Search Results

Search found 13682 results on 548 pages for 'move constructor'.

Page 9/548 | < Previous Page | 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16  | Next Page >

  • 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

  • Implicit constructor available for all types derived from Base excepted the current type?

    - by Vincent
    The following code sum up my problem : template<class Parameter> class Base {}; template<class Parameter1, class Parameter2, class Parameter> class Derived1 : public Base<Parameter> { }; template<class Parameter1, class Parameter2, class Parameter> class Derived2 : public Base<Parameter> { public : // Copy constructor Derived2(const Derived2& x); // An EXPLICIT constructor that does a special conversion for a Derived2 // with other template parameters template<class OtherParameter1, class OtherParameter2, class OtherParameter> explicit Derived2( const Derived2<OtherParameter1, OtherParameter2, OtherParameter>& x ); // Now the problem : I want an IMPLICIT constructor that will work for every // type derived from Base EXCEPT // Derived2<OtherParameter1, OtherParameter2, OtherParameter> template<class Type, class = typename std::enable_if</* SOMETHING */>::type> Derived2(const Type& x); }; How to restrict an implicit constructor to all classes derived from the parent class excepted the current class whatever its template parameters, considering that I already have an explicit constructor as in the example code ? EDIT : For the implicit constructor from Base, I can obviously write : template<class OtherParameter> Derived2(const Base<OtherParameter>& x); But in that case, do I have the guaranty that the compiler will not use this constructor as an implicit constructor for Derived2<OtherParameter1, OtherParameter2, OtherParameter> ? EDIT2: Here I have a test : (LWS here : http://liveworkspace.org/code/cd423fb44fb4c97bc3b843732d837abc) #include <iostream> template<typename Type> class Base {}; template<typename Type> class Other : public Base<Type> {}; template<typename Type> class Derived : public Base<Type> { public: Derived() {std::cout<<"empty"<<std::endl;} Derived(const Derived<Type>& x) {std::cout<<"copy"<<std::endl;} template<typename OtherType> explicit Derived(const Derived<OtherType>& x) {std::cout<<"explicit"<<std::endl;} template<typename OtherType> Derived(const Base<OtherType>& x) {std::cout<<"implicit"<<std::endl;} }; int main() { Other<int> other0; Other<double> other1; std::cout<<"1 = "; Derived<int> dint1; // <- empty std::cout<<"2 = "; Derived<int> dint2; // <- empty std::cout<<"3 = "; Derived<double> ddouble; // <- empty std::cout<<"4 = "; Derived<double> ddouble1(ddouble); // <- copy std::cout<<"5 = "; Derived<double> ddouble2(dint1); // <- explicit std::cout<<"6 = "; ddouble = other0; // <- implicit std::cout<<"7 = "; ddouble = other1; // <- implicit std::cout<<"8 = "; ddouble = ddouble2; // <- nothing (normal : default assignment) std::cout<<"\n9 = "; ddouble = Derived<double>(dint1); // <- explicit std::cout<<"10 = "; ddouble = dint2; // <- implicit : WHY ?!?! return 0; } The last line worry me. Is it ok with the C++ standard ? Is it a bug of g++ ?

    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

  • Purpose of Explicit Default Constructors

    - by Dennis Zickefoose
    I recently noticed a class in C++0x that calls for an explicit default constructor. However, I'm failing to come up with a scenario in which a default constructor can be called implicitly. It seems like a rather pointless specifier. I thought maybe it would disallow Class c; in favor of Class c = Class(); but that does not appear to be the case. Some relevant quotes from the C++0x FCD, since it is easier for me to navigate [similar text exists in C++03, if not in the same places] 12.3.1.3 [class.conv.ctor] A default constructor may be an explicit constructor; such a constructor will be used to perform default-initialization or value initialization (8.5). It goes on to provide an example of an explicit default constructor, but it simply mimics the example I provided above. 8.5.6 [decl.init] To default-initialize an object of type T means: — if T is a (possibly cv-qualified) class type (Clause 9), the default constructor for T is called (and the initialization is ill-formed if T has no accessible default constructor); 8.5.7 [decl.init] To value-initialize an object of type T means: — if T is a (possibly cv-qualified) class type (Clause 9) with a user-provided constructor (12.1), then the default constructor for T is called (and the initialization is ill-formed if T has no accessible default constructor); In both cases, the standard calls for the default constructor to be called. But that is what would happen if the default constructor were non-explicit. For completeness sake: 8.5.11 [decl.init] If no initializer is specified for an object, the object is default-initialized; From what I can tell, this just leaves conversion from no data. Which doesn't make sense. The best I can come up with would be the following: void function(Class c); int main() { function(); //implicitly convert from no parameter to a single parameter } But obviously that isn't the way C++ handles default arguments. What else is there that would make explicit Class(); behave differently from Class();? The specific example that generated this question was std::function [20.8.14.2 func.wrap.func]. It requires several converting constructors, none of which are marked explicit, but the default constructor is.

    Read the article

  • Move Firefox’s Tab Bar to the Top

    - by Asian Angel
    Would you prefer to have Firefox’s Tab Bar located at the top of the browser instead of its’ default location? See how easy it is to move the Tab Bar back and forth between the top and current positions “flip switch style” with the Tabs On Top extension. Note: Tabs On Top extension supports multi-row feature in TabMixPlus. Before You can see the “Tab Bar” in its’ default location here in our test browser…not bad but what if you prefer having it located at the top of the browser? After As soon as you have installed the extension and restarted Firefox the “Tab Bar” will have automatically moved to the top of the browser. You will most likely notice a slight decrease in tab height as well (which occurred during our tests). To move the “Tab Bar” back and forth between the top and default locations just select/deselect “Tab Bar on top” in the “Toolbars Context Menu”. You can quickly reduce the size of the upper UI after hiding some of the other toolbars and go even further if you like using extensions that will hide the “Title Bar”. This is definitely a good UI matching extension for anyone using a Chrome based theme in Firefox. Conclusion If you are unhappy with default location for Firefox’s “Tab Bar” then this extension will certainly provide an alternative option for you. Links Download the Tabs On Top extension (Mozilla Add-ons) Similar Articles Productive Geek Tips Use the Keyboard to Move Items Up or Down in Microsoft WordAdd Copy To / Move To on Windows 7 or Vista Right-Click MenuBring Misplaced Off-Screen Windows Back to Your Desktop (Keyboard Trick)Moving Your Personal Data Folders in Windows Vista the Easy WayAdd Copy To / Move To to the Windows Explorer Right Click Menu TouchFreeze Alternative in AutoHotkey The Icy Undertow Desktop Windows Home Server – Backup to LAN The Clear & Clean Desktop Use This Bookmarklet to Easily Get Albums Use AutoHotkey to Assign a Hotkey to a Specific Window Latest Software Reviews Tinyhacker Random Tips Revo Uninstaller Pro Registry Mechanic 9 for Windows PC Tools Internet Security Suite 2010 PCmover Professional Live PDF Searches PDF Files and Ebooks Converting Mp4 to Mp3 Easily Use Quick Translator to Translate Text in 50 Languages (Firefox) Get Better Windows Search With UltraSearch Scan News With NY Times Article Skimmer SpeedyFox Claims to Speed up your Firefox

    Read the article

  • SharePoint 2007 Hosting :: How to Move a Document from One Lbrary to Another

    - by mbridge
    Moving a document using a SharePoint Designer workflow involves copying the document to the SharePoint document library you want to move the document to, and then deleting the document from the current document library it is in. You can use the Copy List Item action to copy the document and the Delete item action to delete the document. To create a SharePoint Designer workflow that can move a document from one document library to another: 1. In SharePoint Designer 2007, open the SharePoint site on which the document library that contains the documents to move is located. 2. On the Define your new workflow screen of the Workflow Designer, enter a name for the workflow, select the document library you want to attach the workflow to (this would be a document library containing documents to move), select Allow this workflow to be manually started from an item, and click Next. 3. On the Step 1 screen of the Workflow Designer, click Actions, and then click More Actions from the drop-down menu. 4. On the Workflow Actions dialog box, select List Actions from the category drop-down list box, select Copy List Item from the actions list, and click Add. The following text is added to the Workflow Designer: Copy item in this list to this list 5. On the Step 1 screen of the Workflow Designer, click the first this list (representing the document library to copy the document from) in the text of the Copy List Item action. 6. On the Choose List Item dialog box, leave Current Item selected, and click OK. 7. On the Step 1 screen of the Workflow Designer, click the second this list (representing the document library to copy the document to) in the text of the Copy List Item action, and select the document library (this is the document library to where you want to move the document) from the drop-down list box that appears. 8. On the Step 1 screen of the Workflow Designer, click Actions, and then click More Actions from the drop-down menu. 9. On the Workflow Actions dialog box, select List Actions from the category drop-down list box, select Delete Item from the actions list, and click Add. The following text is added to the Workflow Designer: then Delete item in this list 10. On the Step 1 screen of the Workflow Designer, click this list in the text of the Delete Item action. 11. On the Choose List Item dialog box, leave Current Item selected and click OK. The final text for the workflow should now look like: Copy item in DocLib1 to DocLib2   then Delete item in DocLib1 where DocLib1 is the SharePoint document library containing the document to move and DocLib2 the document library to move the document to. 12. On the Step 1 screen of the Workflow Designer, click Finish. How to Test the Workflow? 1. Go to the SharePoint document library to which you attached the workflow, click on a document, and select Workflows from the drop-down menu. 2. On the Workflows page, click the name of your SharePoint Designer workflow. 3. On the workflow initiation page, click Start.

    Read the article

  • Move a SQL Azure server between subscriptions

    - by jamiet
    In September 2011 I published a blog post SSIS Reporting Pack v0.2 now available in which I made available the credentials of a sample database that one could use to test SSIS Reporting Pack. That database was sitting on a paid-for Azure subscription and hence was costing me about £5 a month - not a huge amount but when I later got a free Azure subscription through my MSDN Subscription in January 2012 it made sense to migrate the database onto that subscription. Since then I have been endeavouring to make that move but a few failed attempts combined with lack of time meant that I had not yet gotten round to it.That is until this morning when I heard about a new feature available in the Azure Management Portal that enables one to move a SQL Azure server from one subscription to another. Up to now I had been attempting to use a combination of SSIS packages and/or scripts to move the data but, as I alluded, I ran into a few roadblocks hence the ability to move a SQL Azure server was a godsend to me. I fired up the Azure Management Portal and a few clicks later my server had been successfully migrated, moreover the name of the server doesn't change and neither do any credentials so I have no need to go and update my original blog post either. Its easy to be cynical about SQL Azure (and I maintain a healthy scepticism myself) but that, my friends, is cool!You can read more about the ability to move SQL Azure servers between subscriptions from the official blog post Moving SQL Azure Servers Between Subscriptions.@Jamiet

    Read the article

  • Actionscript 3.0 - Enemies do not move right in my platformer game

    - by Christian Basar
    I am making a side-scrolling platformer game in Flash (Actionscript 3.0). I have made lots of progress lately, but I have come across a new problem. I will give some background first. My game level's terrain (or 'floor') is referenced by a MovieClip variable called 'floor.' My desire is to have the Player and enemy characters walk along the terrain. I have gotten the Player character to move on the terrain just fine; he walks up/down hills and falls whenever there is no ground beneath him. Here is the code I created to allow the Player to follow the terrain correctly. Much more code is used to control the Player, but only this code deals with the Player character's following of the terrain and gravity. // If the Player's not on the ground (not touching the 'floor' MovieClip)... if (!onGround) { // Disable ducking downKeyPressed = false; // Increase the Player's 'y' position by his 'y' velocity player.y += playerYVel; } // Increase the 'playerYVel' variable so that the Player will fall // progressively faster down the screen. This code technically // runs "all the time" but in reality it only affects the player // when he's off the ground. playerYVel += gravity; // Give the Player a terminal velocity of 15 px/frame if (playerYVel > 15) { playerYVel = 15; } // If the Player has not hit the 'floor,' increase his falling //speed if (! floor.hitTestPoint(player.x, player.y, true)) { player.y += playerYVel; // The Player is not on the ground when he's not touching it onGround = false; } Since getting this code to work for the Player, I have created a 'SkullDemon' class, which is one of the planned enemies for my game. I want the 'SkullDemon' objects to move along the terrain like the Player does. With lots of great help, I have already coded the EventListeners, etc. necessary for the 'SkullDemons' to move. Unfortunately, I am having trouble getting them to move along the terrain. In fact, they do not touch the terrain at all; they move along the top of the boundary of the 'floor' MovieClip! I had a simple text diagram showing what I mean, but unfortunately Stackoverflow does not format it correctly. I hope my problem is clear from my description. Strangely enough, my code for the Player's movement and the 'SkullDemon's' movement is almost exactly the same, yet the 'SkullDemons' do not move like the Player does. Here is my code for the SkullDemon movement: // Move all of the Skull Demons using this method protected function moveSkullDemons():void { // Go through the whole 'skullDemonContainer' for (var skullDi:int = 0; skullDi < skullDemonContainer.numChildren; skullDi++) { // Set the SkullDemon 'instance' variable to equal the current SkullDemon skullDIns = SkullDemon(skullDemonContainer.getChildAt(skullDi)); // For now, just move the Skull Demons left at 5 units per second skullDIns.x -= 5; // If the Skull Demon has not hit the 'floor,' increase his falling //speed if (! floor.hitTestPoint(skullDIns.x, skullDIns.y, true)) { // Increase the Skull Demon's 'y' position by his 'y' velocity skullDIns.y += skullDIns.sdYVel; // The Skull Demon is not on the ground when he's not touching it skullDIns.sdOnGround = false; } // Increase the 'sdYVel' variable so that the Skull Demon will fall // progressively faster down the screen. This code technically // runs "all the time" but in reality it only affects the Skull Demon // when he's off the ground. if (! skullDIns.sdOnGround) { skullDIns.sdYVel += skullDIns.sdGravity; // Give the Skull Demon a terminal velocity of 15 px/frame if (skullDIns.sdYVel > 15) { skullDIns.sdYVel = 15; } } // What happens when the Skull Demon lands on the ground after a fall? // The Skull Demon is only on the ground ('onGround == true') when // the ground is touching the Skull Demon MovieClip's origin point, // which is at the Skull Demon's bottom centre for (var i:int = 0; i < 10; i++) { // The Skull Demon is only on the ground ('onGround == true') when // the ground is touching the Skull Demon MovieClip's origin point, // which is at the Skull Demon's bottom centre if (floor.hitTestPoint(skullDIns.x, skullDIns.y, true)) { skullDIns.y = skullDIns.y; // Set the Skull Demon's y-axis speed to 0 skullDIns.sdYVel = 0; // The Skull Demon is on the ground again skullDIns.sdOnGround = true; } } } } // End of 'moveSkullDemons()' function It is almost like the 'SkullDemons' are interacting with the 'floor' MovieClip using the hitTestObject() function, and not the hitTestPoint() function which is what I want, and which works for the Player character. I am confused about this problem and would appreciate any help you could give me. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Does Windows Move command delete the file only on successful completion?

    - by IronicMuffin
    This may be a stupid question, but I'm erring on the side of caution here. If I'm using Windows command line/batch files to Move a file from one server to another and we have a network failure, what will happen to the original file? I would assume it remains untouched until fully moved, and then deleted, but I need to be sure. My fear is that it deletes bytes as they are moved, which would be bad. If that isn't the case, is there a better way than Copying the file and Deleting after the copy completes? Thanks for your help. EDIT: I suppose super user would have been better. This is part of a job kicked off by code, so my first thought was to come here.

    Read the article

  • BoundingSpheres move when they should not

    - by NDraskovic
    I have a XNA 4.0 project in which I load a file that contains type and coordinates of items I need to draw to the screen. Also I need to check if one particular type (the only movable one) is passing in front or trough other items. This is the code I use to load the configuration: if (ks.IsKeyDown(Microsoft.Xna.Framework.Input.Keys.L)) { this.GraphicsDevice.Clear(Color.CornflowerBlue); Otvaranje.ShowDialog(); try { using (StreamReader sr = new StreamReader(Otvaranje.FileName)) { String linija; while ((linija = sr.ReadLine()) != null) { red = linija.Split(','); model = red[0]; x = red[1]; y = red[2]; z = red[3]; elementi.Add(Convert.ToInt32(model)); podatci.Add(new Vector3(Convert.ToSingle(x), Convert.ToSingle(y), Convert.ToSingle(z))); sfere.Add(new BoundingSphere(new Vector3(Convert.ToSingle(x), Convert.ToSingle(y), Convert.ToSingle(z)), 1f)); } } } catch (Exception ex) { Window.Title = ex.ToString(); } } The "Otvaranje" is an OpenFileDialog object, "elementi" is a List (determines the type of item that would be drawn), podatci is a List (determines the location where the items will be drawn) and sfere is a List. Now I solved the picking algorithm (checking for ray and bounding sphere intersection) and it works fine, but the collision detection does not. I noticed, while using picking, that BoundingSphere's move even though the objects that they correspond to do not. The movable object is drawn to the world1 Matrix, and the static objects are drawn into the world2 Matrix (world1 and world2 have the same values, I just separated them so that the static elements would not move when the movable one does). The problem is that when I move the item I want, all boundingSpheres move accordingly. How can I move only the boundingSphere that corresponds to that particular item, and leave the rest where they are?

    Read the article

  • Why do we move the world instead of the camera

    - by sharethis
    I heard that in an OpenGL game what we do to let the player move is not to move the camera but to move the whole world around. For example here is an extract of this tutorial: http://open.gl/transformations In real life you're used to moving the camera to alter the view of a certain scene, in OpenGL it's the other way around. The camera in OpenGL cannot move and is defined to be located at (0,0,0) facing the negative Z direction. That means that instead of moving and rotating the camera, the world is moved and rotated around the camera to construct the appropriate view. Why do we do that?

    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

  • Why isn't the static constructor of the parent class called when invoking a method on a nested class

    - by Ryan Ische
    Given the following code, why isn't the static constructor of "Outer" called after the first line of "Main"? namespace StaticTester { class Program { static void Main( string[] args ) { Outer.Inner.Go(); Console.WriteLine(); Outer.Go(); Console.ReadLine(); } } public static partial class Outer { static Outer() { Console.Write( "In Outer's static constructor\n" ); } public static void Go() { Console.Write( "Outer Go\n" ); } public static class Inner { static Inner() { Console.Write( "In Inner's static constructor\n" ); } public static void Go() { Console.Write( "Inner Go\n" ); } } } }

    Read the article

  • What is the difference between a constructor and a procedure in Delphi records?

    - by HMcG
    Is there difference in behavior between a constructor call and a procedure call in Delphi records? I have a D2010 code sample I want to convert to D2009 (which I am using). The sample uses a parameterless constructor, which is not permitted in Delphi 2009. If I substitute a simple parameterless procedure call, is there any functional difference for records? I.E. TVector = record private FImpl: IVector; public constructor Create; // not allowed in D2009 end; becomes TVector = record private FImpl: IVector; public procedure Create; // so change to procedure end; As far as I can see this should work, but I may be missing something.

    Read the article

  • How are Flash library symbols constructed? Why are width/height already available in constructor?

    - by Triynko
    Suppose I draw a square on the stage, convert it to a symbol, export it for ActionScript with a classname of "MySquare" (and of course a base class of MovieClip). How is it that in the MySquare constructor, the width and height of this MovieClip are already available? In fact, any named instances in the clip are also available. I'm confused about how the Flash player seems to be able to pre-construct my movie clip by populating its properties and child clips before my constructor for the class ever runs. I thought that it would have to first construct the clip, calling my constructor code, and then construct and add any children, but obviously the player is doing something special for clips designed in the Flash authoring environment.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16  | Next Page >