Search Results

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

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 20/41 | < Previous Page | 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27  | Next Page >

  • 'Lexical' scoping of type parameters in C#

    - by leppie
    I have 2 scenarios. This fails: class F<X> { public X X { get; set; } } error CS0102: The type 'F' already contains a definition for 'X' This works: class F<X> { class G { public X X { get; set; } } } The only logical explanation is that in the second snippet the type parameter X is out of scope, which is not true... Why should a type parameter affect my definitions in a type? IMO, for consistency, either both should work or neither should work. Any other ideas? PS: I call it 'lexical', but it probably is not not the correct term.

    Read the article

  • Use component id in Castle Windsor generic object configuration

    - by ChoccyButton
    2 questions in one, but very much related. Is it possible with Castle Windsor to resolve a configuration entry such as - Assembly.Namespace.Object1`2[[${ComponentId1}],[${ComponentId2}]], Assembly Where ComponentId1 and ComponentId2 are defined as components. Castle Windsor doesn't seem to be resolving the ComponentId, it is just looking for ComponentId1 in the Castle.Windsor assembly. The second question comes in to play if you can't do the first question. If you have to use a full assembly reference instead of a ComponentId, how can you pass any parameters to the object being created? eg to set ComponentId1.Field1 = "blah", or pass something to the constructor of ComponentId1 Hope that makes sense Update - Following the request for code I've knocked together the following - Objects public class Wrapper<T, T1> where T : ICollector where T1:IProcessor { private T _collector; private T1 _processor; public Wrapper(T collector, T1 processor) { _collector = collector; _processor = processor; } public void GetData() { _collector.CollectData(); _processor.ProcessData(); } } public class Collector1 : ICollector { public void CollectData() { Console.WriteLine("Collecting data from Collector1 ..."); } } public class Processor1 : IProcessor { public void ProcessData() { Console.WriteLine("Processing data from Processor1 ..."); } } repeated so 3 of each type of object in the example Config <components> <component id="Collector1" service="CastleWindsorPlay.ICollector, CastleWindsorPlay" type="CastleWindsorPlay.Collector1, CastleWindsorPlay"/> <component id="Collector2" service="CastleWindsorPlay.ICollector, CastleWindsorPlay" type="CastleWindsorPlay.Collector2, CastleWindsorPlay"/> <component id="Collector3" service="CastleWindsorPlay.ICollector, CastleWindsorPlay" type="CastleWindsorPlay.Collector3, CastleWindsorPlay"/> <component id="Processor1" service="CastleWindsorPlay.IProcessor, CastleWindsorPlay" type="CastleWindsorPlay.Processor1, CastleWindsorPlay"/> <component id="Processor2" service="CastleWindsorPlay.IProcessor, CastleWindsorPlay" type="CastleWindsorPlay.Processor2, CastleWindsorPlay"/> <component id="Processor3" service="CastleWindsorPlay.IProcessor, CastleWindsorPlay" type="CastleWindsorPlay.Processor3, CastleWindsorPlay"/> <component id="Wrapper1" type="CastleWindsorPlay.Wrapper`2[[CastleWindsorPlay.Collector1, CastleWindsorPlay],[CastleWindsorPlay.Processor3, CastleWindsorPlay]], CastleWindsorPlay" /> </components> Instantiation var wrapper = (Wrapper<ICollector, IProcessor>) container.Resolve("Wrapper1"); wrapper.GetData(); This brief example errors with this error message though - Can't create component 'Wrapper1' as it has dependencies to be satisfied. Wrapper1 is waiting for the following dependencies: Services: - CastleWindsorPlay.Collector1 which was not registered. - CastleWindsorPlay.Processor3 which was not registered. The curious part about this is that I can get it to resolve Collector1 and Processor3 individually before the call to the wrapper, but the wrapper still can't see them. This is a basic example, the next thing I'd like to be able to do is when instantiating the Wrapper, set a property on the collector and/or processor. So it could be something like Collector.Id = 10, but set in the config where the wrapper is defined. Setting against the Collector component definition wouldn't work as I'd want to be able to instantiate multiple copies of each Collector, using different Id's Update 2 What I'm actually trying to do is have - <components> <component id="Wrapper1" type="CastleWindsorPlay.Wrapper`2[${Collector1}(id=1)],[${Processor3}]], CastleWindsorPlay" /> <component id="Wrapper2" type="CastleWindsorPlay.Wrapper`2[${Collector1}(id=3)],[${Processor3}]], CastleWindsorPlay" /> </components> Then have another object defined as <component id="Manager" type="CastleWindsorPlay.Manager,CastleWindsorPlay"> <parameters> <wrappers> <array> <item>${Wrapper1}</item> <item>${Wrapper2}</item> </array> </wrappers> </parameters> Then finally in code just be able to call - var manager = (Manager)container.Resolve("Manager"); This should return the manager object, with an array of wrappers populated and the wrappers configured with the correct Collector and Convertor. I know there are errors in the Castle config here, that's why I'm asking the question, I don't know how to set the config up to do what I'm after, or even if it's possible to do it in Castle Windsor

    Read the article

  • How to use List<T>.Find() on a simple collection that does not implement Find()?

    - by Bilal
    Hi, I want to use List.Find() on a simple collection that does not implement Find(). The naive way I thought of, is to just wrap it with a list and execute .Find(), like this: ICollection myCows = GetAllCowsFromFarm(); // whatever the collection impl. is... var steak = new List<Cow>(myCows).Find(moo => moo.Name == "La Vache qui Rit"); Now, 1st of all I'd like to know, C#-wise, what is the cost of this wrapping? Is it still faster to 'for' this collection the traditional way? Second, is there a better straightforward way elegantly use that .Find()? Cheers!

    Read the article

  • How to extend this design for a generic converter in java?

    - by Jay
    Here is a small currency converter piece of code: public enum CurrencyType { DOLLAR(1), POUND(1.2), RUPEE(.25); private CurrencyType(double factor) { this.factor = factor; } private double factor; public double getFactor() { return factor; } } public class Currency { public Currency(double value, CurrencyType type) { this.value = value; this.type = type; } private CurrencyType type; private double value; public CurrencyType getCurrencyType() { return type; } public double getCurrencyValue() { return value; } public void setCurrenctyValue(double value){ this.value = value; } } public class CurrencyConversion { public static Currency convert(Currency c1, Currency c2) throws Exception { if (c1 != null && c2 != null) { c2.setCurrenctyValue(c1.getCurrencyValue() * c1.getCurrencyType().getFactor() * c2.getCurrencyType().getFactor()); return c2; } else throw new Exception(); } } I would like to improve this code to make it work for different units of conversion, for example: kgs to pounds, miles to kms, etc etc. Something that looks like this: public class ConversionManager<T extends Convertible> { public T convert(T c1, T c2) { //return null; } } Appreciate your ideas and suggestions.

    Read the article

  • Shallow copying a list with downcasting

    - by Mohit
    I have the class herichary as follows CEntity----CNode---CElement I have a class Nodes : List<Cnode> and Class Elements : List<Element> Node class contain common item common across different project Element class has item specific to a project. I have to shallow copy the element list into the node list (basically down casting the elements to nodes)

    Read the article

  • Generic extension method returning IEnumerable<T> without using reflection

    - by roosteronacid
    Consider this snippet of code: public static class MatchCollectionExtensions { public static IEnumerable<T> AsEnumerable<T>(this MatchCollection mc) { return new T[mc.Count]; } } And this class: public class Ingredient { public String Name { get; set; } } Is there any way to magically transform a MatchCollection object to a collection of Ingredient? The use-case would look something like this: var matches = new Regex("([a-z])+,?").Matches("tomato,potato,carrot"); var ingredients = matches.AsEnumerable<Ingredient>();

    Read the article

  • Why is Delphi unable to infer the type for a parameter TEnumerable<T>?

    - by deepc
    Consider the following declaration of a generic utility class in Delphi 2010: TEnumerableUtils = class public class function InferenceTest<T>(Param: T): T; class function Count<T>(Enumerable: TEnumerable<T>): Integer; overload; class function Count<T>(Enumerable: TEnumerable<T>; Filter: TPredicate<T>): Integer; overload; end; Somehow the compiler type inference seems to have problems here: var I: Integer; L: TList<Integer>; begin TEnumerableUtils.InferenceTest(I); // no problem here TEnumerableUtils.Count(L); // does not compile: E2250 There is no overloaded version of 'Count' that can be called with these arguments TEnumerableUtils.Count<Integer>(L); // compiles fine end; The first call works as expected and T is correctly inferred as Integer. The second call does not work, unless I also add <Integer -- then it works, as can be seen in the third call. Am I doing something wrong or is the type inference in Delphi just not supporting this (I don't think it is a problem in Java which is why expected it to work in Delphi, too).

    Read the article

  • Create generic class instance throws TypeLoadException

    - by Elisa
    My TestLayer class has the namespace: "BLL.Infrastructure.TestLayer" and is inside the assembly: "BLL" public class LayerFactory<T, U> { public static IBaseLayer<T, U> Get() { var obj = Activator.CreateInstance("BLL", "BLL.Infrastructure.TestLayer", new object[] { (IBaseLayer<T, U>)null }); } } When I run the code the Activator throws an TypeLoadException with no more details Thats the concrete class it should create: GenericBaseLayer implements the IBaseLayer. public class TestLayer<T, U> : GenericBaseLayer<MyRequest, MyInfo.ActionType> { public TestLayer(IBaseLayer<MyRequest, MyInfo.ActionType> layer) : base(layer) { } } What do I wrong?

    Read the article

  • How to create a generic C free function .

    - by nomemory
    I have some C structures related to a 'list' data structure. They look like this. struct nmlist_element_s { void *data; struct nmlist_element_s *next; }; typedef struct nmlist_element_s nmlist_element; struct nmlist_s { void (*destructor)(void *data); int (*cmp)(const void *e1, const void *e2); unsigned int size; nmlist_element *head; nmlist_element *tail; }; typedef struct nmlist_s nmlist; This way I can have different data types being hold in "nmlist_element-data" . The "constructor" (in terms of OOP) has the following signature: nmlist *nmlist_alloc(void (*destructor)(void *data)); Where "destructor" is specific function that de-allocated "data" (being hold by the nmlist_element). If I want to have a list containing integers as data, my "destructor" would like this: void int_destructor(void *data) { free((int*)data); } Still i find it rather "unfriendly" for me to write a destructor functions for every simple primitive data type. So is there a trick to write something like this ? (for primitives): void "x"_destructor(void *data, "x") { free(("x" *)data); } PS: I am not a macro fan myself, and in my short experience regarding C, i don't use them, unless necessary.

    Read the article

  • Cast Object to Generic List

    - by CrazyJoe
    I have 3 generict type list. List<Contact> = new List<Contact>(); List<Address> = new List<Address>(); List<Document> = new List<Document>(); And save it on a variable with type object. Now i nedd do Cast Back to List to perfom a foreach, some like this: List<Contact> = (List<Contact>)obj; But obj content change every time, and i have some like this: List<???> = (List<???>)obj; I have another variable holding current obj Type: Type t = typeof(obj); Can i do some thing like that??: List<t> = (List<t>)obj; Obs: I no the current type in the list but i need to cast , and i dont now another form instead: List<Contact> = new List<Contact>(); Help Plz!!!

    Read the article

  • How to modify TList<record> value?

    - by Astronavigator
    How to modify TList < record value ? type TTest = record a,b,c:Integer end; var List:TList<TTest>; A:TTest; P:Pointer; .... .... List[10] := A; <- OK List[10].a:=1; <- Here compiler error : Left side cannot be assined to P:=@List[10]; <- Error: Variable requied

    Read the article

  • Generic Type Parameter constraints in C# .NET

    - by activwerx
    Consider the following Generic class: public class Custom<T> where T : string { } This produces the following error: 'string' is not a valid constraint. A type used as a constraint must be an interface, a non-sealed class or a type parameter. Is there another way to constrain which types my generic class can use? Also, can I constrain to multiple types? E.G. T can only be string, int or byte

    Read the article

  • Extract Generic types from extended Generic

    - by Brigham
    I'm trying to refactor a class and set of subclasses where the M type does extend anything, even though we know it has to be a subclass of a certain type. That type is parametrized and I would like its parametrized types to be available to subclasses that already have values for M. Is there any way to define this class without having to include the redundant K and V generic types in the parameter list. I'd like to be able to have the compiler infer them from whatever M is mapped to by subclasses. public abstract class NewParametrized<K, V, M extends SomeParametrized<K, V>> { public void someMethodThatTakesKAndV(K k1, V v1) { } } In other words, I'd like the class declaration to look something like: public class NewParametrized<M extends SomeParametrized<K, V>> { And K and V's types would be inferred from the definition of M.

    Read the article

  • C# Calling Methods in Generic Classes

    - by aip.cd.aish
    I am extending the ImageBox control from EmguCV. The control's Image property can be set to anything implementing the IImage interface. All of the following implement this interface: Image<Bgr, Byte> Image<Ycc, Byte> Image<Hsv, Byte> Now I want to call the Draw method on the object of the above type (what ever it may be). The problem is when I access the Image property, the return type is IImage. IImage does not implement the Draw method, but all of the above do. I believe I can cast the object of type IImage to one of the above (the right one) and I can access the Draw method. But how do I know what the right one is? If you have a better way of doing this, please suggest that as well.

    Read the article

  • Scala type inference failure on "? extends" in Java code

    - by oxbow_lakes
    I have the following simple Java code: package testj; import java.util.*; public class Query<T> { private static List<Object> l = Arrays.<Object>asList(1, "Hello", 3.0); private final Class<? extends T> clazz; public static Query<Object> newQuery() { return new Query<Object>(Object.class); } public Query(Class<? extends T> clazz) { this.clazz = clazz; } public <S extends T> Query<S> refine(Class<? extends S> clazz) { return new Query<S>(clazz); } public List<T> run() { List<T> r = new LinkedList<T>(); for (Object o : l) { if (clazz.isInstance(o)) r.add(clazz.cast(o)); } return r; } } I can call this from Java as follows: Query<String> sq = Query.newQuery().refine(String.class); //NOTE NO <String> But if I try and do the same from Scala: val sq = Query.newQuery().refine(classOf[String]) I get the following error: error: type mismatch found :lang.this.class[scala.this.Predef.String] required: lang.this.class[?0] forSome{ type ?0 <: ? } val sq = Query.newQuery().refine(classOf[String]) This is only fixed by the insertion of the correct type parameter! val sq = Query.newQuery().refine[String](classOf[String]) Why can't scala infer this from my argument? Note I am using Scala 2.7

    Read the article

  • Uses for static generic classes?

    - by Hightechrider
    What are the key uses of a Static Generic Class in C#? When should they be used? What examples best illustrate their usage? e.g. public static class Example<T> { public static ... } Since you can't define extension methods in them they appear to be somewhat limited in their utility. Web references on the topic are scarce so clearly there aren't a lot of people using them. Here's a couple:- http://ayende.com/Blog/archive/2005/10/05/StaticGenericClass.aspx http://stackoverflow.com/questions/686630/static-generic-class-as-dictionary

    Read the article

  • Is there a way to achieve covariance of generic types in C# 3.5?

    - by nullDev
    This has been introduced in C# 4.0, but is there a way to achieve this in c# 3.5? 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# 3.5: List<User<Base>> users = new List<User<Base>>(); users.Add(new User1()); Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • How to Work Around Limitations in Generic Type Constraints in C#?

    - by Jose
    Okay I'm looking for some input, I'm pretty sure this is not currently supported in .NET 3.5 but here goes. I want to require a generic type passed into my class to have a constructor like this: new(IDictionary<string,object>) so the class would look like this public MyClass<T> where T : new(IDictionary<string,object>) { T CreateObject(IDictionary<string,object> values) { return new T(values); } } But the compiler doesn't support this, it doesn't really know what I'm asking. Some of you might ask, why do you want to do this? Well I'm working on a pet project of an ORM so I get values from the DB and then create the object and load the values. I thought it would be cleaner to allow the object just create itself with the values I give it. As far as I can tell I have two options: 1) Use reflection(which I'm trying to avoid) to grab the PropertyInfo[] array and then use that to load the values. 2) require T to support an interface like so: public interface ILoadValues { void LoadValues(IDictionary values); } and then do this public MyClass<T> where T:new(),ILoadValues { T CreateObject(IDictionary<string,object> values) { T obj = new T(); obj.LoadValues(values); return obj; } } The problem I have with the interface I guess is philosophical, I don't really want to expose a public method for people to load the values. Using the constructor the idea was that if I had an object like this namespace DataSource.Data { public class User { protected internal User(IDictionary<string,object> values) { //Initialize } } } As long as the MyClass<T> was in the same assembly the constructor would be available. I personally think that the Type constraint in my opinion should ask (Do I have access to this constructor? I do, great!) Anyways any input is welcome.

    Read the article

  • Typed DefaultListModel to avoid casting

    - by Thomas R.
    Is there a way in java to have a ListModel that only accepts a certain type? What I'm looking for is something like DefaultListModel<String> oder TypedListModel<String>, because the DefaultListModel only implements addElement(Object obj) and get(int index) which returns Object of course. That way I always have to cast from Object to e.g. String and there is no guarantee that there are only strings in my model, even though I'd like to enforce that. Is this a flaw or am I using list models the wrong way?

    Read the article

  • List of objects plus a tag

    - by MC
    I want to store a list of objects, lets say of type Car, but with an additional 'tag' property eg a boolean True/False which does not belong on the Car class. What is the best way to accomplish this? I need to pass the result between methods.

    Read the article

  • Constraint Validation

    - by tanuja
    I am using javax.validation.Validator and relevant classes for annotation based validation. Configuration<?> configuration = Validation.byDefaultProvider().configure(); ValidatorFactory factory = configuration.buildValidatorFactory(); Validator validator = factory.getValidator(); Set<ConstraintViolation<ValidatableObject>> constraintViolations = validator.validate(o); for (ConstraintViolation<ValidatableObject> value : constraintViolations) { List< Class< ? extends ConstraintValidator< ? extends Annotation,?>>> list = value.getConstraintDescriptor().getConstraintValidatorClasses(); } I get a compilation error stating: Type mismatch: cannot convert from List< Class< ? extends ConstraintValidator< capture#4-of ?,? to List< Class< ? extends ConstraintValidator< ? extends Annotation,? What am I missing?

    Read the article

  • Type-safe mapping from Class<T> to Thing<T>

    - by Joonas Pulakka
    I want to make a map-kind of container that has the following interface: public <T> Thing<T> get(Class<T> clazz); public <T> void put(Class<T> clazz, Thing<T> thing); The interesting point is that the Ts in each Class<T><- Thing<T> pair is the same T, but the container should be able to hold many different types of pairs. Initially I tried a (Hash)Map. But, for instance, Map<Class<T>, Thing<T>> is not right, because then T would be same T for all pairs in that map. Of course, Map<Class<?>, Thing<?>> works, but then I don't have type-safety guarantees so that when I get(String.class), I can't be sure that I get a Thing<String> instance back. Is there a way to accomplish the kind of type safety that I'm looking for?

    Read the article

  • Is there a way to define a List<> of two elements string array?

    - by Alexander Prokofyev
    I want to build two-dimentional array of strings where length of one dimention is 2. Similar to this string[,] array = new string[,] { {"a", "b"}, {"c", "d"}, {"e", "f"}, {"g", "h"} } Doing List<string[]> list = new List<string[]>(); list.Add(new string[2] {"a", "b"}); list.Add(new string[2] {"c", "d"}); list.Add(new string[2] {"e", "f"}); list.Add(new string[2] {"g", "h"}); list.ToArray(); gives me string[][] but not string[,] array. Just curious, is there some trick to build dynamically string[,] array somehow?

    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 | 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27  | Next Page >