Search Results

Search found 37902 results on 1517 pages for 'object methods'.

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 9/1517 | < Previous Page | 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16  | Next Page >

  • Visitor and templated virtual methods

    - by Thomas Matthews
    In a typical implementation of the Visitor pattern, the class must account for all variations (descendants) of the base class. There are many instances where the same method content in the visitor is applied to the different methods. A templated virtual method would be ideal in this case, but for now, this is not allowed. So, can templated methods be used to resolve virtual methods of the parent class? Given (the foundation): struct Visitor_Base; // Forward declaration. struct Base { virtual accept_visitor(Visitor_Base& visitor) = 0; }; // More forward declarations struct Base_Int; struct Base_Long; struct Base_Short; struct Base_UInt; struct Base_ULong; struct Base_UShort; struct Visitor_Base { virtual void operator()(Base_Int& b) = 0; virtual void operator()(Base_Long& b) = 0; virtual void operator()(Base_Short& b) = 0; virtual void operator()(Base_UInt& b) = 0; virtual void operator()(Base_ULong& b) = 0; virtual void operator()(Base_UShort& b) = 0; }; struct Base_Int : public Base { void accept_visitor(Visitor_Base& visitor) { visitor(*this); } }; struct Base_Long : public Base { void accept_visitor(Visitor_Base& visitor) { visitor(*this); } }; struct Base_Short : public Base { void accept_visitor(Visitor_Base& visitor) { visitor(*this); } }; struct Base_UInt : public Base { void accept_visitor(Visitor_Base& visitor) { visitor(*this); } }; struct Base_ULong : public Base { void accept_visitor(Visitor_Base& visitor) { visitor(*this); } }; struct Base_UShort : public Base { void accept_visitor(Visitor_Base& visitor) { visitor(*this); } }; Now that the foundation is laid, here is where the kicker comes in (templated methods): struct Visitor_Cout : public Visitor { template <class Receiver> void operator() (Receiver& r) { std::cout << "Visitor_Cout method not implemented.\n"; } }; Intentionally, Visitor_Cout does not contain the keyword virtual in the method declaration. All the other attributes of the method signatures match the parent declaration (or perhaps specification). In the big picture, this design allows developers to implement common visitation functionality that differs only by the type of the target object (the object receiving the visit). The implementation above is my suggestion for alerts when the derived visitor implementation hasn't implement an optional method. Is this legal by the C++ specification? (I don't trust when some says that it works with compiler XXX. This is a question against the general language.)

    Read the article

  • What is happening in Crockford's object creation technique?

    - by Chris Noe
    There are only 3 lines of code, and yet I'm having trouble fully grasping this: Object.create = function (o) { function F() {} F.prototype = o; return new F(); }; newObject = Object.create(oldObject); (from Prototypal Inheritance) 1) Object.create() starts out by creating an empty function called F. I'm thinking that a function is a kind of object. Where is this F object being stored? Globally I guess. 2) Next our oldObject, passed in as o, becomes the prototype of function F. Function (i.e., object) F now "inherits" from our oldObject, in the sense that name resolution will route through it. Good, but I'm curious what the default prototype is for an object, Object? Is that also true for a function-object? 3) Finally, F is instantiated and returned, becoming our newObject. Is the "new" operation strictly necessary here? Doesn't F already provide what we need, or is there a critical difference between function-objects and non-function-objects? Clearly it won't be possible to have a constructor function using this technique. What happens the next time Object.create() is called? Is global function F overwritten? Surely it is not reused, because that would alter previously configured objects. And what happens if multiple threads call Object.create(), is there any sort of synchronization to prevent race conditions on F?

    Read the article

  • Which is a better practice - helper methods as instance or static?

    - by Ilian Pinzon
    This question is subjective but I was just curious how most programmers approach this. The sample below is in pseudo-C# but this should apply to Java, C++, and other OOP languages as well. Anyway, when writing helper methods in my classes, I tend to declare them as static and just pass the fields if the helper method needs them. For example, given the code below, I prefer to use Method Call #2. class Foo { Bar _bar; public void DoSomethingWithBar() { // Method Call #1. DoSomethingWithBarImpl(); // Method Call #2. DoSomethingWithBarImpl(_bar); } private void DoSomethingWithBarImpl() { _bar.DoSomething(); } private static void DoSomethingWithBarImpl(Bar bar) { bar.DoSomething(); } } My reason for doing this is that it makes it clear (to my eyes at least) that the helper method has a possible side-effect on other objects - even without reading its implementation. I find that I can quickly grok methods that use this practice and thus help me in debugging things. Which do you prefer to do in your own code and what are your reasons for doing so?

    Read the article

  • Is this JS code a good way for defining class with private methods?

    - by tigrou
    I was recently browsing a open source JavaScript project. The project is a straight port from another project in C language. It mostly use static methods, packed together in classes. Most classes are implemented using this pattern : Foo = (function () { var privateField = "bar"; var publicField = "bar";     function publicMethod() { console.log('this is public');     } function privateMethod() { console.log('this is private'); } return {   publicMethod : publicMethod, publicField : publicField }; })(); This was the first time I saw private methods implemented that way. I perfectly understand how it works, using a anonymous method. Here is my question : is this pattern a good practice ? What are the actual limitations or caveats ? Usually i declare my JavaScript classes like that : Foo = new function () { var privateField = "test"; this.publicField = "test";     this.publicMethod = function()     { console.log('this method is public'); privateMethod();     } function privateMethod() { console.log('this method is private'); } }; Other than syntax, is there any difference with the pattern show above ?

    Read the article

  • Configurable Objects - Introduction

    - by Anthony Shorten
    One of the interesting facilities in the framework is Configurable Object functionality (it is also known as Task Optimization and also known as Cool Tools). The idea is that any implementation can create their own views of the base product objects and services and implement functionality against those new views. For example, in Oracle Utilities Customer Care and Billing, there is a Person object. That object is used to store and manage information about individuals as well as companies. In the base product you would use the Person Maintenance screen and fill in some of the screen when you wanted to register or maintain and individual as well and fill out other parts of the screen when you wanted to register or maintain a company. This can be somewhat confusing to some customers. Using Configurable Objects this can be simplified. A business object can be created that is a view of the any object. For example, you could create a Human business object which would cover the aspects of the Person object pertaining to an individual and a Company business object to cover the aspects unique to a company. Even the tag names (i.e. Field Names) in the object can be changed to be more what the implementation is familiar with. The object can also restructure the object. For example, a common identifier for an individual in the USA is the Social Security number, this value is a Person Identifier (as this varies in each country). In the new Human object you can remap the Person Identifier as a Social Security number. To define a Business Object you use a schema editor built into the browser user interface and use a mapping language to setup the business objects. An example of the language is shown below in an extract of the schema for the Human business object. As you can see there are mapping as well as formatting and other tags. This information can be built manually or using a wizard which generates the base structure for you to alter. This is all stored as meta data when saved. Once a Business object is built it can be used as basis for code, other business objects (we support inheritance), called by a screen (called a UI Map) or even as a Web Service. This is just a start with Configurable Objects as you can also create views of base services called Business Services, Service Scripts used for non-object or complex object processing (as well as other things), UI Maps used for screens and Data Areas to reuse definitions across multiple objects. Configurable Objects are powerful and I only really touched on them here. Over the next few months I hope to add lots more entries about them.

    Read the article

  • Qt 4.6 Adding objects and sub-objects to QWebView window object (C++ & Javascript)

    - by Cor
    I am working with Qt's QWebView, and have been finding lots of great uses for adding to the webkit window object. One thing I would like to do is nested objects... for instance: in Javascript I can... var api = new Object; api.os = new Object; api.os.foo = function(){} api.window = new Object(); api.window.bar = function(){} obviously in most cases this would be done through a more OO js-framework. This results in a tidy structure of: >>>api ------------------------------------------------------- - api Object {os=Object, more... } - os Object {} foo function() - win Object {} bar function() ------------------------------------------------------- Right now I'm able to extend the window object with all of the qtC++ methods and signals I need, but they all have 'seem' to have to be in a root child of "window". This is forcing me to write a js wrapper object to get the hierarchy that I want in the DOM. >>>api ------------------------------------------------------- - api Object {os=function, more... } - os_foo function() - win_bar function() ------------------------------------------------------- This is a pretty simplified example... I want objects for parameters, etc... Does anyone know of a way to pass an child object with the object that extends the WebFrame's window object? Here's some example code of how I'm adding the object: mainwindow.h #ifndef MAINWINDOW_H #define MAINWINDOW_H #include <QtGui/QMainWindow> #include <QWebFrame> #include "mainwindow.h" #include "happyapi.h" class QWebView; class QWebFrame; QT_BEGIN_NAMESPACE class MainWindow : public QMainWindow { Q_OBJECT public: MainWindow(QWidget *parent = 0); private slots: void attachWindowObject(); void bluesBros(); private: QWebView *view; HappyApi *api; QWebFrame *frame; }; #endif // MAINWINDOW_H mainwindow.cpp #include <QDebug> #include <QtGui> #include <QWebView> #include <QWebPage> #include "mainwindow.h" #include "happyapi.h" MainWindow::MainWindow(QWidget *parent) : QMainWindow(parent) { view = new QWebView(this); view->load(QUrl("file:///Q:/example.htm")); api = new HappyApi(this); QWebPage *page = view->page(); frame = page->mainFrame(); attachWindowObject(); connect(frame, SIGNAL(javaScriptWindowObjectCleared()), this, SLOT(attachWindowObject())); connect(api, SIGNAL(win_bar()), this, SLOT(bluesBros())); setCentralWidget(view); }; void MainWindow::attachWindowObject() { frame->addToJavaScriptWindowObject(QString("api"), api); }; void MainWindow::bluesBros() { qDebug() << "foo and bar are getting the band back together!"; }; happyapi.h #ifndef HAPPYAPI_H #define HAPPYAPI_H #include <QObject> class HappyApi : public QObject { Q_OBJECT public: HappyApi(QObject *parent); public slots: void os_foo(); signals: void win_bar(); }; #endif // HAPPYAPI_H happyapi.cpp #include <QDebug> #include "happyapi.h" HappyApi::HappyApi(QObject *parent) : QObject(parent) { }; void HappyApi::os_foo() { qDebug() << "foo called, it want's it's bar back"; }; I'm reasonably new to C++ programming (coming from a web and python background). Hopefully this example will serve to not only help other new users, but be something interesting for a more experienced c++ programmer to elaborate on. Thanks for any assistance that can be provided. :)

    Read the article

  • Overriding LINQ extension methods

    - by Ruben Vermeersch
    Is there a way to override extension methods (provide a better implementation), without explicitly having to cast to them? I'm implementing a data type that is able to handle certain operations more efficiently than the default extension methods, but I'd like to keep the generality of IEnumerable. That way any IEnumerable can be passed, but when my class is passed in, it should be more efficient. As a toy example, consider the following: // Compile: dmcs -out:test.exe test.cs using System; namespace Test { public interface IBoat { void Float (); } public class NiceBoat : IBoat { public void Float () { Console.WriteLine ("NiceBoat floating!"); } } public class NicerBoat : IBoat { public void Float () { Console.WriteLine ("NicerBoat floating!"); } public void BlowHorn () { Console.WriteLine ("NicerBoat: TOOOOOT!"); } } public static class BoatExtensions { public static void BlowHorn (this IBoat boat) { Console.WriteLine ("Patched on horn for {0}: TWEET", boat.GetType().Name); } } public class TestApp { static void Main (string [] args) { IBoat niceboat = new NiceBoat (); IBoat nicerboat = new NicerBoat (); Console.WriteLine ("## Both should float:"); niceboat.Float (); nicerboat.Float (); // Output: // NiceBoat floating! // NicerBoat floating! Console.WriteLine (); Console.WriteLine ("## One has an awesome horn:"); niceboat.BlowHorn (); nicerboat.BlowHorn (); // Output: // Patched on horn for NiceBoat: TWEET // Patched on horn for NicerBoat: TWEET Console.WriteLine (); Console.WriteLine ("## That didn't work, but it does when we cast:"); (niceboat as NiceBoat).BlowHorn (); (nicerboat as NicerBoat).BlowHorn (); // Output: // Patched on horn for NiceBoat: TWEET // NicerBoat: TOOOOOT! Console.WriteLine (); Console.WriteLine ("## Problem is: I don't always know the type of the objects."); Console.WriteLine ("## How can I make it use the class objects when the are"); Console.WriteLine ("## implemented and extension methods when they are not,"); Console.WriteLine ("## without having to explicitely cast?"); } } } Is there a way to get the behavior from the second case, without explict casting? Can this problem be avoided?

    Read the article

  • Ruby Methods: how to return an usage string when insufficient arguments are given

    - by Shyam
    Hi, After I have created a serious bunch of classes (with initialize methods), I am loading these into IRb to test each of them. I do so by creating simple instances and calling their methods to learn their behavior. However sometimes I don't remember exactly what order I was supposed to give the arguments when I call the .new method on the class. It requires me to look back at the code. However, I think it should be easy enough to return a usage message, instead of seeing: ArgumentError: wrong number of arguments (0 for 9) So I prefer to return a string with the human readable arguments, by example using "puts" or just a return of a string. Now I have seen the rescue keyword inside begin-end code, but I wonder how I could catch the ArgumentError when the initialize method is called. Thank you for your answers, feedback and comments!

    Read the article

  • PHP: OOP and methods

    - by Pirkka
    Hello I`ve been wondering how to implement methods in a class. Could someone explain me what means if one does OOP in procedural style? Here is an example: class Fld extends Model { private $file; private $properties = array(); public function init($file) { $this->file = $file; $this->parseFile(); } private function parseFile() { // parses the file foreach($this->file as $line)...... .................. $this->properties = $result; } } I mean is it a good thing to have methods like these that do operations for the class properties like that. Or should I pass the class property as method parameter... I mean this would cause error if the file property wouldnt be declared.

    Read the article

  • Operator Overloading with C# Extension Methods

    - by Blinky
    I'm attempting to use extension methods to add an operater overload to the C# StringBuilder class. Specifically, given StringBuilder sb, I'd like sb += "text" to become equivalent to sb.Append("text"); Here's the syntax for creating an extension method for StringBuilder: public static class sbExtensions { public static StringBuilder blah(this StringBuilder sb) { return sb; } } It successfully adds the "blah" extension method to the StringBuilder. Unfortunately, operator overloading does not seem to work: public static class sbExtensions { public static StringBuilder operator +(this StringBuilder sb, string s) { return sb.Append(s); } } Among other issues, the keyword 'this' is not allowed in this context. Are adding operator overloads via extension methods possible? If so, what's the proper way to go about it?

    Read the article

  • Automatic conversion between methods and functions in Scala

    - by fikovnik
    I would like to understand the rules when can Scala automatically convert methods into functions. For example, if I have following two methods: def d1(a: Int, b: Int) {} def r[A, B](delegate: (A, B) ? Unit) {} I can do this: r(d1) But, when overloading r it will no longer work: def r[A, B, C](delegate: (A, B, C) ? Unit) {} r(d1) // no longer compiles and I have to explicitly convert method into partially applied function: r(d1 _) Is there any way to accomplish following with the explicit conversion? def r[A, B](delegate: (A, B) ? Unit) {} def r[A, B, C](delegate: (A, B, C) ? Unit) {} def d1(a: Int, b: Int) {} def d2(a: Int, b: Int, c: Int) {} r(d1) // only compiles with r(d1 _) r(d2) // only compiles with r(d2 _) There is somewhat similar question, but it is not fully explained.

    Read the article

  • Should main method be only consists of object creations and method calls?

    - by crucified soul
    A friend of mine told me that, the best practice is class containing main method should be named Main and only contains main method. Also main method should only parse inputs, create other objects and call other methods. The Main class and main method shouldn't do anything else. Basically what he is saying that class containing main method should be like: public class Main { public static void main(String[] args) { //parse inputs //create other objects //call methods } } Is it the best practice?

    Read the article

  • Can an object oriented program be seen as a Finite State Machine?

    - by Peretz
    This might be a philosophical/fundamental question, but I just want to clarify it. In my understanding a Finite State Machine is a way of modeling a system in which the system's output will not only depend on the current inputs, but also the current state of the system. Additionally, as the name suggests it, a finite state machine can be segmented in a finite N number of states with its respective state and behavior. If this is correct, shouldn't every single object with data and function members be a state in our object oriented model, making any object oriented design a finite state machine? If that is not the interpretation of a FSM in object design, what exactly people mean when they implement a FSM in software? am I missing something? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Breaking up a large PHP object used to abstract the database. Best practices?

    - by John Kershaw
    Two years ago it was thought a single object with functions such as $database->get_user_from_id($ID) would be a good idea. The functions return objects (not arrays), and the front-end code never worries about the database. This was great, until we started growing the database. There's now 30+ tables, and around 150 functions in the database object. It's getting impractical and unmanageable and I'm going to be breaking it up. What is a good solution to this problem? The project is large, so there's a limit to the extent I can change things. My current plan is to extend the current object for each table, then have the database object contain these. So, the above example would turn into (assume "user" is a table) $database->user->get_user_from_id($ID). Instead of one large file, we would have a file for every table.

    Read the article

  • Questioning one of the arguments for dependency injection: Why is creating an object graph hard?

    - by oberlies
    Dependency injection frameworks like Google Guice give the following motivation for their usage (source): To construct an object, you first build its dependencies. But to build each dependency, you need its dependencies, and so on. So when you build an object, you really need to build an object graph. Building object graphs by hand is labour intensive (...) and makes testing difficult. But I don't buy this argument: Even without dependency injection, I can write classes which are both easy to instantiate and convenient to test. E.g. the example from the Guice motivation page could be rewritten in the following way: class BillingService { private final CreditCardProcessor processor; private final TransactionLog transactionLog; // constructor for tests, taking all collaborators as parameters BillingService(CreditCardProcessor processor, TransactionLog transactionLog) { this.processor = processor; this.transactionLog = transactionLog; } // constructor for production, calling the (productive) constructors of the collaborators public BillingService() { this(new PaypalCreditCardProcessor(), new DatabaseTransactionLog()); } public Receipt chargeOrder(PizzaOrder order, CreditCard creditCard) { ... } } So there may be other arguments for dependency injection (which are out of scope for this question!), but easy creation of testable object graphs is not one of them, is it?

    Read the article

  • Is there an alternative to the term "calling object"?

    - by ybakos
    Let's suppose you've got a class defined (in pseudocode): class Puppy { // ... string sound = "Rawr!"; void bark() { print(sound); } } And say, given a Puppy instance, you call it's bark() method: Puppy p; p.bark(); Notice how bark() uses the member variable sound. In many contexts, I've seen folks describe sound as the member variable of the "calling object." My question is, what's a better term to use than "calling object?" To me, the object is not doing any calling. We know that member functions are in a way just functions with an implicit this or self parameter. I've come up with "receiving object," or "message recipient," which makes sense if you're down with the "messaging" paradigm. Do any of you happy hackers have a term that you like to use? I feel it should mean "the object upon which a method is called" and TOUWAMIC just doesn't cut it.

    Read the article

  • spl_object_hash for PHP < 5.2 (unique ID for object instances)

    - by Rowan
    I'm trying to get unique IDs for object instances in PHP 5+. The function, spl_object_hash() is available from PHP 5.2 but I'm wondering if there's a workaround for older versions. There are a couple of functions in the comments on php.net but they're not working for me. The first (simplified): function spl_object_hash($object){ if (is_object($object)){ return md5((string)$object); } return null; } does not work with native objects (such as DOMDocument), and the second: function spl_object_hash($object){ if (is_object($object)){ ob_start(); var_dump($object); $dump = ob_get_contents(); ob_end_clean(); if (preg_match('/^object\(([a-z0-9_]+)\)\#(\d)+/i', $dump, $match)) { return md5($match[1] . $match[2]); } } return null; } looks like it could be a major performance buster! Does anybody have anything up their sleeve?

    Read the article

  • PHP: How do I access child properties from a method in a base object?

    - by Nick
    I'd like for all of my objects to be able to return a JSON string of themselves. So I created a base class for all of my objects to extend, with an AsJSON() method: class BaseObject { public function AsJSON() { $JSON=array(); foreach ($this as $key = $value) { if(is_null($value)) continue; $JSON[$key] = $value; } return json_encode($JSON); } } And then extend my child classes from that: class Package extends BaseObject { ... } So in my code, I expect to do this: $Box = new Package; $Box-SetID('123'); $Box-SetName('12x8x6'); $Box-SetBoxX('12'); $Box-SetBoxY('8'); $Box-SetBoxZ('6'); echo $Box-AsJSON(); But the JSON string it returns only contains the BaseClass's properties, not the child properties. How do I modify my AsJSON() function so that $this refers to the child's properties, not the parent's?

    Read the article

  • Magic Methods in Python

    - by dArignac
    Howdy, I'm kind of new to Python and I wonder if there is a way to create something like the magic methods in PHP (http://www.php.net/manual/en/language.oop5.overloading.php#language.oop5.overloading.methods) My aim is to ease the access of child classes in my model. I basically have a parent class that has n child classes. These classes have three values, a language key, a translation key and a translation value. The are describing a kind of generic translation handling. The parent class can have translations for different translation key each in different languages. E.g. the key "title" can be translated into german and english and the key "description" too (and so far and so on) I don't want to get the child classes and filter by the set values (at least I want but not explicitly, the concrete implementation behind the magic method would do this). I want to call parent_class.title['de'] # or also possible maybe parent_class.title('de') for getting the translation of title in german (de). So there has to be a magic method that takes the name of the called method and their params (as in PHP). As far as I dug into Python this is only possible with simple attributes (_getattr_, _setattr_) or with setting/getting directly within the class (_getitem_, _setitem_) which both do not fit my needs. Maybe there is a solution for this? Please help! Thanks in advance!

    Read the article

  • Threading.Timer invokes asynchronously many methods

    - by Dimitar
    Hi guys! Please help! I call a threading.timer from global.asax which invokes many methods each of which gets data from different services and writes it to files. My question is how do i make the methods to be invoked on a regular basis let's say 5 mins? What i do is: in Global.asax I declare a timer protected void Application_Start() { TimerCallback timerDelegate = new TimerCallback(myMainMethod); Timer mytimer = new Timer(timerDelegate, null, 0, 300000); Application.Add("timer", mytimer); } the declaration of myMainMethod looks like this: public static void myMainMethod(object obj) { MyDelegateType d1 = new MyDelegateType(getandwriteServiceData1); d1.BeginInvoke(null, null); MyDelegateType d2 = new MyDelegateType(getandwriteServiceData2); d2.BeginInvoke(null, null); } this approach works fine but it invokes myMainMethod every 5 mins. What I need is the method to be invoked 5 mins after all the data is retreaved and written to files on the server. How do I do that?

    Read the article

  • Generics in return types of static methods and inheritance

    - by Axel
    Generics in return types of static methods do not seem to get along well with inheritance. Please take a look at the following code: class ClassInfo<C> { public ClassInfo(Class<C> clazz) { this(clazz,null); } public ClassInfo(Class<C> clazz, ClassInfo<? super C> superClassInfo) { } } class A { public static ClassInfo<A> getClassInfo() { return new ClassInfo<A>(A.class); } } class B extends A { // Error: The return type is incompatible with A.getClassInfo() public static ClassInfo<B> getClassInfo() { return new ClassInfo<B>(B.class, A.getClassInfo()); } } I tried to circumvent this by changing the return type for A.getClassInfo(), and now the error pops up at another location: class ClassInfo<C> { public ClassInfo(Class<C> clazz) { this(clazz,null); } public ClassInfo(Class<C> clazz, ClassInfo<? super C> superClassInfo) { } } class A { public static ClassInfo<? extends A> getClassInfo() { return new ClassInfo<A>(A.class); } } class B extends A { public static ClassInfo<? extends B> getClassInfo() { // Error: The constructor ClassInfo<B>(Class<B>, ClassInfo<capture#1-of ? extends A>) is undefined return new ClassInfo<B>(B.class, A.getClassInfo()); } } What is the reason for this strict checking on static methods? And how can I get along? Changing the method name seems awkward.

    Read the article

  • Extensions methods and forward compatibilty of source code.

    - by TcKs
    Hi, I would like solve the problem (now hypothetical but propably real in future) of using extension methods and maginification of class interface in future development. Example: /* the code written in 17. March 2010 */ public class MySpecialList : IList<MySpecialClass> { // ... implementation } // ... somewhere elsewhere ... MySpecialList list = GetMySpecialList(); // returns list of special classes var reversedList = list.Reverse().ToList(); // .Reverse() is extension method /* now the "list" is unchanged and "reveresedList" has same items in reversed order */ /* --- in future the interface of MySpecialList will be changed because of reason XYZ*/ /* the code written in some future */ public class MySpecialList : IList<MySpecialClass> { // ... implementation public MySpecialList Reverse() { // reverse order of items in this collection return this; } } // ... somewhere elsewhere ... MySpecialList list = GetMySpecialList(); // returns list of special classes var reversedList = list.Reverse().ToList(); // .Reverse() was extension method but now is instance method and do something else ! /* now the "list" is reversed order of items and "reveresedList" has same items lake in "list" */ My question is: Is there some way how to prevent this case (I didn't find them)? If is now way how to prevent it, is there some way how to find possible issues like this? If is now way how to find possible issues, should I forbid usage of extension methods? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Why "object reference not set to an instance of an object" doesn't tell us which object?

    - by Saeed Neamati
    We're launching a system, and we sometimes get the famous exception NullReferenceException with the message Object reference not set to an instance of an object. However, in a method where we have almost 20 objects, having a log which says an object is null, is really of no use at all. It's like telling you, when you are the security agent of a seminar, that a man among 100 attendees is a terrorist. That's really of no use to you at all. You should get more information, if you want to detect which man is the threatening man. Likewise, if we want to remove the bug, we do need to know which object is null. Now, something has obsessed my mind for several months, and that is: Why .NET doesn't give us the name, or at least the type of the object reference, which is null?. Can't it understand the type from reflection or any other source? Also, what are the best practices to understand which object is null? Should we always test nullability of objects in these contexts manually and log the result? Is there a better way?

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