Search Results

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

Page 66/697 | < Previous Page | 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73  | Next Page >

  • What is the best design to this class?

    - by HPT
    assume this class: public class Logger { static TextWriter fs = null; public Logger(string path) { fs = File.CreateText(path); } public static void Log(Exception ex) { ///do logging } public static void Log(string text) { ///do logging } } and I have to use this like: Logger log = new Logger(path); and then use Logger.Log() to log what I want. the question is: is this a good design? to instantiate a class and then always call it's static method? any suggestion yield in better design is appreciated.

    Read the article

  • properties declared beside the constructor c++

    - by numerical25
    I am very very new to C/C++ and not sure what the method is called. But thats why I am here trying to find the answer. let me show you an example MyClass::MyClass():valueOne(1), valueTwo(2) { //code } Where valueOne and valueTwo class properties that are assigned values outside of the body, what method is this called and why is it done this way. Why not do it this way MyClass::MyClass() { valueOne = 1; valueTwo = 2 //code } if anyone can help me out that will be great. thanks

    Read the article

  • Insert an element to std::set using constructor

    - by Dave17
    is it possible to insert a new element to std::set like in case of std::list for example: //insert one element named "string" to sublist of mylist std::list< std::list<string> > mylist; mylist.push_back(std::list<string>(1, "string")); Now, mylist has one element of type std::string in its sub-list of type std::list. How can you do the same in if std::set is the sub-set of std::list my list i.e std::list<std::set <string>> mylist; if you can't then why not?

    Read the article

  • How to call object's method from constructor?

    - by Kirzilla
    Hello, var Dog = function(name) { this.name = name; this.sayName(); } Dog.prototype.sayName = function() { alert(this.name); } I'm creating new instance of Dog object, but method sayName() is undefined. Why? Or maybe I should do something like (but I can't see difference)... var Dog = function(name) { this.name = name; this.prototype.sayName = function() { alert(this.name); } } Thank you.

    Read the article

  • TPL - Using static method vs struct method

    - by Sunit
    I have about 1500 files on a share for which I need to collect FileVersionInfo string. So I created a Static method in my Gateway like this: private static string GetVersionInfo(string filepath) { FileVersionInfo verInfo = FileVersionInfo.GetVersionInfo(filepath); return string.Format("{0}.{1}.{2}.{3}", verInfo.ProductMajorPart, verInfo.ProductMinorPart, verInfo.ProductBuildPart, verInfo.ProductPrivatePart).Trim(); } And then used FileAndVersion struct in a PLINQ call with DegreeOfParallelism as this is I/O related resultList = dllFilesRows.AsParallel().WithDegreeOfParallelism(20) .Select(r => { var symbolPath = r.Filename; return new FilenameAndVersion{Filename=symbolPath, Version=GetVersionInfo(symbolPath)}; }) .ToArray(); Later I modified the Struct, FileAndVersion as: private struct FilenameAndVersion { private string _version, _filename; public string Version { get { return _version; } } public string Filename { get { return _filename; } } public void SetVersion() { FileVersionInfo verInfo = FileVersionInfo.GetVersionInfo(this.Filename); this._version = string.Format("{0}.{1}.{2}.{3}", verInfo.ProductMajorPart, verInfo.ProductMinorPart, verInfo.ProductBuildPart, verInfo.ProductPrivatePart).Trim(); } public FilenameAndVersion(string filename, string version) { this._filename = filename; this._version = string.Empty; SetVersion(); } } And used it: resultList = dllFilesRows.AsParallel().WithDegreeOfParallelism(20) .Select(r => { var symbolPath = r.Filename; return new FilenameAndVersion(symbolPath, String.Empty); }) .ToArray(); The question is, is this going to help me in anyway and is a good pattern to use ? Sunit

    Read the article

  • instantiate object with reflection using constructor arguments

    - by justin
    I'm trying to figure out how to instantiate a case class object with reflection. Is there any support for this? The closest I've come is looking at scala.reflect.Invocation, but this seems more for executing methods that are a part of an object. case class MyClass(id:Long, name:String) def instantiate[T](className:String)(args:Any*) : T = { //your code here } Is close to the API I'm looking for. Any help would be appreciated.

    Read the article

  • Java - How to pass a Generic parameter as Class<T> to a constructor

    - by Joe Almore
    I have a problem here that still cannot solve, the thing is I have this abstract class: public abstract class AbstractBean<T> { private Class<T> entityClass; public AbstractBean(Class<T> entityClass) { this.entityClass = entityClass; }... Now I have another class that inherits this abstract: @Stateless @LocalBean public class BasicUserBean<T extends BasicUser> extends AbstractBean<T> { private Class<T> user; public BasicUserBean() { super(user); // Error: cannot reference user before supertype contructor has been called. } My question is how can I make this to work?, I am trying to make the class BasicUserBean inheritable, so if I have class PersonBean which inherits BasicUserBean then I could set in the Generic the entity Person which also inherits the entity BasicUser. And it will end up being: @Stateless @LocalBean public class PersonBean extends BasicUserBean<Person> { public PersonBean() { super(Person.class); } ... I just want to inherit the basic functionality from BasicUserBean to all descendants, so I do not have to repeat the same code among all descendants. Thanks!.

    Read the article

  • Constructor for an immutable struct

    - by Danvil
    Consider the following simple immutable struct: struct Stash { public int X { get; private set; } public Stash(int _x) { X = _x; } } This is not working, because the compiler wants me to initialize the "backing field" before I can access the property. How can I solve this?

    Read the article

  • Javascript object properties access functions in parent constructor?

    - by Bob Spryn
    So I'm using this pretty standard jquery plugin pattern whereby you can grab an api after applying the jquery function to a specific instance. This API is essentially a javascript object with a bunch of methods and data. So I wanted to essentially create some private internal methods for the object only to manipulate data etc, which just doesn't need to be available as part of the API. So I tried this: // API returned with new $.TranslationUI(options, container) $.TranslationUI = function (options, container) { // private function? function monkey(){ console.log("blah blah blah"); } // extend the default settings with the options object passed this.settings = $.extend({},$.TranslationUI.defaultSettings,options); // set a reference for the container dom element this.container = container; // call the init function this.init(); }; The problem I'm running into is that init can't call that function "monkey". I'm not understanding the explanation behind why it can't. Is it because init is a prototype method?($.TranslationUI's prototype is extended with a bunch of methods including init elsewhere in the code) $.extend($.TranslationUI, { prototype: { init : function(){ // doesn't work monkey(); // editing flag this.editing = false; // init event delegates here for // languagepicker $(this.settings.languageSelector, this.container).bind("click", {self: this}, this.selectLanguage); } } }); Any explanations would be helpful. Would love other thoughts on creating private methods with this model too. These particular functions don't HAVE to be in prototype, and I don't NEED private methods protected from being used externally, but I want to know how should I have that requirement in the future.

    Read the article

  • Constructor initialising an array of subobjects?

    - by ojw
    Say I have several objects within a class, each of which needs constructing with a different value. I can write something like this: class b { public: b(int num) { // 1 for a.b1, and 2 for a.b2 } }; class a { public: b b1; b b2; a() : b1(1), b2(2) { } }; However, is it possible to do the same thing if those multiple objects are stored in an array? My first attempt at it doesn't compile: class a { public: b bb[2]; a() : bb[0](1), bb[1](2) { } };

    Read the article

  • Mixed-mode C++/CLI crashing: heap corruption in atexit (static destructor registration)

    - by thaimin
    I am working on deploying a program and the codebase is a mixture of C++/CLI and C#. The C++/CLI comes in all flavors: native, mixed (/clr), and safe (/clr:safe). In my development environment I create a DLL of all the C++/CLI code and reference that from the C# code (EXE). This method works flawlessly. For my releases that I want to release a single executable (simply stating that "why not just have a DLL and EXE separate?" is not acceptable). So far I have succeeded in compiling the EXE with all the different sources. However, when I run it I get the "XXXX has stopped working" dialog with options to Check online, Close and Debug. The problem details are as follows: Problem Event Name: APPCRASH Fault Module Name: StackHash_8d25 Fault Module Version: 6.1.7600.16559 Fault Module Timestamp: 4ba9b29c Exception Code: c0000374 Exception Offset: 000cdc9b OS Version: 6.1.7600.2.0.0.256.48 Locale ID: 1033 Additional Information 1: 8d25 Additional Information 2: 8d25552d834e8c143c43cf1d7f83abb8 Additional Information 3: 7450 Additional Information 4: 74509ce510cd821216ce477edd86119c If I debug and send it to Visual Studio, it reports: Unhandled exception at 0x77d2dc9b in XXX.exe: A heap has been corrupted Choosing break results in it stopping at ntdll.dll!77d2dc9b() with no additional information. If I tell Visual Studio to continue, the program starts up fine and seems to work without incident, probably since a debugger is now attached. What do you make of this? How do I avoid this heap corruption? The program seems to work fine except for this. My abridged compilation script is as follows (I have omitted my error checking for brevity): @set TARGET=x86 @set TARGETX=x86 @set OUT=%TARGETX% @call "%VS90COMNTOOLS%\..\..\VC\vcvarsall.bat" %TARGET% @set WIMGAPI=C:\Program Files\Windows AIK\SDKs\WIMGAPI\%TARGET% set CL=/Zi /nologo /W4 /O2 /GS /EHa /MD /MP /D NDEBUG /D _UNICODE /D UNICODE /D INTEGRATED /Fd%OUT%\ /Fo%OUT%\ set INCLUDE=%WIMGAPI%;%INCLUDE% set LINK=/nologo /LTCG /CLRIMAGETYPE:IJW /MANIFEST:NO /MACHINE:%TARGETX% /SUBSYSTEM:WINDOWS,6.0 /OPT:REF /OPT:ICF /DEFAULTLIB:msvcmrt.lib set LIB=%WIMGAPI%;%LIB% set CSC=/nologo /w:4 /d:INTEGRATED /o+ /target:module :: Compiling resources omitted @set CL_NATIVE=/c /FI"stdafx-native.h" @set CL_MIXED=/c /clr /LN /FI"stdafx-mixed.h" @set CL_PURE=/c /clr:safe /LN /GL /FI"stdafx-pure.h" @set NATIVE=... @set MIXED=... @set PURE=... cl %CL_NATIVE% %NATIVE% cl %CL_MIXED% %MIXED% cl %CL_PURE% %PURE% link /LTCG /NOASSEMBLY /DLL /OUT:%OUT%\core.netmodule %OUT%\*.obj csc %CSC% /addmodule:%OUT%\core.netmodule /out:%OUT%\GUI.netmodule /recurse:*.cs link /FIXED /ENTRY:GUI.Program.Main /OUT:%OUT%\XXX.exe ^ /ASSEMBLYRESOURCE:%OUT%\core.resources,XXX.resources,PRIVATE /ASSEMBLYRESOURCE:%OUT%\GUI.resources,GUI.resources,PRIVATE ^ /ASSEMBLYMODULE:%OUT%\core.netmodule %OUT%\gui.res %OUT%\*.obj %OUT%\GUI.netmodule Update 1 Upon compiling this with debug symbols and trying again, I do in fact get more information. The call stack is: msvcr90d.dll!_msize_dbg(void * pUserData, int nBlockUse) Line 1511 + 0x30 bytes msvcr90d.dll!_dllonexit_nolock(int (void)* func, void (void)* * * pbegin, void (void)* * * pend) Line 295 + 0xd bytes msvcr90d.dll!__dllonexit(int (void)* func, void (void)* * * pbegin, void (void)* * * pend) Line 273 + 0x11 bytes XXX.exe!_onexit(int (void)* func) Line 110 + 0x1b bytes XXX.exe!atexit(void (void)* func) Line 127 + 0x9 bytes XXX.exe!`dynamic initializer for 'Bytes::Null''() Line 7 + 0xa bytes mscorwks.dll!6cbd1b5c() [Frames below may be incorrect and/or missing, no symbols loaded for mscorwks.dll] ... The line of my code that 'causes' this (dynamic initializer for Bytes::Null) is: Bytes Bytes::Null; In the header that is declared as: class Bytes { public: static Bytes Null; } I also tried doing a global extern in the header like so: extern Bytes Null; // header Bytes Null; // cpp file Which failed in the same way. It seems that the CRT atexit function is responsible, being inadvertently required due to the static initializer. Fix As Ben Voigt pointed out the use of any CRT functions (including native static initializers) requires proper initialization of the CRT (which happens in mainCRTStartup, WinMainCRTStartup, or _DllMainCRTStartup). I have added a mixed C++/CLI file that has a C++ main or WinMain: using namespace System; [STAThread] // required if using an STA COM objects (such as drag-n-drop or file dialogs) int main() { // or "int __stdcall WinMain(void*, void*, wchar_t**, int)" for GUI applications array<String^> ^args_orig = Environment::GetCommandLineArgs(); int l = args_orig->Length - 1; // required to remove first argument (program name) array<String^> ^args = gcnew array<String^>(l); if (l > 0) Array::Copy(args_orig, 1, args, 0, l); return XXX::CUI::Program::Main(args); // return XXX::GUI::Program::Main(args); } After doing this, the program now gets a little further, but still has issues (which will be addressed elsewhere): When the program is solely in C# it works fine, along with whenever it is just calling C++/CLI methods, getting C++/CLI properties, and creating managed C++/CLI objects Events added by C# into the C++/CLI code never fire (even though they should) One other weird error is that an exception happens is a InvalidCastException saying can't cast from X to X (where X is the same as X...) However since the heap corruption is fixed (by getting the CRT initialized) the question is done.

    Read the article

  • Object as an array

    - by owca
    I need to create class Dog and PurebredDog extending Dog. Problem is that Dog can be at once single object and array of objects (Dogs and PurebreedDogs : Dog pack[]={new Dog(76589,"As","black",18, "Ann","Kowalsky"), new PurebreedDog(45321,"Labrador","Elf","black",25, "Angus","Mati","Barbara","Smith"), new Dog(102467,"Gamma","brown",89, "Josh","Coke"), new PurebreedDog(9678,"York","Theta","brown",8, "Emka","Figaro","Alice","Cat")}; for(int i=0; i < pack.length; i++) System.out.println(pack[i]+"\n\n"); How to write proper constructor for Dog ?

    Read the article

  • Implicitly invoking parent class initializer

    - by Matt Joiner
    class A(object): def __init__(self, a, b, c): #super(A, self).__init__() super(self.__class__, self).__init__() class B(A): def __init__(self, b, c): print super(B, self) print super(self.__class__, self) #super(B, self).__init__(1, b, c) super(self.__class__, self).__init__(1, b, c) class C(B): def __init__(self, c): #super(C, self).__init__(2, c) super(self.__class__, self).__init__(2, c) C(3) In the above code, the commented out __init__ calls appear to the be the commonly accepted "smart" way to do super class initialization. However in the event that the class hierarchy is likely to change, I have been using the uncommented form, until recently. It appears that in the call to the super constructor for B in the above hierarchy, that B.__init__ is called again, self.__class__ is actually C, not B as I had always assumed. Is there some way in Python-2.x that I can overcome this, and maintain proper MRO when calling super constructors without actually naming the current class?

    Read the article

  • Overriding Constructors in F#

    - by kim3er
    How would I write the following C# code in F#? namespace Shared { public class SharedRegistry : PageRegistry { public SharedRegistry(bool useCache = true) : base(useCache) { // Repositories ForRequestedType<IAddressRepository>().TheDefaultIsConcreteType<SqlAddressRepository>(); ForRequestedType<ISharedEnquiryRepository>().TheDefaultIsConcreteType<SharedEnquiryRepository>(); // Services ForRequestedType<IAddressService>().TheDefaultIsConcreteType<AddressService>(); ForRequestedType<ISharedEnquiryService>().TheDefaultIsConcreteType<SharedEnquiryService>(); } } } As is as far as I have managed, but I can't work out to inherit from PageRegistry at the same time as declaring my own default constructor. type SharedRegistry(useCache: bool) = inherit PageRegistry(useCache) new() = new SharedRegistry(true) Rich

    Read the article

  • By-Name-Parameters for Constructors

    - by hotzen
    Hello, coming from my other question is there a way to get by-name-parameters for constructors working? I need a way to provide a code-block which is executed on-demand/lazy/by-name inside an object and this code-block must be able to access the class-methods as if the code-block were part of the class. Following Testcase fails: package test class ByNameCons(code: => Unit) { def exec() = { println("pre-code") code println("post-code") } def meth() = println("method") def exec2(code2: => Unit) = { println("pre-code") code2 println("post-code") } } object ByNameCons { def main(args: Array[String]): Unit = { val tst = new ByNameCons { println("foo") meth() // knows meth() as code is part of ByNameCons } tst.exec() // ByName fails (executed right as constructor) println("--------") tst.exec2 { // ByName works println("foo") //meth() // does not know meth() as code is NOT part of ByNameCons } } } Output: foo method pre-code post-code -------- pre-code foo post-code

    Read the article

  • Throwing Exception in CTOR and Smart Pointers

    - by David Relihan
    Is it OK to have the following code in my constructor to load an XML document into a member variable - throwing to caller if there are any problems: MSXML2::IXMLDOMDocumentPtr m_docPtr; //member Configuration() { try { HRESULT hr = m_docPtr.CreateInstance(__uuidof(MSXML2::DOMDocument40)); if ( SUCCEEDED(hr)) { m_docPtr->loadXML(CreateXML()); } else { //throw exception to caller } } catch(...) { //throw exception to caller } } Based on Scott Myers RAII implementations in More Effective C++ I believe I am alright in just allowing exceptions to be thrown from CTOR as I am using a smart pointer(IXMLDOMDocumentPtr). Let me know what you think....

    Read the article

  • Very basic Javascript constructors problem

    - by misha-moroshko
    Hi, In the following JavaScript code main() is called. My question is why the second constructor is called rather than the first one ? What am I missing here ? Thanks !! function AllInputs() { alert("cons 1"); this.radioInputs = []; alert(this); } function AllInputs(radioElement) { alert("cons 2"); this.radioInputs = [radioElement]; alert(this); } AllInputs.prototype.toString = function() { return "[object AllInputs: radioInputs: " + this.radioInputs.length + "]"; } function main() { var result = new AllInputs(); }

    Read the article

  • template class: ctor against function -> new C++ standard

    - by Oops
    Hi in this question: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2779155/template-point2-double-point3-double Dennis and Michael noticed the unreasonable foolishly implemented constructor. They were right, I didn't consider this at that moment. But I found out that a constructor does not help very much for a template class like this one, instead a function is here much more convenient and safe namespace point { template < unsigned int dims, typename T > struct Point { T X[ dims ]; std::string str() { std::stringstream s; s << "{"; for ( int i = 0; i < dims; ++i ) { s << " X" << i << ": " << X[ i ] << (( i < dims -1 )? " |": " "); } s << "}"; return s.str(); } Point<dims, int> toint() { Point<dims, int> ret; std::copy( X, X+dims, ret.X ); return ret; } }; template < typename T > Point< 2, T > Create( T X0, T X1 ) { Point< 2, T > ret; ret.X[ 0 ] = X0; ret.X[ 1 ] = X1; return ret; } template < typename T > Point< 3, T > Create( T X0, T X1, T X2 ) { Point< 3, T > ret; ret.X[ 0 ] = X0; ret.X[ 1 ] = X1; ret.X[ 2 ] = X2; return ret; } template < typename T > Point< 4, T > Create( T X0, T X1, T X2, T X3 ) { Point< 4, T > ret; ret.X[ 0 ] = X0; ret.X[ 1 ] = X1; ret.X[ 2 ] = X2; ret.X[ 3 ] = X3; return ret; } }; int main( void ) { using namespace point; Point< 2, double > p2d = point::Create( 12.3, 34.5 ); Point< 3, double > p3d = point::Create( 12.3, 34.5, 56.7 ); Point< 4, double > p4d = point::Create( 12.3, 34.5, 56.7, 78.9 ); //Point< 3, double > p1d = point::Create( 12.3, 34.5 ); //no suitable user defined conversion exists //Point< 3, int > p1i = p4d.toint(); //no suitable user defined conversion exists Point< 2, int > p2i = p2d.toint(); Point< 3, int > p3i = p3d.toint(); Point< 4, int > p4i = p4d.toint(); std::cout << p2d.str() << std::endl; std::cout << p3d.str() << std::endl; std::cout << p4d.str() << std::endl; std::cout << p2i.str() << std::endl; std::cout << p3i.str() << std::endl; std::cout << p4i.str() << std::endl; char c; std::cin >> c; } has the new C++ standard any new improvements, language features or simplifications regarding this aspect of ctor of a template class? what do you think about the implementation of the combination of namespace, stuct and Create function? many thanks in advance Oops

    Read the article

  • What's the benefit of calling new on an object instance?

    - by Geo
    I'm reading [Programming Perl][1], and I found this code snippet: sub new { my $invocant = shift; my $class = ref($invocant) || $invocant; my $self = { color => "bay", legs => 4, owner => undef, @_, # Override previous attributes }; return bless $self, $class; } With constructors like this one, what's the benefit of calling new on an object instance? I assume that it's what it's for, right? My guess is that if anyone would want to write such a constructor, he would have to add some more code that copies the attributes of the first object to the one about to be created.

    Read the article

  • PHP: How to Pass child class __construct() arguments to parent::__construct() ?

    - by none
    I have a class in PHP like so: class ParentClass { function __construct($arg) { // Initialize a/some variable(s) based on $arg } } It has a child class, as such: class ChildClass extends ParentClass { function __construct($arg) { // Let the parent handle construction. parent::__construct($arg); } } What if, for some reason, the ParentClass needs to change to take more than one optional argument, which I would like my Child class to provide "just in case"? Unless I re-code the ChildClass, it will only ever take the one argument to the constructor, and will only ever pass that one argument. Is this so rare or such a bad practice that the usual case is that a ChildClass wouldn't need to be inheriting from a ParentClass that takes different arguments? Essentially, I've seen in Python where you can pass a potentially unknown number of arguments to a function via somefunction(*args) where 'args' is an array/iterable of some kind. Does something like this exist in PHP? Or should I refactor these classes before proceeding?

    Read the article

  • Can C++ Constructors be templates?

    - by Gokul
    Hi, I have non-template class with a templatized constructor. This code compiles for me. But i remember that somewhere i have referred that constructors cannot be templates. Can someone explain whether this is a valid usage? typedef double Vector; //enum Method {A, B, C, D, E, F}; struct A {}; class Butcher { public: template <class Method> Butcher(Method); private: Vector a, b, c; }; template <> Butcher::Butcher(struct A) : a(2), b(4), c(2) { // a = 0.5, 1; // b = -1, 1, 3, 2; // c = 0, 1; } Thanks, Gokul.

    Read the article

  • Is there anything wrong with taking immediate actions in constructors?

    - by pestaa
    I have classes like this one: class SomeObject { public function __construct($param1, $param2) { $this->process($param1, $param2); } ... } So I can instantly "call" it as some sort of global function just like new SomeObject($arg1, $arg2); which has the benefits of staying concise, being easy to understand, but might break unwritten rules of semantics by not waiting till a method is called. Should I continue to feel bad because of a bad practice, or there's really nothing to worry about? Clarification: I do want an instance of the class. I do use internal methods of the class only. I initialize the object in the constructor, but call the "important" action-taker methods too. I am selfish in the light of these sentences.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73  | Next Page >