it's got something to do with the function ReadWords( char *filename), but I do not know what. Any help please?

    Read the article

  • avoiding the tedium of optional parameters

    - by Kyle
    If I have a constructor with say 2 required parameters and 4 optional parameters, how can I avoid writing 16 constructors or even the 10 or so constructors I'd have to write if I used default parameters (which I don't like because it's poor self-documentation)? Are there any idioms or methods using templates I can use to make it less tedious? (And easier to maintain?)

    Read the article

  • initializing a vector of custom class in c++

    - by Flamewires
    Hey basically Im trying to store a "solution" and create a vector of these. The problem I'm having is with initialization. Heres my class for reference class Solution { private: // boost::thread m_Thread; int itt_found; int dim; pfn_fitness f; double value; std::vector<double> x; public: Solution(size_t size, int funcNo) : itt_found(0), x(size, 0.0), value(0.0), dim(30), f(Eval_Functions[funcNo]) { for (int i = 1; i < (int) size; i++) { x[i] = ((double)rand()/((double)RAND_MAX))*maxs[funcNo]; } } Solution() : itt_found(0), x(31, 0.0), value(0.0), dim(30), f(Eval_Functions[1]) { for (int i = 1; i < 31; i++) { x[i] = ((double)rand()/((double)RAND_MAX))*maxs[1]; } } Solution operator= (Solution S) { x = S.GetX(); itt_found = S.GetIttFound(); dim = S.GetDim(); f = S.GetFunc(); value = S.GetValue(); return *this; } void start() { value = f (dim, x); } /* plus additional getter/setter methods*/ } Solution S(30, 1) or Solution(2, 5) work and initalizes everything, but I need X of these solution objects. std::vector<Solution> Parents(X) will create X solutions with the default constructor and i want to construct using the (int, int) constructor. Is there any easy(one liner?) way to do this? Or would i have to do something like: size_t numparents = 10; vector<Solution> Parents; Parents.reserve(numparents); for (int i = 0; i<(int)numparents; i++) { Solution S(31, 0); Parents.push_back(S); }

    Read the article

  • C++ using this pointer in constructors

    - by gilbertc
    In c++, during a class constructor, I started a new thread with 'this' pointer as a parameter which will be used in the thread extensively (say, calling member functions). Is that a bad thing to do? Why and what are the consequences? Thanks, Gil.

    Read the article

  • Implementing default constructors

    - by James
    Implement the default constructor, the constructors with one and two int parameters. The one-parameter constructor should initialize the first member of the pair, the second member of the pair is to be 0. Overload binary operator + to add the pairs as follows: (a, b) + (c, d) = (a + c, b + d); Overload the - analogously. Overload the * on pairs ant int as follows: (a, b) * c = (a * c, b * c). Write a program to test all the member functions and overloaded operators in your class definition. You will also need to write accessor (get) functions for each member. The definition of the class Pairs: class Pairs { public: Pairs(); Pairs(int first, int second); Pairs(int first); // other members and friends friend istream& operator>> (istream&, Pair&); friend ostream& operator<< (ostream&, const Pair&); private: int f; int s; }; Self-Test Exercise #17: istream& operator (istream& ins, Pair& second) { char ch; ins ch; // discard init '(' ins second.f; ins ch; // discard comma ',' ins second.s; ins ch; // discard final '(' return ins; } ostream& operator<< (ostream& outs, const Pair& second) { outs << '('; outs << second.f; outs << ", " ;// I followed the Author's suggestion here. outs << second.s; outs << ")"; return outs; }

    Read the article

  • Inlining an array of non-default constructible objects in a C++ class

    - by porgarmingduod
    C++ doesn't allow a class containing an array of items that are not default constructible: class Gordian { public: int member; Gordian(int must_have_variable) : member(must_have_variable) {} }; class Knot { Gordian* pointer_array[8]; // Sure, this works. Gordian inlined_array[8]; // Won't compile. Can't be initialized. }; As even beginner C++ users know, the language guarantees that all members are initialized when constructing a class. And it doesn't trust the user to initialize everything in the constructor - one has to provide valid arguments to the constructors of all members before the body of the constructor even starts. Generally, that's a great idea as far as I'm concerned, but I've come across a situation where it would be a lot easier if I could actually have an array of non-default constructible objects. The obvious solution: Have an array of pointers to the objects. This is not optimal in my case, as I am using shared memory. It would force me to do extra allocation from an already contended resource (that is, the shared memory). The entire reason I want to have the array inlined in the object is to reduce the number of allocations. This is a situation where I would be willing to use a hack, even an ugly one, provided it works. One possible hack I am thinking about would be: class Knot { public: struct dummy { char padding[sizeof(Gordian)]; }; dummy inlined_array[8]; Gordian* get(int index) { return reinterpret_cast<Gordian*>(&inlined_array[index]); } Knot() { for (int x = 0; x != 8; x++) { new (get(x)) Gordian(x*x); } } }; Sure, it compiles, but I'm not exactly an experienced C++ programmer. That is, I couldn't possibly trust my hacks less. So, the questions: 1) Does the hack I came up with seem workable? What are the issues? (I'm mainly concerned with C++0x on newer versions of GCC). 2) Is there a better way to inline an array of non-default constructible objects in a class?

    Read the article

  • call_user_function_array() and __construct

    - by John
    I'm working on a simple framework, and I'm having a slight problem. I'd like to use call_user_function_array() to pass parameters to a function. That's fine, except the function I want to pass it to is __construct. I can't create an instance of an object with cufa(), and by instantiating an object, and then using cufa to call that instance's __construct(), I run into problems with a broken class because I'm calling the constructor twice (and one time it's called wrong.)

    Read the article

  • CodeContracts: How to fullfill Require in Ctor using this() call?

    - by mafutrct
    I'm playing around with Microsoft's CodeContracts and encountered a problem I was unable to solve. I've got a class with two constructors: public Foo (public float f) { Contracts.Require(f > 0); } public Foo (int i) : this ((float)i) {} The example is simplified. I don't know how to check the second constructor's f for being 0. Is this even possible with Contracts?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69  | Next Page >