Search Results

Search found 4652 results on 187 pages for 'explicit constructor'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 8/187 | < Previous Page | 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15  | Next Page >

  • Template neglects const (why?)

    - by Gabriel
    Does somebody know, why this compiles?? template< typename TBufferTypeFront, typename TBufferTypeBack = TBufferTypeFront> class FrontBackBuffer{ public: FrontBackBuffer( const TBufferTypeFront front, const TBufferTypeBack back): ////const reference assigned to reference??? m_Front(front), m_Back(back) { }; ~FrontBackBuffer() {}; TBufferTypeFront m_Front; ///< The front buffer TBufferTypeBack m_Back; ///< The back buffer }; int main(){ int b; int a; FrontBackBuffer<int&,int&> buffer(a,b); // buffer.m_Back = 33; buffer.m_Front = 55; } I compile with GCC 4.4. Why does it even let me compile this? Shouldn't there be an error that I cannot assign a const reference to a non-const reference?

    Read the article

  • C++ unrestricted union workaround

    - by Chris
    #include <stdio.h> struct B { int x,y; }; struct A : public B { // This whines about "copy assignment operator not allowed in union" //A& operator =(const A& a) { printf("A=A should do the exact same thing as A=B\n"); } A& operator =(const B& b) { printf("A = B\n"); } }; union U { A a; B b; }; int main(int argc, const char* argv[]) { U u1, u2; u1.a = u2.b; // You can do this and it calls the operator = u1.a = (B)u2.a; // This works too u1.a = u2.a; // This calls the default assignment operator >:@ } Is there any workaround to be able to do that last line u1.a = u2.a with the exact same syntax, but have it call the operator = (don't care if it's =(B&) or =(A&)) instead of just copying data? Or are unrestricted unions (not supported even in Visual Studio 2010) the only option?

    Read the article

  • Implicit and Explicit implementations for Multiple Interface inheritance

    Following C#.NET demo explains you all the scenarios for implementation of Interface methods to classes. There are two ways you can implement a interface method to a class. 1. Implicit Implementation 2. Explicit Implementation. Please go though the sample. using System; namespace ImpExpTest {     class Program     {         static void Main(string[] args)         {             C o3 = new C();             Console.WriteLine(o3.fu());             I1 o1 = new C();             Console.WriteLine(o1.fu());             I2 o2 = new C();             Console.WriteLine(o2.fu());             var o4 = new C();       //var is considered as C             Console.WriteLine(o4.fu());             var o5 = (I1)new C();   //var is considered as I1             Console.WriteLine(o5.fu());             var o6 = (I2)new C();   //var is considered as I2             Console.WriteLine(o6.fu());             D o7 = new D();             Console.WriteLine(o7.fu());             I1 o8 = new D();             Console.WriteLine(o8.fu());             I2 o9 = new D();             Console.WriteLine(o9.fu());         }     }     interface I1     {         string fu();     }     interface I2     {         string fu();     }     class C : I1, I2     {         #region Imicitly Defined I1 Members         public string fu()         {             return "Hello C"         }         #endregion Imicitly Defined I1 Members         #region Explicitly Defined I1 Members         string I1.fu()         {             return "Hello from I1";         }         #endregion Explicitly Defined I1 Members         #region Explicitly Defined I2 Members         string I2.fu()         {             return "Hello from I2";         }         #endregion Explicitly Defined I2 Members     }     class D : C     {         #region Imicitly Defined I1 Members         public string fu()         {             return "Hello from D";         }         #endregion Imicitly Defined I1 Members     } } Output:- Hello C Hello from I1 Hello from I2 Hello C Hello from I1 Hello from I2 Hello from D Hello from I1 Hello from I2 span.fullpost {display:none;}

    Read the article

  • In a WPF Application, What happens after my code in the main window constructor is executed?

    - by KyleGobel
    I'm wondering what happens after the constructor is done executing my code, because the constructor is taking like 10 seconds to run on a cold start up, but according to the profiler, my code is done executing in like 2 seconds. Also stepping through the code in the debugger, after the last line of my constructor, I sit there and wait for 7-8 seconds before the window appears. Why is this? If the window is loading content or something, why isn't it displayed on the screen, done loading or not after the constructor finishes it's job? What's the hold up? (or how do i figure that out)

    Read the article

  • How to use reflection to get a default constructor?

    - by Qwertie
    I am writing a library that generates derived classes of abstract classes dynamically at runtime. The constructor of the derived class needs a MethodInfo of the base class constructor so that it can invoke it. However, for some reason Type.GetConstructor() returns null. For example: abstract class Test { public abstract void F(); } public static void Main(string[] args) { ConstructorInfo constructor = typeof(Test).GetConstructor( BindingFlags.NonPublic | BindingFlags.Public, null, System.Type.EmptyTypes, null); // returns null! } Note that GetConstructor returns null even if I explicitly declare a constructor in Test, and even if Test is not abstract.

    Read the article

  • Is there any way to manipulate variables passed in to a child class constructor before passing it of

    - by Matt
    Hi, Is there any way to delay calling a superclass constructor so you can manipulate the variables first? Eg. public class ParentClass { private int someVar; public ParentClass(int someVar) { this.someVar = someVar; } } public class ChildClass : ParentClass { public ChildClass(int someVar) : base(someVar) { someVar = someVar + 1 } } I want to be able to send the new value for someVar (someVar + 1) to the base class constructor rather than the one passed in to the ChildClass constructor. Is there any way to do this? Thanks, Matt

    Read the article

  • Is it possible to defer member initialization to the constructor body?

    - by Kjir
    I have a class with an object as a member which doesn't have a default constructor. I'd like to initialize this member in the constructor, but it seems that in C++ I can't do that. Here is the class: #include <boost/asio.hpp> #include <boost/array.hpp> using boost::asio::ip::udp; template<class T> class udp_sock { public: udp_sock(std::string host, unsigned short port); private: boost::asio::io_service _io_service; udp::socket _sock; boost::array<T,256> _buf; }; template<class T> udp_sock<T>::udp_sock(std::string host = "localhost", unsigned short port = 50000) { udp::resolver res(_io_service); udp::resolver::query query(udp::v4(), host, "spec"); udp::endpoint ep = *res.resolve(query); ep.port(port); _sock(_io_service, ep); } The compiler tells me basically that it can't find a default constructor for udp::socket and by my research I understood that C++ implicitly initializes every member before calling the constructor. Is there any way to do it the way I wanted to do it, or is it too "Java-oriented" and not feasible in C++? I worked around the problem by defining my constructor like this: template<class T> udp_sock<T>::udp_sock(std::string host = "localhost", unsigned short port = 50000) : _sock(_io_service) { udp::resolver res(_io_service); udp::resolver::query query(udp::v4(), host, "spec"); udp::endpoint ep = *res.resolve(query); ep.port(port); _sock.bind(ep); } So my question is more out of curiosity and to better understand OOP in C++

    Read the article

  • Is it OK to write a constructor which does nothing?

    - by Roman
    To use methods of a class I need to instantiate a class. At the moment the class has not constructor (so I want to write it). But than I have realized that the constructor should do nothing (I do need to specify values of fields). In this context I have a question if it is OK to write constructor which does nothing. For example: public Point() { }

    Read the article

  • Why can't I create an abstract constructor on an abstract C# class?

    - by Anthony D
    I am creating an abstract class. I want each of my derived classes to be forced to implement a specific signature of constructor. As such, I did what I would have done has I wanted to force them to implement a method, I made an abstract one. public abstract class A { abstract A(int a, int b); } However I get a message saying the abstract modifier is invalid on this item. My goal was to force some code like this. public class B : A { public B(int a, int b) : base(a, b) { //Some other awesome code. } } This is all C# .NET code. Can anyone help me out? Update 1 I wanted to add some things. What I ended up with was this. private A() { } protected A(int a, int b) { //Code } That does what some folks are saying, default is private, and the class needs to implement a constructor. However that doesn't FORCE a constructor with the signature A(int a, int b). public abstract class A { protected abstract A(int a, int b) { } } Update 2 I should be clear, to work around this I made my default constructor private, and my other constructor protected. I am not really looking for a way to make my code work. I took care of that. I am looking to understand why C# does not let you do this.

    Read the article

  • In Java, can a final field be initialized from a constructor helper?

    - by csj
    I have a final non-static member: private final HashMap<String,String> myMap; I would like to initialize it using a method called by the constructor. Since myMap is final, my "helper" method is unable to initialize it directly. Of course I have options: I could implement the myMap initialization code directly in the constructor. MyConstructor (String someThingNecessary) { myMap = new HashMap<String,String>(); myMap.put("blah","blahblah"); // etc... // other initialization stuff unrelated to myMap } I could have my helper method build the HashMap, return it to the constructor, and have the constructor then assign the object to myMap. MyConstructor (String someThingNecessary) { myMap = InitializeMyMap(someThingNecessary); // other initialization stuff unrelated to myMap } private HashMap<String,String> InitializeMyMap(String someThingNecessary) { HashMap<String,String> initializedMap = new HashMap<String,String>(); initializedMap.put("blah","blahblah"); // etc... return initializedMap; } Method #2 is fine, however, I'm wondering if there's some way I could allow the helper method to directly manipulate myMap. Perhaps a modifier that indicates it can only be called by the constructor? MyConstructor (String someThingNecessary) { InitializeMyMap(someThingNecessary); // other initialization stuff unrelated to myMap } // helper doesn't work since it can't modify a final member private void InitializeMyMap(String someThingNecessary) { myMap = new HashMap<String,String>(); myMap.put("blah","blahblah"); // etc... }

    Read the article

  • Calling a constructor to reinitialize variables doesn't seem to work?

    - by Matt
    I wanted to run 1,000 iterations of a program, so set a counter for 1000 in main. I needed to reinitialize various variables after each iteration, and since the class constructor had all the initializations already written out - I decided to call that after each iteration, with the result of each iteration being stored in a variable in main. However, when I called the constructor, it had no effect...it took me a while to figure out - but it didn't reinitialize anything! I created a function exactly like the constructor - so the object would have its own version. When I called that, it reinitialized everything as I expected. int main() { Class MyClass() int counter = 0; while ( counter < 1000 ) { stuff happens } Class(); // This is how I tried to call the constructor initially. // After doing some reading here, I tried: // Class::Class(); // - but that didn't work either /* Later I used... MyClass.function_like_my_constructor; // this worked perfectly */ } ...Could someone try to explain why what I did was wrong, or didn't work, or was silly or what have you? I mean - mentally, I just figured - crap, I can call this constructor and have all this stuff reinitialized. Are constructors (ideally) ONLY called when an object is created?

    Read the article

  • Dependency injection: what belongs in the constructor?

    - by Adam Backstrom
    I'm evaluating my current PHP practices in an effort to write more testable code. Generally speaking, I'm fishing for opinions on what types of actions belong in the constructor. Should I limit things to dependency injection? If I do have some data to populate, should that happen via a factory rather than as constructor arguments? (Here, I'm thinking about my User class that takes a user ID and populates user data from the database during construction, which obviously needs to change in some way.) I've heard it said that "initialization" methods are bad, but I'm sure that depends on what exactly is being done during initialization. At the risk of getting too specific, I'll also piggyback a more detailed example onto my question. For a previous project, I built a FormField class (which handled field value setting, validation, and output as HTML) and a Model class to contain these fields and do a bit of magic to ease working with fields. FormField had some prebuilt subclasses, e.g. FormText (<input type="text">) and FormSelect (<select>). Model would be subclassed so that a specific implementation (say, a Widget) had its own fields, such as a name and date of manufacture: class Widget extends Model { public function __construct( $data = null ) { $this->name = new FormField('length=20&label=Name:'); $this->manufactured = new FormDate; parent::__construct( $data ); // set above fields using incoming array } } Now, this does violate some rules that I have read, such as "avoid new in the constructor," but to my eyes this does not seem untestable. These are properties of the object, not some black box data generator reading from an external source. Unit tests would progressively build up to any test of Widget-specific functionality, so I could be confident that the underlying FormFields were working correctly during the Widget test. In theory I could provide the Model with a FieldFactory() which could supply custom field objects, but I don't believe I would gain anything from this approach. Is this a poor assumption?

    Read the article

  • Explicit GRANTs and ROLES in Oracle Database 11g

    Many database shops have no idea of the security breaches that occur across user granted privilege and floating unused synonyms. James Koopmann offers tips for granting privileges explicitly to a user or group of users, and assigning privileges to a role and then granting that role to users.

    Read the article

  • unit testing variable state explicit tests in dynamically typed languages

    - by kris welsh
    I have heard that a desirable quality of unit tests is that they test for each scenario independently. I realised whilst writing tests today that when you compare a variable with another value in a statement like: assertEquals("foo", otherObject.stringFoo); You are really testing three things: The variable you are testing exists and is within scope. The variable you are testing is the expected type. The variable you are testing's value is what you expect it to be. Which to me raises the question of whether you should test for each of these implicitly so that a test fail would occur on the specific line that tests for that problem: assertTrue(stringFoo); assertTrue(stringFoo.typeOf() == "String"); assertEquals("foo", otherObject.stringFoo); For example if the variable was an integer instead of a string the test case failure would be on line 2 which would give you more feedback on what went wrong. Should you test for this kind of thing explicitly or am i overthinking this?

    Read the article

  • SQL Server 2008 R2: StreamInsight changes at RTM: Access to grouping keys via explicit typing

    - by Greg Low
    One of the problems that existed in the CTP3 edition of StreamInsight was an error that occurred if you tried to access the grouping key from within your projection expression. That was a real issue as you always need access to the key. It's a bit like using a GROUP BY in TSQL and then not including the columns you're grouping by in the SELECT clause. You'd see the results but not be able to know which results are which. Look at the following code: var laneSpeeds = from e in vehicleSpeeds group e...(read more)

    Read the article

  • Explicit resource loading in Ogre (Mogre)

    - by sebf
    I am just starting to learn Mogre and what I would like to do is to be able to load resources 'explicitly' (i.e. I just provide an absolute path instead of using a resource group tied to a directory). This is very different to manually loading resources, which I believe in Ogre has a very specific meaning, to build up the object using Ogres methods. I want to use Ogres resource management system/resource loading code, but to have finer control over which files are loaded and in what groups they are. I remember reading how to do this but cannot find the page again; I think its possible to do something like: Declare a resource group Declare the resource(s) (this is when the actual resource file name is provided) Initialise the resource group to actually load the resource(s) Is this the correct procedure? If so, is there any example code showing how to do this?

    Read the article

  • Games without a(n explicit) game loop

    - by Davy8
    Most game development happens with a main game loop. Are there any good articles/blog posts/discussions about games without a game loop? I imagine they'd mostly be web games, but I'd be interested in hearing otherwise. (As a side note, I think it's really interesting that the concept is almost exclusively used in gaming as far as I'm aware, perhaps that may be another question.) Edit: I realize there's probably a redraw loop somewhere. I guess what I really mean is a loop that is hidden to you. Frames are something you as the developer are not concerned with as you're working on a higher level of abstraction. E.g. someLootItem.moveTo(inventory, someAnimatationType) and that will move from the loot box to your inventory using the specified animation type without the game developer having to worry about the implementation details of that animation. Maybe that's how "real" games end up working, but from reading most tutorials they seem to imply a much more granular level of control is used, but that might just be an artifact of being a tutorial.

    Read the article

  • Why use object.prototype.constructor in OOP javascript?

    - by Matt
    I've recently started reading up on OOP javascript and one thing that authors seem to skip over is when an object A has been declared and suddenly I see "A.prototype.constructor =A; For example, var A = function(){}; // This is the constructor of "A" A.prototype.constructor = A; A.prototype.value = 1; A.prototype.test = function() { alert(this.value); } var a = new A(); // create an instance of A alert(a.value); // => 1 So I run the command in firebug "var A = function(){};" and then "A.Constructor" Which reveals it's a function. I understand this. I run the code "A.prototype.constructor = A;" and I thought this changes the A constructor from Function to A. The constructor property of A has been changed right? Instead when I run "A.constructor" it gives me function () still. What's the point? I also see A.constructor.prototype.constructor.prototype.. what is going on?

    Read the article

  • Subterranean IL: Constructor constraints

    - by Simon Cooper
    The constructor generic constraint is a slightly wierd one. The ECMA specification simply states that it: constrains [the type] to being a concrete reference type (i.e., not abstract) that has a public constructor taking no arguments (the default constructor), or to being a value type. There seems to be no reference within the spec to how you actually create an instance of a generic type with such a constraint. In non-generic methods, the normal way of creating an instance of a class is quite different to initializing an instance of a value type. For a reference type, you use newobj: newobj instance void IncrementableClass::.ctor() and for value types, you need to use initobj: .locals init ( valuetype IncrementableStruct s1 ) ldloca 0 initobj IncrementableStruct But, for a generic method, we need a consistent method that would work equally well for reference or value types. Activator.CreateInstance<T> To solve this problem the CLR designers could have chosen to create something similar to the constrained. prefix; if T is a value type, call initobj, and if it is a reference type, call newobj instance void !!0::.ctor(). However, this solution is much more heavyweight than constrained callvirt. The newobj call is encoded in the assembly using a simple reference to a row in a metadata table. This encoding is no longer valid for a call to !!0::.ctor(), as different constructor methods occupy different rows in the metadata tables. Furthermore, constructors aren't virtual, so we would have to somehow do a dynamic lookup to the correct method at runtime without using a MethodTable, something which is completely new to the CLR. Trying to do this in IL results in the following verification error: newobj instance void !!0::.ctor() [IL]: Error: Unable to resolve token. This is where Activator.CreateInstance<T> comes in. We can call this method to return us a new T, and make the whole issue Somebody Else's Problem. CreateInstance does all the dynamic method lookup for us, and returns us a new instance of the correct reference or value type (strangely enough, Activator.CreateInstance<T> does not itself have a .ctor constraint on its generic parameter): .method private static !!0 CreateInstance<.ctor T>() { call !!0 [mscorlib]System.Activator::CreateInstance<!!0>() ret } Going further: compiler enhancements Although this method works perfectly well for solving the problem, the C# compiler goes one step further. If you decompile the C# version of the CreateInstance method above: private static T CreateInstance() where T : new() { return new T(); } what you actually get is this (edited slightly for space & clarity): .method private static !!T CreateInstance<.ctor T>() { .locals init ( [0] !!T CS$0$0000, [1] !!T CS$0$0001 ) DetectValueType: ldloca.s 0 initobj !!T ldloc.0 box !!T brfalse.s CreateInstance CreateValueType: ldloca.s 1 initobj !!T ldloc.1 ret CreateInstance: call !!0 [mscorlib]System.Activator::CreateInstance<T>() ret } What on earth is going on here? Looking closer, it's actually quite a clever performance optimization around value types. So, lets dissect this code to see what it does. The CreateValueType and CreateInstance sections should be fairly self-explanatory; using initobj for value types, and Activator.CreateInstance for reference types. How does the DetectValueType section work? First, the stack transition for value types: ldloca.s 0 // &[!!T(uninitialized)] initobj !!T // ldloc.0 // !!T box !!T // O[!!T] brfalse.s // branch not taken When the brfalse.s is hit, the top stack entry is a non-null reference to a boxed !!T, so execution continues to to the CreateValueType section. What about when !!T is a reference type? Remember, the 'default' value of an object reference (type O) is zero, or null. ldloca.s 0 // &[!!T(null)] initobj !!T // ldloc.0 // null box !!T // null brfalse.s // branch taken Because box on a reference type is a no-op, the top of the stack at the brfalse.s is null, and so the branch to CreateInstance is taken. For reference types, Activator.CreateInstance is called which does the full dynamic lookup using reflection. For value types, a simple initobj is called, which is far faster, and also eliminates the unboxing that Activator.CreateInstance has to perform for value types. However, this is strictly a performance optimization; Activator.CreateInstance<T> works for value types as well as reference types. Next... That concludes the initial premise of the Subterranean IL series; to cover the details of generic methods and generic code in IL. I've got a few other ideas about where to go next; however, if anyone has any itching questions, suggestions, or things you've always wondered about IL, do let me know.

    Read the article

  • C++ - Constructor or Initialize Method to Startup

    - by Bob Fincheimer
    I want to determine when to do non-trivial initialization of a class. I see two times to do initialization: constructor and other method. I want to figure out when to use each. Choice 1: Constructor does initialization MyClass::MyClass(Data const& data) : m_data() { // does non-trivial initialization here } MyClass::~MyClass() { // cleans up here } Choice 2: Defer initialization to an initialize method MyClass::MyClass() : m_data() {} MyClass::Initialize(Data const& data) { // does non-trivial initialization here } MyClass::~MyClass() { // cleans up here } So to try and remove any subjectivity I want to figure out which is better in a couple of situations: Class that encapsulates a resource (window/font/some sort of handle) Class that composites resources to do something (a control/domain object) Data structure classes (tree/list/etc.) [Anything else you can think of] Things to analyze: Performance Ease of use by other developers How error-prone/opportunities for bugs [Anything else you can think of]

    Read the article

  • C#: Struct Constructor: "fields must be fully assigned before control is returned to the caller."

    - by Rosarch
    Here is a struct I am trying to write: public struct AttackTraits { public AttackTraits(double probability, int damage, float distance) { Probability = probability; Distance = distance; Damage = damage; } private double probability; public double Probability { get { return probability; } set { if (value > 1 || value < 0) { throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException("Probability values must be in the range [0, 1]"); } probability = value; } } public int Damage { get; set; } public float Distance { get; set; } } This results in the following compilation errors: The 'this' object cannot be used before all of its fields are assigned to Field 'AttackTraits.probability' must be fully assigned before control is returned to the caller Backing field for automatically implemented property 'AttackTraits.Damage' must be fully assigned before control is returned to the caller. Consider calling the default constructor from a constructor initializer. Backing field for automatically implemented property 'AttackTraits.Distance' must be fully assigned before control is returned to the caller. Consider calling the default constructor from a constructor initializer. What am I doing wrong?

    Read the article

  • Why cant we create Object if constructor is in private section?

    - by Abhi
    Dear all I want to know why cant we create object if the constructor is in private section. I know that if i make a method static i can call that method using <classname> :: <methodname(...)>; But why cant we create object is my doubt... I also know if my method is not static then also i can call function by the following... class A { A(); public: void fun1(); void fun2(); void fun3(); }; int main() { A *obj =(A*)malloc(sizeof(A)); //Here we can't use new A() because constructor is in private //but we can use malloc with it, but it will not call the constructor //and hence it is harmful because object may not be in usable state. obj->fun1(); obj->fun2(); obj->fun3(); } So only doubt is why cant we create object when constructor is in private section? Thanks in advance

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15  | Next Page >