Search Results

Search found 46393 results on 1856 pages for 'anonymous class'.

Page 7/1856 | < Previous Page | 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14  | Next Page >

  • Anonymous class implementing interface

    - by Flo
    I have the following code inside a method: var list = new[] { new { Name = "Red", IsSelected = true }, new { Name = "Green", IsSelected = false }, new { Name = "Blue", IsSelected = false }, }; I would like to call a function that requires a list of elements with each element implementing an interface (ISelectable). I know how this is done with normal classes, but in this case I am only trying to fill in some demo data. Is it possible to create an anonymous class implementing an interface? like this: new { Name = "Red", IsSelected = true } : ISelectable

    Read the article

  • Where to put constant strings in C++: static class members or anonymous namespaces

    - by stone
    I need to define some constant strings that will be used only by one class. It looks like I have three options: Embed the strings directly into locations where they are used. Define them as private static constant members of the class: //A.h class A { private: static const std::string f1; static const std::string f2; static const std::string f3; }; //A.cpp const std::string f1 = "filename1"; const std::string f2 = "filename2"; const std::string f3 = "filename3"; //strings are used in this file Define them in an anonymous namespace in the cpp file: //A.cpp namespace { const std::string f1 = "filename1"; const std::string f2 = "filename2"; const std::string f3 = "filename3"; } //strings are used in this file Given these options, which one would you recommend and why? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • How To Test if a Type is Anonymous?

    - by DaveDev
    Hi Guys I have the following method which serialises an object to a HTML tag. I only want to do this though if the type isn't Anonymous. private void MergeTypeDataToTag(object typeData) { if (typeData != null) { Type elementType = typeData.GetType(); if (/* elementType != AnonymousType */) { _tag.Attributes.Add("class", elementType.Name); } // do some more stuff } } Can somebody show me how to achieve this? Thanks Dave

    Read the article

  • Arguments to JavaScript Anonymous Function

    - by Phonethics
    for (var i = 0; i < somearray.length; i++) { myclass.foo({'arg1':somearray[i][0]}, function() { console.log(somearray[i][0]); }); } How do I pass somearray or one of its indexes into the anonymous function ? somearray is already in the global scope, but I still get somearray[i] is undefined

    Read the article

  • Closure vs Anonymous function (difference?)

    - by Maxim Gershkovich
    Hi, I have been unable to find a definition that clearly explains the differences between a closure and an anonymous function. Most references I have seen clearly specify that they are distinct "things" yet I can't seem to get my head around why. Could someone please simplify it for me? What are the specific differences between these two language features? Which one is more appropriate in what scenarios?

    Read the article

  • Class Loading Deadlocks

    - by tomas.nilsson
    Mattis follows up on his previous post with one more expose on Class Loading Deadlocks As I wrote in a previous post, the class loading mechanism in Java is very powerful. There are many advanced techniques you can use, and when used wrongly you can get into all sorts of trouble. But one of the sneakiest deadlocks you can run into when it comes to class loading doesn't require any home made class loaders or anything. All you need is classes depending on each other, and some bad luck. First of all, here are some basic facts about class loading: 1) If a thread needs to use a class that is not yet loaded, it will try to load that class 2) If another thread is already loading the class, the first thread will wait for the other thread to finish the loading 3) During the loading of a class, one thing that happens is that the <clinit method of a class is being run 4) The <clinit method initializes all static fields, and runs any static blocks in the class. Take the following class for example: class Foo { static Bar bar = new Bar(); static { System.out.println("Loading Foo"); } } The first time a thread needs to use the Foo class, the class will be initialized. The <clinit method will run, creating a new Bar object and printing "Loading Foo" But what happens if the Bar object has never been used before either? Well, then we will need to load that class as well, calling the Bar <clinit method as we go. Can you start to see the potential problem here? A hint is in fact #2 above. What if another thread is currently loading class Bar? The thread loading class Foo will have to wait for that thread to finish loading. But what happens if the <clinit method of class Bar tries to initialize a Foo object? That thread will have to wait for the first thread, and there we have the deadlock. Thread one is waiting for thread two to initialize class Bar, thread two is waiting for thread one to initialize class Foo. All that is needed for a class loading deadlock is static cross dependencies between two classes (and a multi threaded environment): class Foo { static Bar b = new Bar(); } class Bar { static Foo f = new Foo(); } If two threads cause these classes to be loaded at exactly the same time, we will have a deadlock. So, how do you avoid this? Well, one way is of course to not have these circular (static) dependencies. On the other hand, it can be very hard to detect these, and sometimes your design may depend on it. What you can do in that case is to make sure that the classes are first loaded single threadedly, for example during an initialization phase of your application. The following program shows this kind of deadlock. To help bad luck on the way, I added a one second sleep in the static block of the classes to trigger the unlucky timing. Notice that if you uncomment the "//Foo f = new Foo();" line in the main method, the class will be loaded single threadedly, and the program will terminate as it should. public class ClassLoadingDeadlock { // Start two threads. The first will instansiate a Foo object, // the second one will instansiate a Bar object. public static void main(String[] arg) { // Uncomment next line to stop the deadlock // Foo f = new Foo(); new Thread(new FooUser()).start(); new Thread(new BarUser()).start(); } } class FooUser implements Runnable { public void run() { System.out.println("FooUser causing class Foo to be loaded"); Foo f = new Foo(); System.out.println("FooUser done"); } } class BarUser implements Runnable { public void run() { System.out.println("BarUser causing class Bar to be loaded"); Bar b = new Bar(); System.out.println("BarUser done"); } } class Foo { static { // We are deadlock prone even without this sleep... // The sleep just makes us more deterministic try { Thread.sleep(1000); } catch(InterruptedException e) {} } static Bar b = new Bar(); } class Bar { static { try { Thread.sleep(1000); } catch(InterruptedException e) {} } static Foo f = new Foo(); }

    Read the article

  • should I extend or create instance of the class

    - by meWantToLearn
    I have two classes Class A and Class B in Class A, i have three methods that perform the save, delete and select operation based upon the object I pass them. in Class B I perform the logic operations, such as modification to the property of the object before being passed to the methods of Class A, My problem is in Class B, should it extend Class A, and call the methods of class A , by parent::methodName or create instance of class A and then call Class A does not includes any property just methods. class A{ public function save($obj){ //code here } public function delete($obj){ //code here } public function select($obj){ //code here } } //Should I extend class A, and call the method by parent::methodName($obj) or create an instance of class A, call the method $instanceOfA-methodName($obj); class B extends A{ public function checkIfHasSaved($obj){ if($obj->saved == 'Yes'){ parent::save($obj); //**should I call the method like this** $instanceOFA = new A(); //**or create instance of class A and call without extending class A** instanceOFA->save($obj); } //other logic operations here } }

    Read the article

  • Changing multiple objects with a new class name using Jquery

    - by liquilife
    I'd like to click on a trigger and show a specific image. There are multiple triggers which would show a specific image related to it within a set. There are 4 sets The challenge for me is toggling the other images to hide only in this 'set' when one of these triggers are clicked, as there can only be one image showing at a time in each set. Here is the HTML I've put together thus far: <!-- Thumbnails which can be clicked on to toggle the larger preview image --> <div class="materials"> <a href="javascript:;" id="shirtgrey"><img src="/grey_shirt.png" height="122" width="122" /></a> <a href="javascript:;" id="shirtred"><img src="red_shirt.png" height="122" width="122" /></a> <a href="javascript:;" id="shirtblue"><img src="hblue_shirt.png" height="122" width="122" /></a> <a href="javascript:;" id="shirtgreen"><img src="green_shirt.png" height="122" width="122" /></a> </div> <div class="collars"> <a href="javascript:;" id="collargrey"><img src="grey_collar.png" height="122" width="122" /></a> <a href="javascript:;" id="collarred"><img src="red_collar.png" height="122" width="122" /></a> <a href="javascript:;" id="collarblue"><img src="blue_collar.png" height="122" width="122" /></a> <a href="javascript:;" id="collargreen"><img src="green_collar.png" height="122" width="122" /></a> </div> <div class="cuffs"> <a href="javascript:;" id="cuffgrey"><img src="grey_cuff.png" height="122" width="122" /></a> <a href="javascript:;" id="cuffred"><img src="red_cuff.png" height="122" width="122" /></a> <a href="javascript:;" id="cuffblue"><img src="blue_cuff.png" height="122" width="122" /></a> <a href="javascript:;" id="cuffgreen"><img src="/green_cuff.png" height="122" width="122" /></a> </div> <div class="pockets"> <a href="javascript:;" id="pocketgrey"><img src="grey_pocket.png" height="122" width="122" /></a> <a href="javascript:;" id="pocketred"><img src=".png" height="122" width="122" /></a> <a href="javascript:;" id="pocketblue"><img src="blue_pocket.png" height="122" width="122" /></a> <a href="javascript:;" id="pocketgreen"><img src="green_pocket.png" height="122" width="122" /></a> </div> <!-- The larger images where one from each set should be viewable at one time, triggered by the thumb clicked above --> <div class="selectionimg"> <div class="selectShirt"> <img src="grey_shirt.png" height="250" width="250" class="selectShirtGrey show" /> <img src="red_shirt.png" height="250" width="250" class="selectShirtRed hide" /> <img src="blue_shirt.png" height="250" width="250" class="selectShirtBlue hide" /> <img src="green_shirt.png" height="250" width="250" class="selectShirtGreen hide" /> </div> <div class="selectCollar"> <img src="grey_collar.png" height="250" width="250" class="selectCollarGrey show" /> <img src="red_collar.png" height="250" width="250" class="selectCollarRed hide" /> <img src="blue_collar.png" height="250" width="250" class="selectCollarBlue hide" /> <img src="green_collar.png" height="250" width="250" class="selectCollarGreen hide" /> </div> <div class="selectCuff"> <img src="grey_cuff.png" height="250" width="250" class="selectCuffGrey show" /> <img src="red_cuff.png" height="250" width="250" class="selectCuffRed hide" /> <img src="blue_cuff.png" height="250" width="250" class="selectCuffBlue hide" /> <img src="green_cuff.png" height="250" width="250" class="selectCuffGreen hide" /> </div> <div class="selectPocket"> <img src="grey_pocket.png" height="250" width="250" class="selectPocketGrey show" /> <img src="hred_pocket.png" height="250" width="250" class="selectPocketRed hide" /> <img src="blue_pocket.png" height="250" width="250" class="selectPocketBlue hide" /> <img src="green_pocket.png" height="250" width="250" class="selectPocketGreen hide" /> </div> </div> How can jQuery be used to change a class of an image to "show" and ensure that all other images in that same div are set to a class of "hide"? First time posting here. I'm very efficient with HTML and CSS and have a basic understanding of jQuery. I'm learning and this just seems a little bit beyond my abilities at the moment. I hope this all makes sense. Thanks for any help.

    Read the article

  • Getting an object from a 2d array inside of a class

    - by user36324
    I am have a class file that contains two classes, platform and platforms. platform holds the single platform information, and platforms has an 2d array of platforms. Im trying to render all of them in a for loop but it is not working. If you could kindly help me i would greatly appreciate. void Platforms::setUp() { for(int x = 0; x < tilesW; x++){ for(int y = 0; y < tilesH; y++){ Platform tempPlat(x,y,true,renderer,filename,tileSize/scaleW,tileSize/scaleH); platArray[x][y] = tempPlat; } } } void Platforms::show() { for(int x = 0; x < tilesW; x++){ for(int y = 0; y < tilesH; y++){ platArray[x][y].show(renderer,scaleW,scaleH); } } }

    Read the article

  • VB.NET 2008 - Anonymous Function

    - by James Brauman
    Hi, On Form Load I populate a menu with all possible colors so they user can pick a color. However when they pick a color the forecolor of my label is not changed. Private Sub MainForm_Load(ByVal sender As System.Object, ByVal e As System.EventArgs) Handles MyBase.Load ' When the form loads, we want to populate the color menu item with all the possible colors that we could change the label to. For Each currentColor As KnownColor In [Enum].GetValues(GetType(KnownColor)) ' Declare the knowColor again - we must do this to be able to do anonymous delegates in VB.NET Dim actualCurrentColor As KnownColor = currentColor ' Get the name for this color Dim colorName As String = [Enum].GetName(GetType(KnownColor), actualCurrentColor) ' Create a new menu item for this color Dim newMenuItem As ToolStripMenuItem = New ToolStripMenuItem(colorName) ' Add a handler to this menu item so when it is clicked, we change the heading color AddHandler newMenuItem.Click, Function(s As System.Object, events As System.EventArgs) (HeadingLabel.ForeColor = Color.FromKnownColor(actualCurrentColor)) ' Add the menu item to the colors menu ColorToolStripMenuItem.DropDownItems.Add(newMenuItem) Next End Sub What am I doing wrong? Thanks

    Read the article

  • C# Anonymous method variable scope problem with IEnumerable<T>

    - by PaN1C_Showt1Me
    Hi. I'm trying to iterate through all components and for those who implements ISupportsOpen allow to open a project. The problem is when the anonymous method is called, then the component variable is always the same element (as coming from the outer scope from IEnumerable) foreach (ISupportsOpen component in something.Site.Container.Components.OfType<ISupportsOpen>()) { MyClass m = new MyClass(); m.Called += new EventHandler(delegate(object sender, EventArgs e) { if (component.CanOpenProject(..)) component.OpenProject(..); }); itemsList.Add(m); } How should it be solved, please?

    Read the article

  • detachEvent not working with named anonymous functions

    - by Polshgiant
    I ran into a problem in IE8 today (Note that I only need to support IE) that I can't seem to explain: detachEvent wouldn't work when using a named anonymous function handler. document.getElementById('iframeid').attachEvent("onreadystatechange", function onIframeReadyStateChange() { if (event.srcElement.readyState != "complete") { return; } event.srcElement.detachEvent("onreadystatechange", onIframeReadyStateChange); // code here was running every time my iframe's readyState // changed to "complete" instead of only the first time }); I eventually figured out that changing onIframeReadyStateChange to use arguments.callee (which I normally avoid) instead solved the issue: document.getElementById('iframeid').attachEvent("onreadystatechange", function () { if (event.srcElement.readyState != "complete") { return; } event.srcElement.detachEvent("onreadystatechange", arguments.callee); // code here now runs only once no matter how many times the // iframe's readyState changes to "complete" }); What gives?! Shouldn't the first snippet work fine?

    Read the article

  • Return/consume dynamic anonymous type across assembly boundaries

    - by friism
    The code below works great. If the Get and Use methods are in different assemblies, the code fails with a RuntimeBinderException. This is because the .Net runtime system only guarantees commonality of anonymous types (<string, int> in this case) within assemblies. Is there any way to fool the runtime system to overcome this? I can expect the object in the debugger on the Use side, and the debugger can see the relevant properties. class Program { static void Main(string[] args) { UsePerson(); Console.ReadLine(); } public static void UsePerson() { var person = GetPerson(); Console.WriteLine(person.Name); } public static dynamic GetPerson() { return new { Name = "Foo", Age = 30 }; } }

    Read the article

  • Scoping inside Javascript anonymous functions

    - by DCD
    I am trying to make a function return data from an ajax call that I can then use. The issue is the function itself is called by many objects, e.g.: function ajax_submit (obj) { var id = $(obj).attr('id'); var message = escape ($("#"+id+" .s_post").val ()); var submit_string = "action=post_message&message="+message; $.ajax({ type: "POST", url: document.location, data: submit_string, success: function(html, obj) { alert (html); } }); return false; } Which means that inside the anonymous 'success' function I have no way of knowing what the calling obj (or id) actually are. The only way I can think of doing it is to attach id to document but that just seems a bit too crude. Is there another way of doing this?

    Read the article

  • Multiple return points in scala closure/anonymous function

    - by Debilski
    As far as I understand it, there is no way in Scala to have multiple return points in an anonymous function, i.e. someList.map((i) => { if (i%2 == 0) return i // the early return allows me to avoid the else clause doMoreStuffAndReturnSomething(i) }) raises an error: return outside method definition. (And if it weren’t to raise that, the code would not work as I’d like it to work.) One workaround I could thing of would be the following someList.map({ def f(i: Int):Int = { if (i%2 == 0) return i doMoreStuffAndReturnSomething(i) } f }) however, I’d like to know if there is another ‘accepted’ way of doing this. Maybe a possibility to go without a name for the inner function? (A use case would be to emulate some valued continue construct inside the loop.)

    Read the article

  • Java anonymous class efficiency implications

    - by Po
    Is there any difference in efficiency (e.g. execution time, code size, etc.) between these two ways of doing things? Below are contrived examples that create objects and do nothing, but my actual scenarios may be creating new Threads, Listeners, etc. Assume the following pieces of code happen in a loop so that it might make a difference. Using anonymous objects: void doSomething() { for (/* Assume some loop */) { final Object obj1, obj2; // some free variables IWorker anonymousWorker = new IWorker() { doWork() { // do things that refer to obj1 and obj2 } }; } } Defining a class first: void doSomething() { for (/* Assume some loop */) { Object obj1, obj2; IWorker worker = new Worker(obj1, obj2); } } static class Worker implements IWorker { private Object obj1, obj2; public CustomObject(Object obj1, Object obj2) {/* blah blah */} @Override public void doWork() {} }; Thank you :)

    Read the article

  • Silverlight datagrid don't show any data with anonymous query RIA services

    - by user289082
    Hi all! I have an anonymous linq query that I bind to a datagrid, when I debug it brings alright the data but it doesn't show in the datagrid, I suspect that the request to RIA services isn't completed before I bound it to the datagrid. I could use the LoadOperation<() Completed event. But it only works with Defined Entities so how can I do that? For reference here is the last post: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2403903/linq-query-null-reference-exception Here is the query: var bPermisos = from b in ruc.Permisos where b.IdUsuario == SelCu.Id select new { Id=b.Id, IdUsuario=b.IdUsuario, IdPerfil=b.IdPerfil, Estatus=b.Estatus, Perfil=b.Cat_Perfil.Nombre, Sis=b.Cat_Perfil.Cat_Sistema.Nombre }; I'm a totally newbie sorry if is a very simple question. Thanks!!

    Read the article

  • matlab constant anonymous function returns only one value instead of an array

    - by Filo
    I've been searching the net for a couple of mornings and found nothing, hope you can help. I have an anonymous function like this f = @(x,y) [sin(2*pi*x).*cos(2*pi*y), cos(2*pi*x).*sin(2*pi*y)]; that needs to be evaluated on an array of points, something like x = 0:0.1:1; y = 0:0.1:1; w = f(x',y'); Now, in the above example everything works fine, the result w is a 11x2 matrix with in each row the correct value f(x(i), y(i)). The problem comes when I change my function to have constant values: f = @(x,y) [0, 1]; Now, even with array inputs like before, I only get out a 1x2 array like w = [0,1]; while of course I want to have the same structure as before, i.e. a 11x2 matrix. I have no idea why Matlab is doing this...

    Read the article

  • Anonymous method as function result

    - by iamjoosy
    What I want to do is to assign an anonymous method which I get as a function result to a variable of the same type. Delphi complains about not beeing able to do the assignement. Obviously Delphi things I want to assign the "GetListener" function instead of the result of that same function. Any help with this is very much appreciated. type TPropertyChangedListener = reference to procedure (Sender: TStimulus); TMyClass = class function GetListener:TPropertyChangedListener end; .... var MyClass: TMyClass; Listener: TPropertyChangedListener; begin MyClass:= TMyClass.create; Listener:= MyClass.GetListener; // Delphi compile error: E2010 Incompatible types: TPropertyChangedListener' and 'Procedure of object' end;

    Read the article

  • Creating anonymous functions in loop with not the same arguments

    - by onio9
    Hello! I want to make in loop set of buttons, and add to them some events, but anonymous functions is the same. I write example code: for(var i:int=0;i<5;i++) { var button:SimpleButton = new SimpleButton(...); ... button.addEventListener(MouseEvent.CLICK, function(event:MouseEvent):void { trace(i); }); } ... And I want to trace 1,2,3.. from click buttons instead of 4,4,4,4 .. Do you know how can I make this ?

    Read the article

  • C# new class with only single property : derive from base or encapsulate into new ?

    - by Gobol
    I've tried to be descriptive :) It's rather programming-style problem than coding problem in itself. Let's suppose we have : A: public class MyDict { public Dictionary<int,string> dict; // do custom-serialization of "dict" public void SaveToFile(...); // customized deserialization of "dict" public void LoadFromFile(...); } B: public class MyDict : Dictionary<int,string> { } Which option would be better in the matter of programming style ? class B: is to be de/serialized externally. Main problem is : is it better to create new class (which would have only one property - like opt A:) or to create a new class derived - like opt B: ? I don't want any other data processing than adding/removing and de/serializing to stream. Thanks in advance!

    Read the article

  • Static class vs Singleton class in C# [closed]

    - by Floradu88
    Possible Duplicate: What is the difference between all-static-methods and applying a singleton pattern? I need to make a decision for a project I'm working of whether to use static or singleton. After reading an article like this I am inclined to use singleton. What is better to use static class or singleton? Edit 1 : Client Server Desktop Application. Please provide code oriented solutions.

    Read the article

  • Anonymous Access and Sharepoint Web Services

    - by Stacy Vicknair
    A month or so ago I was working on a feature for a project that required a level of anonymity on the Sharepoint site in order to function. At the same time I was also working on another feature that required access to the Sharepoint search.asmx web service. I found out, the hard way, that the Sharepoint Web Services do not operate in an expected way while the IIS site is under anonymous access. Even though these web services expect requests with certain permissions (in theory) they never attempt to request those credentials when the web service is contacted. As a result the services return a 401 Unauthorized response. The fix for my situation was to restrict anonymous access to the area that needed it (in this case the control in question had support for being used in an ASP.NET app that I could throw in a virtual directory). After that I removed anonymous access from IIS for the site itself and the QueryService requests were working once more. Here’s a related article with a bit more depth about a similar experience: http://chrisdomino.com/Blog/Post/401-Reasons-Why-SharePoint-Web-Services-Don-t-Work-Anonymously?Length=4 Technorati Tags: Sharepoint,QueryService,WSS,IIS,Anonymous Access

    Read the article

  • polymorphism, inheritance in c# - base class calling overridden method?

    - by Andrew Johns
    This code doesn't work, but hopefully you'll get what I'm trying to achieve here. I've got a Money class, which I've taken from http://www.noticeablydifferent.com/CodeSamples/Money.aspx, and extended it a little to include currency conversion. The implementation for the actual conversion rate could be different in each project, so I decided to move the actual method for retrieving a conversion rate (GetCurrencyConversionRate) into a derived class, but the ConvertTo method contains code that would work for any implementation assuming the derived class has overriden GetCurrencyConversionRate so it made sense to me to keep it in the parent class? So what I'm trying to do is get an instance of SubMoney, and be able to call the .ConvertTo() method, which would in turn use the overriden GetCurrencyConversionRate, and return a new instance of SubMoney. The problem is, I'm not really understanding some concepts of polymorphism and inheritance yet, so not quite sure what I'm trying to do is even possible in the way I think it is, as what is currently happening is that I end up with an Exception where it has used the base GetCurrencyConversionRate method instead of the derived one. Something tells me I need to move the ConvertTo method down to the derived class, but this seems like I'll be duplicating code in multiple implementations, so surely there's a better way? public class Money { public CurrencyConversionRate { get { return GetCurrencyConversionRate(_regionInfo.ISOCurrencySymbol); } } public static decimal GetCurrencyConversionRate(string isoCurrencySymbol) { throw new Exception("Must override this method if you wish to use it."); } public Money ConvertTo(string cultureName) { // convert to base USD first by dividing current amount by it's exchange rate. Money someMoney = this; decimal conversionRate = this.CurrencyConversionRate; decimal convertedUSDAmount = Money.Divide(someMoney, conversionRate).Amount; // now convert to new currency CultureInfo cultureInfo = new CultureInfo(cultureName); RegionInfo regionInfo = new RegionInfo(cultureInfo.LCID); conversionRate = GetCurrencyConversionRate(regionInfo.ISOCurrencySymbol); decimal convertedAmount = convertedUSDAmount * conversionRate; Money convertedMoney = new Money(convertedAmount, cultureName); return convertedMoney; } } public class SubMoney { public SubMoney(decimal amount, string cultureName) : base(amount, cultureName) {} public static new decimal GetCurrencyConversionRate(string isoCurrencySymbol) { // This would get the conversion rate from some web or database source decimal result = new Decimal(2); return result; } }

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14  | Next Page >