Search Results

Search found 5007 results on 201 pages for 'django inheritance'.

Page 133/201 | < Previous Page | 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140  | Next Page >

  • Calling Base Class Functions with Inherited Type

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

    Read the article

  • Attaching methods to prototype from within constructor function

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

    Read the article

  • Where in the standard is forwarding to a base class required in these situations?

    - by pgast
    Maybe even better is: Why does the standard require forwarding to a base class in these situations? (yeah yeah yeah - Why? - Because.) class B1 { public: virtual void f()=0; }; class B2 { public: virtual void f(){} }; class D : public B1,public B2{ }; class D2 : public B1,public B2{ public: using B2::f; }; class D3 : public B1,public B2{ public: void f(){ B2::f(); } }; D d; D2 d2; D3 d3; EDG gives: sourceFile.cpp sourceFile.cpp(24) : error C2259: 'D' : cannot instantiate abstract class due to following members: 'void B1::f(void)' : is abstract sourceFile.cpp(6) : see declaration of 'B1::f' sourceFile.cpp(25) : error C2259: 'D2' : cannot instantiate abstract class due to following members: 'void B1::f(void)' : is abstract sourceFile.cpp(6) : see declaration of 'B and similarly for the MS compiler. I might buy the first case,D. But in D2 - f is unambiguously defined by the using declaration, why is that not enough for the compiler to be required to fill out the vtable? Where in the standard is this situation defined?

    Read the article

  • C++ superclass constructor calling rules

    - by levik
    What are the C++ rules for calling the superclass constructor from a subclass one?? For example I know in Java, you must do it as the first line of the subclass constructor (and if you don't an implicit call to a no-arg super constructor is assumed - giving you a compile error if that's missing).

    Read the article

  • Java: using generic wildcards with subclassing

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

    Read the article

  • PHP: How to Pass child class __construct() arguments to parent::__construct() ?

    - by none
    I have a class in PHP like so: class ParentClass { function __construct($arg) { // Initialize a/some variable(s) based on $arg } } It has a child class, as such: class ChildClass extends ParentClass { function __construct($arg) { // Let the parent handle construction. parent::__construct($arg); } } What if, for some reason, the ParentClass needs to change to take more than one optional argument, which I would like my Child class to provide "just in case"? Unless I re-code the ChildClass, it will only ever take the one argument to the constructor, and will only ever pass that one argument. Is this so rare or such a bad practice that the usual case is that a ChildClass wouldn't need to be inheriting from a ParentClass that takes different arguments? Essentially, I've seen in Python where you can pass a potentially unknown number of arguments to a function via somefunction(*args) where 'args' is an array/iterable of some kind. Does something like this exist in PHP? Or should I refactor these classes before proceeding?

    Read the article

  • how do I best create a set of list classes to match my business objects

    - by ken-forslund
    I'm a bit fuzzy on the best way to solve the problem of needing a list for each of my business objects that implements some overridden functions. Here's the setup: I have a baseObject that sets up database, and has its proper Dispose() method All my other business objects inherit from it, and if necessary, override Dispose() Some of these classes also contain arrays (lists) of other objects. So I create a class that holds a List of these. I'm aware I could just use the generic List, but that doesn't let me add extra features like Dispose() so it will loop through and clean up. So if I had objects called User, Project and Schedule, I would create UserList, ProjectList, ScheduleList. In the past, I have simply had these inherit from List< with the appropriate class named and then written the pile of common functions I wanted it to have, like Dispose(). this meant I would verify by hand, that each of these List classes had the same set of methods. Some of these classes had pretty simple versions of these methods that could have been inherited from a base list class. I could write an interface, to force me to ensure that each of my List classes has the same functions, but interfaces don't let me write common base functions that SOME of the lists might override. I had tried to write a baseObjectList that inherited from List, and then make my other Lists inherit from that, but there are issues with that (which is really why I came here). One of which was trying to use the Find() method with a predicate. I've simplified the problem down to just a discussion of Dispose() method on the list that loops through and disposes its contents, but in reality, I have several other common functions that I want all my lists to have. What's the best practice to solve this organizational matter?

    Read the article

  • Java method: retrieve the inheriting type

    - by DrDro
    I have several classes that extend C and I would need a method that accepts any argument of type C. But in this method I would like to know if I'm dealing with A or B. * public A extends C public B extends C public void goForIt(C c)() If I cast how can I retrieve the type in a clean way (I just read using getClass or instanceof is often not the best way). *Sorry but I can't type closing braces

    Read the article

  • Constructor Overload Problem in C++ Inherrentance

    - by metdos
    Here my code snippet: class Request { public: Request(void); ……….. } Request::Request(void) { qDebug()<<"Request: "<<"Hello World"; } class LoginRequest :public Request { public: LoginRequest(void); LoginRequest(QDomDocument); …………… } LoginRequest::LoginRequest(void) { qDebug()<<"LoginRequest: "<<"Hello World"; requestType=LOGIN; requestId=-1; } LoginRequest::LoginRequest(QDomDocument doc){ qDebug()<<"LoginRequest: "<<"Hello World with QDomDocument"; LoginRequest::LoginRequest(); xmlDoc_=doc; } When call constructor of Overrided LoginRequest LoginRequest *test=new LoginRequest(doc); I came up with this result: Request: Hello World LoginRequest: Hello World with QDomDocument Request: Hello World LoginRequest: Hello World Obviously both constructor of LoginRequest called REquest constructor. Is there any way to cape with this situation? I can construct another function that does the job I want to do and have both constructors call that function. But I wonder is there any solution?

    Read the article

  • Python, invoke super constructor

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

    Read the article

  • Generic Class Vb.net

    - by KoolKabin
    hi guys, I am stuck with a problem about generic classes. I am confused how I call the constructor with parameters. My interface: Public Interface IDBObject Sub [Get](ByRef DataRow As DataRow) Property UIN() As Integer End Interface My Child Class: Public Class User Implements IDBObject Public Sub [Get](ByRef DataRow As System.Data.DataRow) Implements IDBObject.Get End Sub Public Property UIN() As Integer Implements IDBObject.UIN Get End Get Set(ByVal value As Integer) End Set End Property End Class My Next Class: Public Class Users Inherits DBLayer(Of User) #Region " Standard Methods " #End Region End Class My DBObject Class: Public Class DBLayer(Of DBObject As {New, IDBObject}) Public Shared Function GetData() As List(Of DBObject) Dim QueryString As String = "SELECT * ***;" Dim Dataset As DataSet = New DataSet() Dim DataList As List(Of DBObject) = New List(Of DBObject) Try Dataset = Query(QueryString) For Each DataRow As DataRow In Dataset.Tables(0).Rows **DataList.Add(New DBObject(DataRow))** Next Catch ex As Exception DataList = Nothing End Try Return DataList End Function End Class I get error in the starred area of the DBLayer Object. What might be the possible reason? what can I do to fix it? I even want to add New(byval someval as datatype) in IDBObject interface for overloading construction. but it also gives an error? how can i do it? Adding Sub New(ByVal DataRow As DataRow) in IDBObject producess following error 'Sub New' cannot be declared in an interface. Error Produced in DBLayer Object line: DataList.Add(New DBObject(DataRow)) Msg: Arguments cannot be passed to a 'New' used on a type parameter.

    Read the article

  • Java generics question

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

    Read the article

  • .Net Inherited Control Property Default

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

    Read the article

  • Me As Child Type In General Function

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

    Read the article

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

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

    Read the article

  • Generic calls to OnResetDevice() and OnLostDevice()

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

    Read the article

  • A general declaration for all inherited classes

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

    Read the article

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

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

    Read the article

  • are there requirements for Struts setters beyond variable name matching?

    - by slk
    I have a model-driven Struts Web action: public class ModelDrivenAction<T extends Object> implements ModelDriven<T>, Preparable { protected Long id; protected T model; @Override public void prepare() {} public void setId(Long id) { this.id = id; } @Override public T getModel() { return model; } public void setModel(T model) { this.model = model; } } I have another action which is not currently model-driven: public class OtherAction implements Preparable { private ModelObj modelObj; private Long modelId; @Override public void prepare() { modelObj = repoService.retrieveModelById(modelId); } public void setModelId(Long modelId) { this.modelId = modelId; } } I wish to make it so, and would like to avoid having to track down all the instances in JavaScript where the action is passed a "modelId" parameter instead of "id" if at all possible. I thought this might work, so either modelId or id could be passed in: public class OtherAction extends ModelDrivenAction<ModelObj> { @Override public void prepare() { model = repoService.retrieveModelById(id); } public void setModelId(Long modelId) { this.id = modelId; } } However, server/path/to/other!method?modelId=123 is failing to set id. I thought so long as a setter matched a parameter name the Struts interceptor would call it on action invocation. Am I missing something here?

    Read the article

  • How to override the attr_protected?

    - by KandadaBoggu
    I have STI implementation as follows: class Automobile < ActiveRecord::Base end class Car < Automobile end class Truck < Automobile end class User < ActiveRecord::Base has_many :automobiles accepts_nested_attributes_for :automobiles end I am creating a list of automobiles for a user. For each automobile, the UI sets the type field and the properties associated with the automobile.While form submission, the type field is ignored as it is a protected attribute. How do I work around this issue? Is there a declarative way to unprotect a protected attribute?

    Read the article

  • (Cocoa) Can I Subclass and Delegate at the same time?

    - by Alvin
    @interface ClassB <ClassADelegate> : ClassA id <ClassBDelegate> delegate; @end As the code says, ClassB subclasses from ClassA and handles the formation protocol of Class A. However, the variable "delegate" will be duplicated. (ClassA also has "delegate") In fact, it can be done without subclassing, but it seems the code is cumbersome, i.e., to use a variable/function of ClassA, I need to write [[ClassB classA] doSomething] instead of [classB doSomething], where doSomething: is a function of ClassA. Are there any tidy way for me to do that?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140  | Next Page >