Search Results

Search found 14034 results on 562 pages for 'interface inheritance'.

Page 87/562 | < Previous Page | 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94  | Next Page >

  • Using enums or a set of classes when I know I have a finite set of different options?

    - by devoured elysium
    Let's say I have defined the following class: public abstract class Event { public DateTime Time { get; protected set; } protected Event(DateTime time) { Time = time; } } What would you prefer between this: public class AsleepEvent : Event { public AsleepEvent(DateTime time) : base(time) { } } public class AwakeEvent : Event { public AwakeEvent(DateTime time) : base(time) { } } and this: public enum StateEventType { NowAwake, NowAsleep } public class StateEvent : Event { protected StateEventType stateType; public MealEvent(DateTime time, StateEventType stateType) : base(time) { stateType = stateType; } } and why? I am generally more inclined to the first option, but I can't explain why. Is it totally the same or are any advantages in using one instead of the other? Maybe with the first method its easier to add more "states", altough in this case I am 100% sure I will only want two states: now awake, and now asleep (they signal the moments when one awakes and one falls asleep).

    Read the article

  • In Java, is it possible for a super constructor invocation actually invoke a constructor in the calling class?

    - by John Assymptoth
    Super constructor invocation definition: [Primary.] [NonWildTypeArguments] super ( ArgumentListopt ) ; A super constructor call can be prefixed by an Primary expression. Example (taken from JLS): class Outer { class Inner{ } } class ChildOfInner extends Outer.Inner { ChildOfInner() { (new Outer()).super(); // (new Outer()) is the Primary } } Does a Primary expression exist that makes the call to super() the invocation of a constructor of the calling class? Or Java prevents that?

    Read the article

  • Calling Base Class Functions with Inherited Type

    - by Kein Mitleid
    I can't describe exactly what I want to say but I want to use base class functions with an inherited type. Like I want to declare "Coord3D operator + (Coord3D);" in one class, but if I use it with Vector3D operands, I want it to return Vector3D type instead of Coord3D. With this line of code below, I add two Vector3D's and get a Coord3D in return, as told to me by the typeid().name() function. How do I reorganize my classes so that I get a Vector3D on return? #include <iostream> #include <typeinfo> using namespace std; class Coord3D { public: float x, y, z; Coord3D (float = 0.0f, float = 0.0f, float = 0.0f); Coord3D operator + (Coord3D &); }; Coord3D::Coord3D (float a, float b, float c) { x = a; y = b; z = c; } Coord3D Coord3D::operator+ (Coord3D &param) { Coord3D temp; temp.x = x + param.x; temp.y = y + param.y; temp.z = z + param.z; return temp; } class Vector3D: public Coord3D { public: Vector3D (float a = 0.0f, float b = 0.0f, float c = 0.0f) : Coord3D (a, b, c) {}; }; int main () { Vector3D a (3, 4, 5); Vector3D b (6, 7, 8); cout << typeid(a + b).name(); return 0; }

    Read the article

  • Java generics question

    - by user247866
    So I have 3 classes. Abstract class A Class B extends class A independent Class C In class D that contains the main method, I create a list of instances of class B List<B> b = methodCall(); // the method returns a list of instances of class B Now in class C I have one method that is common to both A and B, and hence I don't want to duplicate it. I want to have one method that takes as input an instance of class A, as follows: public void someMethod(List<A> a) However, when I do: C c = new C(); c.someMethod(b); I get an error that some-method is not applicable for the argument List<B>, instead it's expecting to get List<A>. Is there a good way to fix this problem? Many thanks!

    Read the article

  • iPhone - Cannont access to an IBOutlet (nil valued)

    - by Oliver
    Hello, I have a problem acessing a IBOutlet. I have a NIB inside which there is a tableview, a toolbar and an UILabel (encasulated into a view). The controller (that is the file's owner) is defined as : @interface ChoixPeriodeController : UIViewController <UITableViewDelegate> { IBOutlet UILabel* __periodeInitialeLabel; } @property(nonatomic, retain) UILabel* periodeInitialeLabel; - (void) setSelectedPeriode:(Tache_TypePeriode)typePeriode; In the .m file, this function is called by the parent window to init the Label : - (void) setSelectedPeriode:(Tache_TypePeriode)typePeriode { NSMutableString* tmpString = [NSMutableString string]; [tmpString appendFormat:bla bla bla;....]; self.periodeInitialeLabel.text = tmpString; } Into this function, I can see that self.periodeInitialeLabel is at nil. I can't see why ? Everything is connected into IB... Do you see what can be the problem ?

    Read the article

  • Attaching methods to prototype from within constructor function

    - by Matthew Taylor
    Here is the textbook standard way of describing a 'class' or constructor function in JavaScript, straight from the Definitive Guide to JavaScript: function Rectangle(w,h) { this.width = w; this.height = h; } Rectangle.prototype.area = function() { return this.width * this.height; }; I don't like the dangling prototype manipulation here, so I was trying to think of a way to encapsulate the function definition for area inside the constructor. I came up with this, which I did not expect to work: function Rectangle(w,h) { this.width = w; this.height = h; this.constructor.prototype.area = function() { return this.width * this.height; }; } I didn't expect this to work because the this reference inside the area function should be pointing to the area function itself, so I wouldn't have access to width and height from this. But it turns out I do! var rect = new Rectangle(2,3); var area = rect.area(); // great scott! it is 6 Some further testing confirmed that the this reference inside the area function actually was a reference to the object under construction, not the area function itself. function Rectangle(w,h) { this.width = w; this.height = h; var me = this; this.constructor.prototype.whatever = function() { if (this === me) { alert ('this is not what you think');} }; } Turns out the alert pops up, and this is exactly the object under construction. So what is going on here? Why is this not the this I expect it to be?

    Read the article

  • Doing things with objects as if they were parents

    - by General Ackbar
    Sorry that this is probably a super noob question. But the following code give me an error saying that there are invalid arguments in my call of doStuffToLines(segments) shouldnt I be able to do this since I have my DimensionLineSegment inherits from Lines? private void doStuff() { List<DimensionLineSegment> segments = new List<DimensionLineSegment>(); doStuffToLines(segments); } private void doStuffToLines(List<Line> lines) { }

    Read the article

  • Python, invoke super constructor

    - by Mike
    class A: def __init__(self): print "world" class B(A): def __init__(self): print "hello" B() hello In all other languages I've worked with the super constructor is invoked implicitly. How does one invoke it in Python? I would expect super(self) but this doesn't work

    Read the article

  • Java: using generic wildcards with subclassing

    - by gibberish
    Say I have a class Foo, a class A and some subclass B of A. Foo accepts A and its sublclasses as the generic type. A and B both require a Foo instance in their constructor. I want A's Foo to be of type A , and B's Foo to be of type B or a superclass of B. So in effect, So I only want this: Foo<X> bar = new Foo<X>; new B(bar); to be possible if X is either A, B, or a both subclass of A and superclass of B. So far this is what I have: class Foo<? extends A>{ //construct } class A(Foo<A> bar){ //construct } class B(Foo<? super B> bar){ super(bar); //construct } The call to super(...) doesn't work, because <A> is stricter than <? super B>. Is it somehow possible to use the constructor (or avoid code duplication by another means) while enforcing these types? Edit: Foo keeps a collection of elements of the generic parameter type, and these elements and Foo have a bidirectional link. It should therefore not be possible to link an A to a Foo.

    Read the article

  • Me As Child Type In General Function

    - by Steven
    I have a MustInherit Parent class with two Child classes which Inherit from the Parent. How can I use (or Cast) Me in a Parent function as the the child type of that instance? EDIT: My actual goal is to be able to serialize (BinaryFormatter.Serialize(Stream, Object)) either of my child classes. However, "repeating the code" in each child "seems" wrong. EDIT2: This is my Serialize function. Where should I implement this function? Copying and pasting to each child doesn't seem right, but casting the parent to a child doesn't seem right either. Public Function Serialize() As Byte() Dim bFmt As New BinaryFormatter() Dim mStr As New MemoryStream() bFmt.Serialize(mStr, Me) Return mStr.ToArray() End Function

    Read the article

  • Generic calls to OnResetDevice() and OnLostDevice()

    - by bobobobo
    This is kind of a COM question to do with DirectX. So, both ID3DXSprite and ID3DXFont and a bunch of the other ID3DX* objects require you to call OnLostDevice() when the d3d device is lost AND OnResetDevice() when the device is reset. What I want to do is maintain an array of all ID3DX* objects and simply call OnResetDevice() and OnLostDevice() on each whenever the device is lost or reset. However I can't seem to find a BASE CLASS for the ID3DX* classes... they all seem to COM-ually inherit from IUnknown. Is there a way to do this or do I have to maintain separate arrays of ID3DXFont* pointers, ID3DXSprite* pointers, etc?

    Read the article

  • Problem with Google AJAX Search API RESTful interface

    - by robert_d
    When I send the following query http://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/services/search/local?v=1.0&q=coffee%20New%20York%20NY using c# WebClient.DownloadString function or ordinary web browser I get JSON data which is different from data for the same query using JavaScript and Google AJAX Search API. From REST service I get the following url field http://www.google.com/maps/place?source003duds0026q003dcoffee0026cid003d13245583795745066822 but from JavaScript query I get this url field http://www.google.com/maps/place?source=uds&q=coffee&cid=13245583795745066822 The problem with REST service answer is that the url it gives points to a web page with error message "We currently do not support the location". What am I doing wrong?

    Read the article

  • C# - implementing GetEnumerator() for a collection inherited from List<string>

    - by Vojtech
    Hi, I am trying to implement FilePathCollection. Its items would be simple file names (without a path - such as "image.jpg"). Once the collection is used via foreach cycle, it should return the full path created by concatenating with "baseDirectory". How can I do that? public class FilePathCollection : List<string> { string baseDirectory; public FileCollection(string baseDirectory) { this.baseDirectory = baseDirectory; } new public System.Collections.IEnumerator GetEnumerator() { foreach (string value in this._list) //this does not work because _list is private yield return baseDirectory + value; } } Thanks in advance! :-)

    Read the article

  • Imlpementations of an Interface with Different Types?

    - by b3njamin
    Searched as best I could but unfortunately I've learned nothing relevant; basically I'm trying to work around the following problem in C#... For example, I have three possible references (refA, refB, refC) and I need to load the correct one depending on a configuration option. So far however I can't see a way of doing it that doesn't require me to use the name of said referenced object all through the code (the referenced objects are provided, I can't change them). Hope the following code makes more sense: public ??? LoadedClass; public Init() { /* load the object, according to which version we need... */ if (Config.Version == "refA") { Namespace.refA LoadedClass = new refA(); } else if (Config.Version == "refB") { Namespace.refB LoadedClass = new refB(); } else if (Config.Version == "refC") { Namespace.refC LoadedClass = new refC(); } Run(); } private void Run(){ { LoadedClass.SomeProperty... LoadedClass.SomeMethod(){ etc... } } As you can see, I need the Loaded class to be public, so in my limited way I'm trying to change the type 'dynamically' as I load in which real class I want. Each of refA, refB and refC will implement the same properties and methods but with different names. Again, this is what I'm working with, not by my design. All that said, I tried to get my head around Interfaces (which sound like they're what I'm after) but I'm looking at them and seeing strict types - which makes sense to me, even if it's not useful to me. Any and all ideas and opinions are welcome and I'll clarify anything if necessary. Excuse any silly mistakes I've made in the terminology, I'm learning all this for the first time. I'm really enjoying working with an OOP language so far though - coming from PHP this stuff is blowing my mind :-)

    Read the article

  • A general declaration for all inherited classes

    - by Soham
    Consider, there is a class called SuperClass from which, ClassA, ClassB, ClassC is derived. From each one of those derived Classes, there are further more two classes are derived each called ChildClassAA and ChildClassAB[AB stands for Bth Child class from the Ath Class.Lets not really pull our hair on this nomenclature]. Now, ideally, I want to declare a general type as a private member of another Class say IndependentClass which can be initialized during run time as either of the objects of type ClassAor ClassB or ClassC and even the derived classes like ClassAA or ClassAB. Is there a possible way to do it?

    Read the article

  • XSD: xs:sequence & xs:choice combination for xs:extension elements of a common base type?

    - by bguiz
    Hi, My question is about defining an XML schema that will validate the following XML: <rules> <other>...</other> <bool>...</bool> <other>...</other> <string>...</string> <other>...</other> </rules> The order of the child nodes does not matter. The cardinality of the child nodes is 0..unbounded. All the child elements of the rules node have a common base type, rule, like so: <xs:complexType name="booleanRule"> <xs:complexContent> <xs:extension base="rule"> ... </xs:extension> </xs:complexContent> </xs:complexType> <xs:complexType name="stringFilterRule"> <xs:complexContent> <xs:extension base="filterRule"> ... </xs:extension> </xs:complexContent> </xs:complexType> My current (feeble) attempt at defining the schema for the rules node is below. However, Can I nest xs:choice within xs:sequence? If, where do I specify the maxOccurs="unbounded" attribute? Is there a better way to do this, such as an xs:sequence which specifies only the base type of its child elements? <xs:element name="rules"> <xs:complexType> <xs:sequence> <xs:choice> <xs:element name="bool" type="booleanRule" /> <xs:element name="string" type="stringRule" /> <xs:element name="other" type="someOtherRule" /> </xs:choice> </xs:sequence> </xs:complexType> </xs:element>

    Read the article

  • C# Design a class with interface?

    - by Haroon
    I am having a bit of trouble understanding how I will design a class. My class will have 3 methods ICollection<Field> GetFields(); //perform validation internally - return back the object T UpdateFields(ICollection<Field> fields); //pass in model object with values on it, set up fields, then pass back all fields ICollection<Field> GetFieldsWithValues(T object); What is the best way to construct/design such a class keeping in mind: 1. The model object I pass in will be one of 3 or 4 tables, however when I call GetFIelds - internally for each object I know what fields will be there i.e. list.add(new Field{name = "id", value = "5"}); list.add(new Field{name = "nameofcompany", value = "super guys"});

    Read the article

  • Is it possible to override a property and return a derived type in VB.NET?

    - by Casey
    Consider the following classes representing an Ordering system: Public Class OrderBase Public MustOverride Property OrderItem() as OrderItemBase End Class Public Class OrderItemBase End Class Now, suppose we want to extend these classes to a more specific set of order classes, keeping the aggregate nature of OrderBase: Public Class WebOrder Inherits OrderBase Public Overrides Property OrderItem() as WebOrderItem End Property End Class Public Class WebOrderItem Inherits OrderItemBase End Class The Overriden property in the WebOrder class will cause an error stating that the return type is different from that defined in OrderBase... however, the return type is a subclass of the type defined in OrderBase. Why won't VB allow this?

    Read the article

  • Javascript inherance and use of super: is this possible?

    - by Totty
    var Parent = function(value){ this.value = value; this.value1 = 3; this.hello = function(text){ alert(this.value1 + text); } } var Child = extends(Parent, function(value){ this.value1 = 1; this.hello = function(text){ this.super.hello(text); alert('Child' + this.value1 + this.value); } }) var child = new Child(2); child.hello('ola'); // this must output 2 alerts: // 1: "1ola" // 2: "Child1ola"

    Read the article

  • .Net Inherited Control Property Default

    - by Yisman
    Hello fellows Im trying to make a simple "ButtonPlus" control. the main idea is to inherit from the button control and add some default property values (such as font,color,padding...) No matter how i try, the WinForm always generates (or "serializes") the property value in the client forms the whole point is to have minimal and clean code, not that every instance of the buttonPlus should have 5 lines of init code. I want that the form designer should not generate any code for theses properties and be able to control them from the ButtonPlus code. In other words, if I change the ForeColor from red to blue only 1 single bingle line of code in the app should change. heres my code so far. as you can see, ive tried using defaultvalue, reset , shouldserialize.... anything i was able to find on the web! Public Class ButtonPlus Inherits Button Sub New() 'AutoSize = True AutoSizeMode = Windows.Forms.AutoSizeMode.GrowAndShrink Font = New System.Drawing.Font("Arial", 11.0!, System.Drawing.FontStyle.Bold, System.Drawing.GraphicsUnit.Point, CType(177, Byte)) Padding = New System.Windows.Forms.Padding(3) Anchor = AnchorStyles.Left + AnchorStyles.Right + AnchorStyles.Top ForeColor = Color.Aqua End Sub ' _ 'Public Overrides Property AutoSize() As Boolean ' Get ' Return MyBase.AutoSize ' End Get ' Set(ByVal value As Boolean) ' MyBase.AutoSize = value ' End Set 'End Property Public Function ShouldSerializeAutoSize() As Boolean Return False ' Not AutoSize = True End Function Public Function ShouldSerializeForeColor() As Boolean Return False 'Not ForeColor = Color.Aqua End Function Public Overrides Sub ResetForeColor() ForeColor = Color.Aqua End Sub End Class Thank you very much for taking the time to look this over and answer all the best

    Read the article

  • Web based interface for open SSL client certificates

    - by Felix
    Hi there! We are currently developing a apache2-based web application and want to invite some beta testers to give it a try. To be on the safe side, access should be provided by individual browser certificates (.p12) which are issued using a (fake) CA. Our users should be passing a complete register/login process and some of them will be granted administrative privileges within the application. That's why a preceding simple web-based authentication won't be sufficient. Atm, I using a serverside shellscript to generate the certificates each time. Do you know about a small, web-based tool to simplify the process of generating / revoking those certificates? Maybe an overview of the CA's index.txt plus the option to revoke a cert and a link to download them directly?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94  | Next Page >