Search Results

Search found 817 results on 33 pages for 'overriding'.

Page 8/33 | < Previous Page | 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15  | Next Page >

  • Adobe After Efects Plugin With Cocoa (Overriding malloc)

    - by mustISignUp
    Messing about a bit, i have a working Adobe After Effects plugin with a bit of Obj-c / Cocoa in it (NSArray and custom objects - not ui stuff). The SDK guide states:- Always use After Effects memory allocation functions. In low-memory conditions (such as during RAM preview), it’s very important that plug-ins not compete with After Effects for OS memory, and deal gracefully with out-of-memory conditions. Failing to use our functions can cause lock-ups, crashes, and tech support calls. Don’t do that. If you’re wrapping existing C++ code, overloading new and delete to use our functions will save substantial reimplementation. On Windows, derive all classes from a common base class which implements new and delete. so my question.. is something compatible with the above statement possible in Obj-c?

    Read the article

  • android:textViewStyle overriding Spinner Styles

    - by jax
    In this Theme the android:textViewStyle overrides both the spinnerItemStyle and spinnerDropDownItemStyle. Why is this? How can I prevent it from happening? <style name="ApplicationTheme" parent="android:style/Theme.NoTitleBar"> <item name="android:buttonStyle">@style/StandardButton</item> <item name="android:spinnerStyle">@style/StandardSpinner</item> <item name="android:spinnerItemStyle">@style/StandardSpinnerItem</item> <item name="android:spinnerDropDownItemStyle">@style/StandardSpinnerDropDownItem</item> <item name="android:textViewStyle">@style/StandardTextView</item> </style>

    Read the article

  • C++ and virtual methods overriding

    - by silent
    Sorry for this stupid question, but I can't find an answer by myself, I'm too new in C++ :( class DBObject : public QObject { ... protected: virtual QString tableName() { return ""; }; }; class DBUserObject : public DBObject { ... protected: virtual QString tableName() { return "profiles"; }; }; And I have this code in parent: bool DBObject::load(quint32 id) { QString query = QString("select %1 from %2 where id = :id") .arg(fieldList().join(",")) .arg(tableName()); <--- here is trouble ... } So I'm trying to execute: DBUserObject user; user.load(3); But in result I have a query with empty table name cause tableName() method returns empty string. Why not "profiles"?

    Read the article

  • Overriding CSS properties for iframe width

    - by user2898989
    I'm trying to put an iframe into a webpage, but no matter what I try to put in either the iframe properties or the custom CSS section of the website builder (or how many times I try to add !important to anything from width to right-margin), I can't get the iframe to extend rightward further than the page's preset width. Here's an example of the page and iframe that I'm working with: http://fmlcapitalinvestment.com/Search_Properties.html I need that script/iframe to be wide enough to show the search area. It seems pointless to copy and paste code and attributes I've tried setting, because nothing I do seems to have any effect, but just for showing how much I have no idea what I'm doing, here's my iframe code: <iframe id="idxFrame" style="padding:0; margin:0; padding-top: 0px; overflow-x:auto; width:1000px!important; border:0px solid transparent; background-color:transparent; max-width:none!important; right-margin:-200px!important" frameborder="0" scrolling="on" src="http://www.themls.com/IDXNET/Default.aspx?wid=8MSsp7Pf9eI55yjkDuB%2blX5awn7LnnVXh5PNYhq2ImAEQL" width="1200px" height="900px"></iframe> The "Website Builder" that I'm forced to use to make these kinds of pages is infuriating, but it does have a "Custom CSS" area where I can input additional CSS information. Is there something I could generically use to set iframes to their own widths?

    Read the article

  • OverRiding Help

    - by user445714
    Few questions on over riding. I am interiting a method openRead from another class, the method is to be overridden so that the scanner class uses the provided delimiter pattern, which is referenced. I need to make use of the scanner class useDelmiter method method from another class [code] public boolean openRead() throws FileNotFoundException { sc = new Scanner(new File(fileName)); if (fileName != null) { return true; } else { return false; } } [/code] delimiter [code] protected final String DELIMITERS = "[\s[^'a-zA-Z]]"; [/code] I'm at a loss to how i over ride this using the constant delimiter.

    Read the article

  • In C#, can I hide/modify accessors in subclasses?

    - by Diego
    I'm not even sure what this principle is called or how to search for it, so I sincerely apologize if it has been brought up before, but the best way to do it is with an example. class Properties { public string Name { get; set; } } class MyClass { class SubProperties: Properties { public override Name { get { return GetActualName(); } set { _value = SetActualName(value); } } } public SubProperties ClassProperties; private GetActualName() { ClassProperties.Name = "name"; } private SetActualName(string s) { ClassProperties.Name = SomeOtherFunction(s); } } The idea is to have any object that instantiates MyClass have a fully accessible property ClassProperties. To that object, it would look exactly like a Properties object, but behind the scenes, MyClass is actually computing and modifying the results of the fields. This method of declaration is obviously wrong since I can't access GetActualName() and SetActualName() from within the SubProperties definition. How would I achieve something like this?

    Read the article

  • Strange GWT serialization exception when overiding method of serialized object

    - by Flueras Bogdan
    Hi there! I have a GWT serializable class, lets call it Foo. Foo implements IsSerializable, has primitive and serializable members as well as other transient members and a no-arg constructor. class Foo implements IsSerializable { // transient members // primitive members public Foo() {} public void bar() {} } Also a Service which handles RPC comunication. // server code public interface MyServiceImpl { public void doStuff(Foo foo); } public interface MyServiceAsync { void doStuff(Foo foo, AsyncCallback<Void> async); } How i use this: private MyServiceAsync myService = GWT.create(MyService.class); Foo foo = new Foo(); ... AsyncCallback callback = new new AsyncCallback {...}; myService.doStuff(foo, callback); In the above case the code is running, and the onSuccess() method of callback instance gets executed. But when I override the bar() method on foo instance like this: Foo foo = new Foo() { public void bar() { //do smthng different } } AsyncCallback callback = new new AsyncCallback {...}; myService.doStuff(foo, callback); I get the GWT SerializationException. Please enlighten me, because I really don't understand why.

    Read the article

  • Best practices regarding equals: to overload or not to overload?

    - by polygenelubricants
    Consider the following snippet: import java.util.*; public class EqualsOverload { public static void main(String[] args) { class Thing { final int x; Thing(int x) { this.x = x; } public int hashCode() { return x; } public boolean equals(Thing other) { return this.x == other.x; } } List<Thing> myThings = Arrays.asList(new Thing(42)); System.out.println(myThings.contains(new Thing(42))); // prints "false" } } Note that contains returns false!!! We seems to have lost our things!! The bug, of course, is the fact that we've accidentally overloaded, instead of overridden, Object.equals(Object). If we had written class Thing as follows instead, then contains returns true as expected. class Thing { final int x; Thing(int x) { this.x = x; } public int hashCode() { return x; } @Override public boolean equals(Object o) { return (o instanceof Thing) && (this.x == ((Thing) o).x); } } Effective Java 2nd Edition, Item 36: Consistently use the Override annotation, uses essentially the same argument to recommend that @Override should be used consistently. This advice is good, of course, for if we had tried to declare @Override equals(Thing other) in the first snippet, our friendly little compiler would immediately point out our silly little mistake, since it's an overload, not an override. What the book doesn't specifically cover, however, is whether overloading equals is a good idea to begin with. Essentially, there are 3 situations: Overload only, no override -- ALMOST CERTAINLY WRONG! This is essentially the first snippet above Override only (no overload) -- one way to fix This is essentially the second snippet above Overload and override combo -- another way to fix The 3rd situation is illustrated by the following snippet: class Thing { final int x; Thing(int x) { this.x = x; } public int hashCode() { return x; } public boolean equals(Thing other) { return this.x == other.x; } @Override public boolean equals(Object o) { return (o instanceof Thing) && (this.equals((Thing) o)); } } Here, even though we now have 2 equals method, there is still one equality logic, and it's located in the overload. The @Override simply delegates to the overload. So the questions are: What are the pros and cons of "override only" vs "overload & override combo"? Is there a justification for overloading equals, or is this almost certainly a bad practice?

    Read the article

  • WPF: How to properly override the methods when creating custom control

    - by EV
    Hi, I am creating a custom control Toolbox that is derived from ItemsControl. This toolbox is supposed to be filled with icons coming from the database. The definition looks like this: public class Toolbox : ItemsControl { protected override DependencyObject GetContainerForItemOverride() { return new ToolboxItem(); } protected override bool IsItemItsOwnContainerOverride(object item) { return (item is ToolboxItem); } } Toolboxitem is derived from ContentControl. public class ToolboxItem : ContentControl { static ToolboxItem() { FrameworkElement.DefaultStyleKeyProperty.OverrideMetadata(typeof(ToolboxItem), new FrameworkPropertyMetadata(typeof(ToolboxItem))); } } Since the number of icons stored in a database is not known I want to use the data template: <DataTemplate x:Key="ToolBoxTemplate"> <StackPanel> <Image Source="{Binding Path=url}" /> </StackPanel> </DataTemplate> Then I want the Toolbox to use the template. <Toolbox x:Name="NewLibrary" ItemsSource="{Binding}" ItemTemplate="ToolBoxtemplate"> </Toolbox> I'm using ADO.NET entity framework to connect to a database. The code behind: SystemicsAnalystDBEntities db = new SystemicsAnalystDBEntities(); private void Window_Loaded(object sender, RoutedEventArgs e) { NewLibrary.ItemsSource = from c in db.Components select c; } However, there is a problem. When the code is executed, it displays the object from the database (as the ItemSource property is set to the object from the database) and not the images. It does not use the template. When I use the static images source it works in the right way I found out that I need to override the PrepareContainerForItemOverride method.But I don't know how to add the template to it. Thanks a lot for any comments. Additional Information Here is the ControlTemplate for ToolboxItem: <ControlTemplate TargetType="{x:Type s:ToolboxItem}"> <Grid> <Rectangle Name="Border" StrokeThickness="1" StrokeDashArray="2" Fill="Transparent" SnapsToDevicePixels="true" /> <ContentPresenter Content="{TemplateBinding ContentControl.Content}" Margin="{TemplateBinding Padding}" SnapsToDevicePixels="{TemplateBinding UIElement.SnapsToDevicePixels}" /> </Grid> <ControlTemplate.Triggers> <Trigger Property="IsMouseOver" Value="true"> <Setter TargetName="Border" Property="Stroke" Value="Gray" /> </Trigger> </ControlTemplate.Triggers> </ControlTemplate>

    Read the article

  • Having a base class function depend on its child class C#

    - by Junk Junk
    I have a Base class with a method that a child class will almost always override. However, instead of replacing the base class' method entirely, I would like for whatever is derived in the child class to be added to what is already in the base class. For Example: class BaseClass public string str() { var string = "Hello my name is" ; } class ChildClass : BaseClass public override string str(){ var string = "Sam"; } The point is that if I want to access the str() method by creating an instance of the ChildClass, the string will print out as "Hello, my name is Sam". I've been looking around and all I have been finding is that this should NOT happen, as the base class shouldn't even know that it is being inherited. So, if the design is false, how would I go about doing this? Keep in mind that there will be multiple child classes inheriting from BaseClass. Thank you

    Read the article

  • Override An Existing Property as a Child form of its return type

    - by Jason
    I apologize if that title is confusing. This question may be a result of lack of coffee and/or sleep, but my mind is not working correctly right now. Anyways, I have an inheritance tree like such (I know the architecture isn't ideal): BaseClass GeneralForm : Inherits BaseClass SpecificForm : Inherits GeneralForm And an object like so: MyItem MySpecificItem : Inherits MyItem I have Items As List (Of MyItem) as a property in BaseClass. I would like for SpecificForm to somehow override Items to return type List (Of MySpecificItem). I feel like this is easy to do, but again, my head is spinning and I can't think straight at the moment. Thank you so much in advance.

    Read the article

  • Deriving a class from an abstract class (C++)

    - by cemregoksu
    I have an abstract class with a pure virtual function f() and i want to create a class inherited from that class, and also override function f(). I seperated the header file and the cpp file. I declared the function f(int) in the header file and the definition is in the cpp file. However, the compiler says the derived class is still abstract. How can i fix it?

    Read the article

  • Generic overloading tells me this is the same function. Not agree.

    - by serhio
    base class: Class List(Of T) Function Contains(ByVal value As T) As Boolean derived class: Class Bar : List(Of Exception) ' Exception type as example ' Function Contains(Of U)(ByVal value As U) As Boolean compiler tells me that that two are the same, so I need to declare Overloads/new this second function. But I want use U to differentiate the type (one logic) like NullReferenceException, ArgumentNull Exception, etc. but want to leave the base function(no differentiation by type - other logic) as well.

    Read the article

  • How to override virtual function in good style? [C++]

    - by Knowing me knowing you
    Hi, guys I know this question is very basic but I've met in few publications (websites, books) different style of override virtual function. What I mean is: if I have base class: class Base { public: virtual void f() = 0; }; in some publications I saw that to override this some authors would just say: void f(); and some would still repeat the virtual keyword before void. Which form of overwriting is in good style? Thank you for your answers.

    Read the article

  • Implement two functions with the same name but different, non-covariant return types due to multiple abstract base classes

    - by user1508167
    If I have two abstract classes defining a pure virtual function with the same name, but different, non-covariant return types, how can I derive from these and define an implementation for both their functions? #include <iostream> class ITestA { public: virtual ~ITestA() {}; virtual float test() =0; }; class ITestB { public: virtual ~ITestB() {}; virtual bool test() =0; }; class C : public ITestA, public ITestB { public: /* Somehow implement ITestA::test and ITestB::test */ }; int main() { ITestA *a = new C(); std::cout << a->test() << std::endl; // should print a float, like "3.14" ITestB *b = dynamic_cast<ITestB *>(a); if (b) { std::cout << b->test() << std::endl; // should print "1" or "0" } delete(a); return 0; } As long as I don't call C::test() directly there's nothing ambiguous, so I think that it should work somehow and I guess I just didn't find the right notation yet. Or is this impossible, if so: Why?

    Read the article

  • BuddyPress: Stop overriding default parameters passed to the template loop?

    - by 55skidoo
    How do I stop BP from overriding default parameters passed to the template loop? For example, on the Activity page, let's say you want BP to "forget" the user's last viewed parameter (like "My Forums" or "@user Mentions") and go right back to All Members or My Friends every time you reload the page. I tried deleting the contents of ajax.php and global.js, and the overriding behavior still happens. Where do I look next?

    Read the article

  • Overriding GetHashCode in a mutable struct - What NOT to do?

    - by Kyle Baran
    I am using the XNA Framework to make a learning project. It has a Point struct which exposes an X and Y value; for the purpose of optimization, it breaks the rules for proper struct design, since its a mutable struct. As Marc Gravell, John Skeet, and Eric Lippert point out in their respective posts about GetHashCode() (which Point overrides), this is a rather bad thing, since if an object's values change while its contained in a hashmap (ie, LINQ queries), it can become "lost". However, I am making my own Point3D struct, following the design of Point as a guideline. Thus, it too is a mutable struct which overrides GetHashCode(). The only difference is that mine exposes and int for X, Y, and Z values, but is fundamentally the same. The signatures are below: public struct Point3D : IEquatable<Point3D> { public int X; public int Y; public int Z; public static bool operator !=(Point3D a, Point3D b) { } public static bool operator ==(Point3D a, Point3D b) { } public Point3D Zero { get; } public override int GetHashCode() { } public override bool Equals(object obj) { } public bool Equals(Point3D other) { } public override string ToString() { } } I have tried to break my struct in the way they describe, namely by storing it in a List<Point3D>, as well as changing the value via a method using ref, but I did not encounter they behavior they warn about (maybe a pointer might allow me to break it?). Am I being too cautious in my approach, or should I be okay to use it as is?

    Read the article

  • What are the alternatives to "overriding a method" when using composition instead of inheritance?

    - by Sebastien Diot
    If we should favor composition over inheritance, the data part of it is clear, at least for me. What I don't have a clear solution to is how overwriting methods, or simply implementing them if they are defined in a pure virtual form, should be implemented. An obvious way is to wrap the instance representing the base-class into the instance representing the sub-class. But the major downsides of this are that if you have say 10 methods, and you want to override a single one, you still have to delegate every other methods anyway. And if there were several layers of inheritance, you have now several layers of wrapping, which becomes less and less efficient. Also, this only solve the problem of the object "client"; when another object calls the top wrapper, things happen like in inheritance. But when a method of the deepest instance, the base class, calls it's own methods that have been wrapped and modified, the wrapping has no effect: the call is performed by it's own method, instead of by the highest wrapper. One extreme alternative that would solve those problems would be to have one instance per method. You only wrap methods that you want to overwrite, so there is no pointless delegation. But now you end up with an incredible amount of classes and object instance, which will have a negative effect on memory usage, and this will require a lot more coding too. So, are there alternatives (preferably alternatives that can be used in Java), that: Do not result in many levels of pointless delegation without any changes. Make sure that not only the client of an object, but also all the code of the object itself, is aware of which implementation of method should be called. Does not result in an explosion of classes and instances. Ideally puts the extra memory overhead that is required at the "class"/"particular composition" level (static if you will), rather than having every object pay the memory overhead of composition. My feeling tells me that the instance representing the base class should be at the "top" of the stack/layers so it receives calls directly, and can process them directly too if they are not overwritten. But I don't know how to do it that way.

    Read the article

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