Search Results

Search found 1008 results on 41 pages for 'generics'.

Page 19/41 | < Previous Page | 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26  | Next Page >

• I can't find the cause of an "unchecked or unsafe operations" warning in Java.

  - by Peter

  Hello, as per the title I am struggling to find the cause of an "unchecked or unsafe operations" warning in some code. If I have the following code, it compiles without any warnings: public void test() { Set<String> mySet = new HashSet<String>(); Set<String> myNewSet = mySet; //do stuff } Now, if I change where mySet comes from, specifically as the result of a method call, I get the "unchecked yadda yadda" warning: public void test() { Set<String> myNewSet = this.getSet(); //do stuff } public Set getSet() { Set<String> set = new HashSet<String>(); return set; } I have tried and tried to work out what the problem is and I am completely stumped. The issue is present whether I use Sets or Lists. Why would the Set returned by the getSet method be any different to the Set in the first example? Any help would be greatly appreciated as while the warning isn't the end of the world, it is bugging the hell out of me! :( Regards

  Read the article

• Is there a way to achieve covariance of generic types in C# 3.0?

  - by nullDev

  This has been introduced in C# 4.0, but is there a way to achieve this in c# 3.0? For e.g., consider the following code: class Base { } class Derived1 : Base { } class Derived2 : Base { } class User<T> where T : Base { } class User1 : User<Derived1> { } Now, I would like to have a list of User<T>, in which I can store User<Derived1> as well as User<Derived2>, but the following code fails to compile in C# 3.0: List<User<Base>> users = new List<User<Base>>(); users.Add(new User1()); Any ideas?

  Read the article

• Generic overriding tells me this is the same function. Not agree.

  - by serhio

  base class: Class List(Of T) Function Contains(ByVal value As T) As Boolean derived class: Class Bar : List(Of Exception) ' Exception type as example ' Function Contains(Of U)(ByVal value As U) As Boolean compiler tells me that that two are the same, so I need to declare Overloads/new this second function. But I want use U to differentiate the type (one logic) like NullReferenceException, ArgumentNull Exception, etc. but want to leave the base function(no differentiation by type - other logic) as well.

  Read the article

• Casting Generic Types

  - by David Rutten

  Public Function CastToT(Of T)(ByVal GenericType(Of Object) data) As GenericType(Of T) Return DirectCast(data, GenericType(Of T)) End Function The above clearly does not work. Is there any way to perform this cast if I know that all objects inside data are in fact of Type T?

  Read the article

• Generic property- specify the type at runtime

  - by Lirik

  I was reading a question on making a generic property, but I'm a little confused at by the last example from the first answer (I've included the relevant code below): You have to know the type at compile time. If you don't know the type at compile time then you must be storing it in an object, in which case you can add the following property to the Foo class: public object ConvertedValue { get { return Convert.ChangeType(Value, Type); } } That's seems strange: it's converting the value to the specified type, but it's returning it as an object when the value was stored as an object. Doesn't the returned object still require un-boxing? If it does, then why bother with the conversion of the type? I'm also trying to make a generic property whose type will be determined at run time: public class Foo { object Value {get;set;} Type ValType{get;set;} Foo(object value, Type type) { Value = value; ValType = type; } // I need a property that is actually // returned as the specified value type... public object ConvertedValue { get { return Convert.ChangeType(Value, ValType); } } } Is it possible to make a generic property? Does the return property still require unboxing after it's accessed?

  Read the article

• How do I read an attribute on a class at runtime?

  - by Zaff

  I am trying to create a generic method that will read an attribute on a class and return that value at runtime. How do would I do this? Note: DomainName attribute is of class DomainNameAttribute. [DomainName(“MyTable”)] Public class MyClass : DomianBase {} What I am trying to generate: //This should return “MyTable” String DomainNameValue = GetDomainName<MyClass>();

  Read the article

• Converting Generic Type into reference type after checking its type using GetType(). How ?

  - by Shantanu Gupta

  i am trying to call a function that is defined in a class RFIDeas_Wrapper(dll being used). But when i checked for type of reader and after that i used it to call function it shows me error Cannot convert type T to RFIDeas_Wrapper. EDIT private List<string> GetTagCollection<T>(T Reader) { TagCollection = new List<string>(); if (Reader.GetType() == typeof(RFIDeas_Wrapper)) { ((RFIDeas_Wrapper)Reader).OpenDevice(); // here Reader is of type RFIDeas_Wrapper //, but i m not able to convert Reader into its datatype. string Tag_Id = ((RFIDeas_Wrapper)Reader).TagID(); //Adds Valid Tag Ids into the collection if(Tag_Id!="0") TagCollection.Add(Tag_Id); } else if (Reader.GetType() == typeof(AlienReader)) TagCollection = ((AlienReader)Reader).TagCollection; return TagCollection; } ((RFIDeas_Wrapper)Reader).OpenDevice(); , ((AlienReader)Reader).TagCollection; I want this line to be executed without any issue. As Reader will always be of the type i m specifying. How to make compiler understand the same thing.

  Read the article

• Using C# Type as generic

  - by I Clark

  I'm trying to create a generic list from a specific Type that is retrieved from elsewhere: Type listType; // Passed in to function, could be anything var list = _service.GetAll<listType>(); However I get a build error of: The type or namespace name 'listType' could not be found (are you missing a using directive or an assembly reference?) Is this even possible or am I setting foot onto C# 4 Dynamic territory? As a background: I want to automatically load all lists with data from the repository. The code below get's passed a Form Model whose properties are iterated for any IEnum (where T inherits from DomainEntity). I want to fill the list with objects of the Type the list made of from the repository. public void LoadLists(object model) { foreach (var property in model.GetType() .GetProperties(BindingFlags.Public | BindingFlags.Instance | BindingFlags.SetProperty)) { if (IsEnumerableOfNssEntities(property.PropertyType)) { var listType = property.PropertyType.GetGenericArguments()[0]; var list = _repository.Query<listType>().ToList(); property.SetValue(model, list, null); } } }

  Read the article

• Why do we have contains(Object o) instead of contains(E e)?

  - by Vivin Paliath

  Is it to maintain backwards compatibility with older (un-genericized) versions of Collection? Or is there a more subtle detail that I am missing? I see this pattern repeated in remove also (remove(Object o)), but add is genericized as add(E e).

  Read the article

• Can't Use Generic C# Class in Using Statement

  - by Eric J.

  I'm trying to use a generic class in a using statement but the compiler can't seem to treat it as implementing IDisposable. using System; using System.Collections.Generic; using System.Linq; using System.Text; using System.Data.Objects; namespace Sandbox { public sealed class UnitOfWorkScope<T> where T : ObjectContext, IDisposable, new() { public void Dispose() { } } public class MyObjectContext : ObjectContext, IDisposable { public MyObjectContext() : base("DummyConnectionString") { } #region IDisposable Members void IDisposable.Dispose() { throw new NotImplementedException(); } #endregion } public class Consumer { public void DoSomething() { using (new UnitOfWorkScope<MyObjectContext>()) { } } } } Compiler error is: Error 1 'Sandbox.UnitOfWorkScope<Sandbox.MyObjectContext>': type used in a using statement must be implicitly convertible to 'System.IDisposable' I implemented IDisposable on UnitOfWorkScope (and to see if that was the problem, also on MyObjectContext). What am I missing?

  Read the article

• What should I name my files with generic class definitions?

  - by Tomas Lycken

  I'm writing a couple of classes that all have generic type arguments, but I need to overload the classes because I need a different number of arguments in different scenarios. Basically, I have public class MyGenericClass<T> { ... } public class MyGenericClass<T, K> { ... } public class MyGenericClass<T, K, L> { ... } // it could go on forever, but it won't... I want them all in the same namespace, but in one source file per class. What should I name the files? Is there a best practice?

  Read the article

• How am I able to create A List<T> containing a generic Interface?

  - by Conrad Clark

  I have a List which must contain IInteract Objects. But IInteract is a generic interface which requires 2 type arguments. My main idea is iterate through a list of Objects and "Interact" one with another if they didn't interact yet. So i have this object List<IObject> WorldObjects = new List<IObject>(); and this one: private List<IInteract> = new List<IInteract>(); Except I can't compile the last line because IInteract requires 2 type arguments. But I don't know what the arguments are until I add them. I could add interactions between Objects of Type A and A... or Objects of Type B and C. I want to create "Interaction" classes which do something with the "acting" object and the "target" object, but I want them to be independent from the objects... so I could add an Interaction between for instance... "SuperUltraClass" and... an "integer". Am I using the wrong approach?

  Read the article

• Generic Dictionary C#

  - by pm_2

  I have a class that inherits from a generic dictionary as follows: Class myClass : System.Collections.Generic.Dictionary<int, Object> I have added a list of values to this in a particular order, but I now wish to change that order. Is there any way (without removing and re-adding) that I could effectively re-index the values; so change the object at index 1 to now be at index 10 for example? For example, this doesn't work: myClass[1].Index = 10;

  Read the article

• Deserialize Stream to List<T> or any other type

  - by Sam

  Attempting to deserialize a stream to List<T> (or any other type) and am failing with the error: The type arguments for method 'Foo.Deserialize<T>(System.IO.Stream)' cannot be inferred from the usage. Try specifying the type arguments explicitly. This fails: public static T Deserialize<T>(this Stream stream) { BinaryFormatter bin = new BinaryFormatter(); return (T)bin.Deserialize(stream); } But this works: public static List<MyClass.MyStruct> Deserialize(this Stream stream) { BinaryFormatter bin = new BinaryFormatter(); return (List<MyClass.MyStruct>)bin.Deserialize(stream); } or: public static object Deserialize(this Stream stream) { BinaryFormatter bin = new BinaryFormatter(); return bin.Deserialize(stream); } Is it possible to do this without casting, e.g. (List<MyStruct>)stream.Deserialize()?

  Read the article

• Why doesn't Java support generic Throwables?

  - by polygenelubricants

  class Bouncy<T> extends Throwable { } // Error: the generic class Bouncy<T> may not subclass java.lang.Throwable Why doesn't Java support generic Throwables?

  Read the article

• Why does C# (4.0) not allow co- and contravariance in generic class types?

  - by Lars Corneliussen

  What is the reason for that limitation. Sure, one couldn't use fields, because they are allways read-write. But that can't be the answer, can it?

  Read the article

• .NET generic class instance - passing a variable data type

  - by FerretallicA

  As the title suggests, I'm tyring to pass a variable data type to a template class. Something like this: frmExample = New LookupForm(Of Models.MyClass) 'Works fine Dim SelectedType As Type = InstanceOfMyClass.GetType() 'Works fine frmExample = New LookupForm(Of SelectedType) 'Ba-bow! frmExample = New LookupForm(Of InstanceOfMyClass.GetType()) 'Ba-bow! LookupForm<Models.MyClass> frmExample; Type SelectedType = InstanceOfMyClass.GetType(); frmExample = new LookupForm<SelectedType.GetType()>(); //Ba-bow frmExample = new LookupForm<(Type)SelectedType>(); //Ba-bow I'm assuming it's something to do with the template being processed at compile time but even if I'm off the mark there, it wouldn't solve my problem anyway. I can't find any relevant information on using Reflection to instance template classes either. (How) can I create an instance of a dynamically typed repository at runtime?

  Read the article

• Does collections type conversion util methods already exist in any API?

  - by Delta

  interface TypeConverter<T, E> { T convert(E e); } class CollectionUtil() { public static <E> List<T> convertToList(List<E> fromList, TypeConverter<T, E> conv) { { if(fromList== null) return null; List<T> newList = new ArrayList<T>(fromList.size()) for(E e : fromList) { newList.add(conv.convert(e)); } return newList; } } Above code explains converting from List of String to List of Integer by implementing TypeConverter interface for String, Integer. Are there already any collections conversion utility methods exists in any API like list to set and so on?

  Read the article

• Traversing through an arbitrary dictionary tree structure in C#

  - by Rudism

  I am trying to write a recursive C# function that will operate on generic dictionaries of the form IDictionary<string, T> where T is either another IDictionary<string, T> or a string. My first failed attempt looked something like this: public string HandleDict(IDictionary<string, string> dict){ // handle the leaf-node here } public string HandleDict<T>(IDictionary<string, IDictionary<string, T>> dict){ // loop through children foreach(string key in dict.Keys){ HandleDict(dict[key]); } } I also tried variants of HandleDict<T>(IDictionary<string, T>) where T : IDictionary<string, T> but that also doesn't quite work. I know that what I want to do could be achieved through a custom class as the parameter instead of dictionaries, and that my attempts are conceptually flawed (there's no end to the recursion in the generic function). I would still like to know if there is actually a way to do what I want here using just generic IDictionaries.

  Read the article

• How to create a complete generic TreeView like data structure

  - by Nima Rikhtegar

  I want to create a completely generic treeview like structure. some thing like this: public class TreeView<T, K, L> { public T source; public K parent; public List<L> children; } as you can see in this class source, parent and also the children, all have a different generic data type. also i want my tree view to have unlimited number of levels (not just 3). this way when i want to work with my nodes in the code, all of them are going to be strongly typed. not just objects that i need to convert them to their original type. is it possible to create this kind of structure in c#, a treeview which all of its nodes are strongly typed? thanks

  Read the article

• Generic InBetween Function.

  - by Luiscencio

  I am tired of writing x > min && x < max so i wawnt to write a simple function but I am not sure if I am doing it right... actually I am not cuz I get an error: bool inBetween<T>(T x, T min, T max) where T:IComparable { return (x > min && x < max); } errors: Operator '>' cannot be applied to operands of type 'T' and 'T' Operator '<' cannot be applied to operands of type 'T' and 'T' may I have a bad understanding of the where part in the function declaring note: for those who are going to tell me that I will be writing more code than before... think on readability =) any help will be appreciated EDIT deleted cuz it was resolved =) ANOTHER EDIT so after some headache I came out with this (ummm) thing following @Jay Idea of extreme readability: public static class test { public static comparision Between<T>(this T a,T b) where T : IComparable { var ttt = new comparision(); ttt.init(a); ttt.result = a.CompareTo(b) > 0; return ttt; } public static bool And<T>(this comparision state, T c) where T : IComparable { return state.a.CompareTo(c) < 0 && state.result; } public class comparision { public IComparable a; public bool result; public void init<T>(T ia) where T : IComparable { a = ia; } } } now you can compare anything with extreme readability =) what do you think.. I am no performance guru so any tweaks are welcome

  Read the article

• What would be different in Java if Enum declaration didn't have the recursive part

  - by atamur

  Please see http://stackoverflow.com/questions/211143/java-enum-definition and http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3061759/why-in-java-enum-is-declared-as-enume-extends-enume for general discussion. Here I would like to learn what exactly would be broken (not typesafe anymore, or requiring additional casts etc) if Enum class was defined as public class Enum<E extends Enum> I'm using this code for testing my ideas: interface MyComparable<T> { int myCompare(T o); } class MyEnum<E extends MyEnum> implements MyComparable<E> { public int myCompare(E o) { return -1; } } class FirstEnum extends MyEnum<FirstEnum> {} class SecondEnum extends MyEnum<SecondEnum> {} With it I wasn't able to find any benefits in this exact case. PS. the fact that I'm not allowed to do class ThirdEnum extends MyEnum<SecondEnum> {} when MyEnum is defined with recursion is a) not relevant, because with real enums you are not allowed to do that just because you can't extend enum yourself b) not true - pls try it in a compiler and see that it in fact is able to compile w/o any errors PPS. I'm more and more inclined to believe that the correct answer here would be "nothing would change if you remove the recursive part" - but I just can't believe that.

  Read the article

• Can I Create A Generic Method of a Type of Interface?

  - by DaveDev

  Is it possible to create a generic method with a signature like public static string MyMethod<IMyTypeOfInterface>(object dataToPassToInterface) { // an instance of IMyTypeOfInterface knows how to handle // the data that is passed in } Would I have to instantiate the Interface with (T)Activator.CreateInstance();?

  Read the article

• Can a Generic Method handle both Reference and Nullable Value types?

  - by Adam Lassek

  I have a series of Extension methods to help with null-checking on IDataRecord objects, which I'm currently implementing like this: public static int? GetNullableInt32(this IDataRecord dr, int ordinal) { int? nullInt = null; return dr.IsDBNull(ordinal) ? nullInt : dr.GetInt32(ordinal); } public static int? GetNullableInt32(this IDataRecord dr, string fieldname) { int ordinal = dr.GetOrdinal(fieldname); return dr.GetNullableInt32(ordinal); } and so on, for each type I need to deal with. I'd like to reimplement these as a generic method, partly to reduce redundancy and partly to learn how to write generic methods in general. I've written this: public static Nullable<T> GetNullable<T>(this IDataRecord dr, int ordinal) { Nullable<T> nullValue = null; return dr.IsDBNull(ordinal) ? nullValue : (Nullable<T>) dr.GetValue(ordinal); } which works as long as T is a value type, but if T is a reference type it won't. This method would need to return either a Nullable type if T is a value type, and default(T) otherwise. How would I implement this behavior?

  Read the article

• How to declare a generic constraint that is a generic type

  - by HackedByChinese

  I have a two generic abstract types: Entity and Association. Let's say Entity looks like this: public class Entity<TId> { //... } and Association looks like this: public class Association<TEntity, TEntity2> { //... } How do I constrain Association so they can be of any Entity? I can accomplish it by the following: public class Association<TEntity, TId, TEntity2, TId2> where TEntity : Entity<TId> where TEntity2: Entity<TId2> { //... } This gets very tedious as more types derive from Association, because I have to keep passing down TId and TId2. Is there a simpler way to do this, besides just removing the constraint?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26  | Next Page >