Search Results

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

Page 93/562 | < Previous Page | 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100  | Next Page >

  • Should I share UI for objects that use common fields?

    - by wb
    I have a parent class that holds all of the fields that are common between all device types. From that, I have a few derived classes that each hold their unique fields. Say I have device type "Switch" and "Transformer". Both derived classes only have 2-3 of their own unique fields. When doing the UI design (windows forms) in this case. Should I create two separate forms for each device type or create a user control with all fields that are shared among all devices? Thank you.

    Read the article

  • PHP class extends not working why and is this how to correctly extend a class?

    - by Matthew
    Hi so I'm trying to understand how inherteince works in PHP using object oriented programming. The main class is Computer, the class that is inheriting is Mouse. I'm extedning the Computer class with the mouse class. I use __construct in each class, when I istinate the class I use the pc type first and if it has mouse after. For some reason computer returns null? why is this? class Computer { protected $type = 'null'; public function __construct($type) { $this->type = $type; } public function computertype() { $this->type = strtoupper($this->type); return $this->type; } } class Mouse extends Computer { protected $hasmouse = 'null'; public function __construct($hasmouse){ $this->hasmouse = $hasmouse; } public function computermouse() { if($this->hasmouse == 'Y') { return 'This Computer has a mouse'; } } } $pc = new Computer('PC', 'Y'); echo $pc->computertype; echo $pc->computermouse;

    Read the article

  • [PHP] How to unset object's inherited properties ?

    - by vbklv
    I have an Object ( [id] => 1 [parent_id] => 0 [result:Database:private] => [db:Database:private] => mysqli Object ( [affected_rows] => 0 ... ) ) Obviously, the Object has inherited the 'db' and 'result' properties of the parent Database class. unset($object-result) nor unset($object-result:Database) nor unset($object-result:Database:private) work. How could I unset those properties when they are no longer needed (i.e. when the object properties are about to be output)? Is it a generally a good idea to have a database object as an inherited property of other classes (extend one Database class with all other classes that use database connections)?

    Read the article

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

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

    Read the article

  • Constructors from extended class in Java

    - by Crystal
    I'm having some trouble with a hw assignment. In one assignment, we had to create a Person class. Mine was: public class Person { String firstName; String lastName; String telephone; String email; public Person() { firstName = ""; lastName = ""; telephone = ""; email = ""; } public Person(String firstName) { this.firstName = firstName; } public Person(String firstName, String lastName, String telephone, String email) { this.firstName = firstName; this.lastName = lastName; this.telephone = telephone; this.email = email; } public String getFirstName() { return firstName; } public void setFirstName(String firstName) { this.firstName = firstName; } public String getLastName() { return lastName; } public void setLastName(String lastName) { this.lastName = lastName; } public String getTelephone() { return telephone; } public void setTelephone(String telephone) { this.telephone = telephone; } public String getEmail() { return email; } public void setEmail(String email) { this.email = email; } public boolean equals(Object otherObject) { // a quick test to see if the objects are identical if (this == otherObject) { return true; } // must return false if the explicit parameter is null if (otherObject == null) { return false; } if (!(otherObject instanceof Person)) { return false; } Person other = (Person) otherObject; return firstName.equals(other.firstName) && lastName.equals(other.lastName) && telephone.equals(other.telephone) && email.equals(other.email); } public int hashCode() { return 7 * firstName.hashCode() + 11 * lastName.hashCode() + 13 * telephone.hashCode() + 15 * email.hashCode(); } public String toString() { return getClass().getName() + "[firstName = " + firstName + '\n' + "lastName = " + lastName + '\n' + "telephone = " + telephone + '\n' + "email = " + email + "]"; } } Now we have to extend that class and use that class in our constructor. The function protoype is: public CarLoan(Person client, double vehiclePrice, double downPayment, double salesTax, double interestRate, CAR_LOAN_TERMS length) I'm confused on how I use the Person constructor from the superclass. I cannot necessarily do super(client); in my constructor which is what the book did with some primitive types in their example. Not sure what the correct thing to do is... Any thoughts? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • templated class : accessing derived normal-class methods

    - by user1019129
    I have something like this : class Container1 { public: method1() { ... } } class Container2 { public: method1() { ... } } template<class C = Container1> class X : public C { public: using C::method1(); ..... X(string& str) : C(str) {}; X& other_method() { method1(); ...; } } My question is why I have to use "using C::method1()", to be able to access the method.. Most of answers I found is for the case where templated-class inhering templated-class. Normally they mention using "this-", but this does not seem to work in this case. Can I do something else shorter... Also I'm suspecting the other error I'm getting is related to the same problem : no match call for (X<Container1>) (<std::string&>)

    Read the article

  • How do I inherit abstract unit tests in Ruby?

    - by Graeme Moss
    I have two unit tests that should share a lot of common tests with slightly different setup methods. If I write something like class Abstract < Test::Unit::TestCase def setup @field = create end def test_1 ... end end class Concrete1 < Abstract def create SomeClass1.new end end class Concrete2 < Abstract def create SomeClass2.new end end then Concrete1 does not seem to inherit the tests from Abstract. Or at least I cannot get them to run in eclipse. If I choose "Run all TestCases" for the file that contains Concrete1 then Abstract is run even though I do not want it to be. If I specify Concrete1 then it does not run any tests at all! If I specify test_1 in Concrete1 then it complains it cannot find it ("uncaught throw :invalid_test (ArgumentError)"). I'm new to Ruby. What am I missing here?

    Read the article

  • Is there any difference these two pieces of code?

    - by Poiuyt
    #include<stdio.h> class A {public: int a; }; class B: public A {private: int a;}; int main(){ B b; printf("%d", b.a); return 0; } #include<stdio.h> class A {public: int a; }; class B: private A {}; int main(){ B b; printf("%d", b.a); return 0; } I ask because I get different errors: error: 'int B::a' is private error: 'int A::a' is inaccessible Apart from what the errors might reveal, is there any difference at all in the behaviour of these two pieces of code?

    Read the article

  • Java : Using parent class method to access child class variable

    - by Jayant
    I have the following scenario : public class A { private int x = 5; public void print() { System.out.println(x); } } public class B extends A { private int x = 10; /*public void print() { System.out.println(x); }*/ public static void main(String[] args) { B b = new B(); b.print(); } } On executing the code, the output is : 5. How to access the child class(B's) variable(x) via the parent class method? Could this be done without overriding the print() method (i.e. uncommenting it in B)? [This is important because on overriding we will have to rewrite the whole code for the print() method again]

    Read the article

  • base pointer to derived class

    - by Jay
    Suppose there are Base class and Derived class. Base *A = new Base; Here A is a pointer point to Base class, and new constructs one that A points to. I also saw Base *B = new Derived; How to explain this? B is a pointer to Base Class, and a Derived class constructed and pointed by B? If there is a function derived from Base class, say, Virtual void f(), and it's been overridden in Derived class, then B->f() will invoke which version of the function? version in Base class, or version that overridden in Derived Class. What if there is a new function void g()in Derived, is B->g() going to invoke this function properly? One more is, is int *a = new double; or int *a = new int; legal?

    Read the article

  • Javascript: Inherit method from base class and return the subclass's private variable

    - by marisbest2
    I have the following BaseClass defined: function BaseClass (arg1,arg2,arg3) { //constructor code here then - var privateVar = 7500; this.getPrivateVar = function() { return privateVar; }; } I want to have the following subclass which allows changing privateVar like so: function SubClass (arg1,arg2,arg3,privateVar) { //constructor code here then - var privateVar = privateVar; } SubClass.prototype = new BaseClass(); Now I want SubClass to inherit the getPrivateVar method. However, when I try this, it always returns 7500 which is the value in the BaseClass and not the value of privateVar. In other words, is it possible to inherit a BaseClass's public methods but have any references in them refer to the SubClass's properties? And how would I do that?

    Read the article

  • Is it poor practice to identify objects via an enumeration property, instead of using GetType()?

    - by James
    I have a collection of objects that all implement one (custom) interface: IAuditEvent. Each object can be stored in a database and a unique numeric id is used for each object type. The method that stores the objects loops around a List<IAuditEvent>, so it needs to know the specific type of each object in order to store the correct numeric id. Is it poor practice to have an enumeration property on IAuditEvent so that each object can identify itself with a unique enumeration value? I can see that the simplest solution would be to write a method that translates a Type into an integer, but what if I need an enumeration of audit events for another purpose? Would it still be wrong to have my enumeration property on IAuditEvent?

    Read the article

  • Android TextWatcher for more than one EditText

    - by Creative MITian
    I want to implement the TextWatcher interface for more than one EditText fields. Currently I am using : text1.addTextChangedListener(this); text2.addTextChangedListener(this); then overriding the methods in my Activity: public void afterTextChanged(Editable s) {} public void beforeTextChanged(CharSequence s, int start, int count, int after) {} public void onTextChanged(CharSequence s, int start, int before, int count) { // do some operation on text of text1 field // do some operation on text of text2 field } However this is working fine but I'm looking for other ways so that I can explicitly identify that in which EditText field the SoftKeyboard is currently focused.

    Read the article

  • Similar Sub-Classes

    - by praks5432
    Lets say I have a class A that is fairly simple like this - public class A{ private int randomField = 0; protected int key; protected double dmg; } Now I want to write a number of sub-classes that inherit the protected fields and only differ based on the initial values that are assigned to those fields - for example, if I wrote two subclasses B and C, the only difference between those two sub-classes would be that the values key and dmg would have different values. They would share a method, set, which would be exactly the same, in that it would affect the same variable. I find when I'm writing these sub-classes I'm repeating myself, as I just change the constructor to set different initial values to key and dmg, and simply copy and paste the set method. Is there a 'good' way to do this?

    Read the article

  • error - inherited class field undeclared according to g++

    - by infoholic_anonymous
    I have a code that has the following logic. g++ gives me the error that I have not declared n in my iterator2. What could be wrong? template <typename T> class List{ template <typename TT> class Node; Node<T> *head; /* (...) */ template <bool D> class iterator1{ protected: Node<T> n; public: iterator1( Node<T> *nn ) { n = nn } /* (...) */ }; template <bool D> class iterator2 : public iterator1<D>{ public: iterator2( Node<T> *nn ) : iterator1<D>( nn ) {} void fun( Node<T> *nn ) { n = nn; } /* (...) */ }; }; EDIT : I attach the actual header file. iterator1 would be iterable_frame and iterator2 - switchable_frame. #ifndef LST_H #define LST_H template <typename T> class List { public: template <typename TT> class Node; private: Node<T> *head; public: List() { head = new Node<T>; } ~List() { empty_list(); delete head; } List( const List &l ); inline bool is_empty() const { return head->next[0] == head; } void empty_list(); template <bool DIM> class iterable_frame { protected: Node<T> *head; Node<T> **caret; public: iterable_frame( const List &l ) { head = *(caret = &l.head); } iterable_frame( const iterable_frame &i ) { head = *(caret = i.caret); } ~iterable_frame() {} /* (...) - a few methods follow */ template <bool _DIM> friend class supervised_frame; }; template <bool DIM> class switchable_frame : public iterable_frame<DIM> { Node<T> *main_head; public: switchable_frame( const List& l ) : iterable_frame<DIM>(l) { main_head = head; } inline bool next_frame() { caret = &head->next[!DIM]; head = *caret; return head != main_head; } }; template <bool DIM> class supervised_frame { iterable_frame<DIM> sentinels; iterable_frame<DIM> cells; public: supervised_frame( const List &l ) : sentinels(l), cells(l) {} ~supervised_frame() {} /* (...) - a few methods follow */ }; template <typename TT> class Node { unsigned index[2]; TT num; Node<TT> *next[2]; public: Node( unsigned x = 0, unsigned y = 0 ) { index[0]=x; index[1]=y; next[0] = this; next[1] = this; } Node( unsigned x, unsigned y, TT d ) { index[0]=x; index[1]=y; num=d; next[0] = this; next[1] = this; } Node( const Node &n ) { index[0] = n.index[0]; index[1] = n.index[1]; num = n.num; next[0] = next[1] = this; } ~Node() {} friend class List; }; }; #include "List.cpp" #endif the exact error log is the following: In file included from main.cpp:1: List.h: In member function ‘bool List<T>::switchable_frame<DIM>::next_frame()’: List.h:77: error: ‘caret’ was not declared in this scope

    Read the article

  • Friendly way to override `const`-overloaded member function?

    - by xtofl
    Given a base class class A { int i; public: int& f(){ return i;} const int& f() const { return i;} }; And a sub class class ConstA : private A { public: const int& f() const { return A::f(); } }; Is there a wrist-friendly way to access the ConstA::f method on a non-const variable? ConstA ca; int i = ca.f(); // compile error: int& A::f() is not accessible since A is privately inherited int j = static_cast<const ConstA&>(ca).f(); // this works, but it hurts a little... Or is it so ugly since hiding A::f generally is a bad idea, violating the Liskov Substitution Principle: any subclass of A must at least be capable of all A's functionality? void set( A& a, int i ) { a.f() = i; } class ConstA2 : public A { private: int& f(){ return A::f(); } }; ConstA2 ca2; set( ca2, 1 ); (Note: this question popped up while thinking about this question)

    Read the article

  • How to access base (super) class in Delphi?

    - by Niyoko Yuliawan
    In C# i can access base class by base keyword, and in java i can access it by super keyword. How to do that in delphi? suppose I have following code: type TForm3 = class(TForm) private procedure _setCaption(Value:String); public property Caption:string write _setCaption; //adding override here gives error end; implementation procedure TForm3._setCaption(Value: String); begin Self.Caption := Value; //it gives stack overflow end;

    Read the article

  • Remove .img css from prepended div

    - by Ivan Schrecklich
    OK as the title says I've got a div which is prepended and dynamically loaded. The problem I have is that I can't split the css on this one as it parses also whole strings. The usage is like that: I've got a @username somewhere in the string. If the user hovers it a div with informations will get prepended to the current username. Now there is the problem that I've allowed users to post images in this text also. As the autolinker is flexible it doesn't know the image sizes and restrictions and I want to leave it like that! So I define css classes which look like that: .minpost img{ max-height: 30px; max-width: 30px; } Of course I don't need to mention that this attribute is also inherited by the prepended div. And that I don't want to! nifty little tricks like !important won't work for me. So I am asking you guys. If you need further informations just ask?!

    Read the article

  • Use of .apply() with 'new' operator. Is this possible?

    - by Premasagar
    In JavaScript, I want to create an object instance (via the new operator), but pass an arbitrary number of arguments to the constructor. Is this possible? What I want to do is something like this (but the code below does not work): function Something(){ // init stuff } function createSomething(){ return new Something.apply(null, arguments); } var s = createSomething(a,b,c); // 's' is an instance of Something The Answer From the responses here, it became clear that there's no in-built way to call .apply() with the new operator. However, people suggested a number of really interesting solutions to the problem. My preferred solution was this one from Matthew Crumley (I've modified it to pass the arguments property): var createSomething = (function() { function F(args) { return Something.apply(this, args); } F.prototype = Something.prototype; return function() { return new F(arguments); } })();

    Read the article

  • Should I use an interface when methods are only similar?

    - by Joshua Harris
    I was posed with the idea of creating an object that checks if a point will collide with a line: public class PointAndLineSegmentCollisionDetector { public void Collides(Point p, LineSegment s) { // ... } } This made me think that if I decided to create a Box object, then I would need a PointAndBoxCollisionDetector and a LineSegmentAndBoxCollisionDetector. I might even realize that I should have a BoxAndBoxCollisionDetector and a LineSegmentAndLineSegmentCollisionDetector. And, when I add new objects that can collide I would need to add even more of these. But, they all have a Collides method, so everything I learned about abstraction is telling me, "Make an interface." public interface CollisionDetector { public void Collides(Spatial s1, Spatial s2); } But now I have a function that only detects some abstract class or interface that is used by Point, LineSegment, Box, etc.. So if I did this then each implementation would have to to a type check to make sure that the types are the appropriate type because the collision algorithm is different for each different type match up. Another solution could be this: public class CollisionDetector { public void Collides(Point p, LineSegment s) { ... } public void Collides(LineSegment s, Box b) { ... } public void Collides(Point p, Box b) { ... } // ... } But, this could end up being a huge class that seems unwieldy, although it would have simplicity in that it is only a bunch of Collide methods. This is similar to C#'s Convert class. Which is nice because it is large, but it is simple to understand how it works. This seems to be the better solution, but I thought I should open it for discussion as a wiki to get other opinions.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100  | Next Page >