Search Results

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

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

  • 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

  • '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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • Why calling ISet<dynamic>.Contains() compiles, but throws an exception at runtime?

    - by Andrey Breslav
    Please, help me to explain the following behavior: dynamic d = 1; ISet<dynamic> s = new HashSet<dynamic>(); s.Contains(d); The code compiles with no errors/warnings, but at the last line I get the following exception: Unhandled Exception: Microsoft.CSharp.RuntimeBinder.RuntimeBinderException: 'System.Collections.Generic.ISet<object>' does not contain a definition for 'Contains' at CallSite.Target(Closure , CallSite , ISet`1 , Object ) at System.Dynamic.UpdateDelegates.UpdateAndExecuteVoid2[T0,T1](CallSite site, T0 arg0, T1 arg1) at FormulaToSimulation.Program.Main(String[] args) in As far as I can tell, this is related to dynamic overload resolution, but the strange things are (1) If the type of s is HashSet<dynamic>, no exception occurs. (2) If I use a non-generic interface with a method accepting a dynamic argument, no exception occurs. Thus, it looks like this problem is related particularly with generic interfaces, but I could not find out what exactly causes the problem. Is it a bug in the compiler/typesystem, or legitimate behavior?

    Read the article

  • Java. Best procedure to de-serialize a Java generic object?

    - by Jake
    What is the best procedure for storing and retrieving, using native Java serialization, generic objects like ArrayList<String>? Edit: To clarify. When I serialize an object of type ArrayList<String> I'd like to de-serialize to the same type of object. However, I know of no way to cast back to this generic object without causing warnings.

    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

  • Where are the function address literals in c++?

    - by academicRobot
    First of all, maybe literals is not the right term for this concept, but its the closest I could think of (not literals in the sense of functions as first class citizens). <UPDATE> After some reading with help from answer by Chris Dodd, what I'm looking for is literal function addresses as template parameters. Chris' answer indicates how to do this for standard functions, but how can the addresses of member functions be used as template parameters? Since the standard prohibits non-static member function addresses as template parameters (c++03 14.3.2.3), I suspect the work around is quite complicated. Any ideas for a workaround? Below the original form of the question is left as is for context. </UPDATE> The idea is that when you make a conventional function call, it compiles to something like this: callq <immediate address> But if you make a function call using a function pointer, it compiles to something like this: mov <memory location>,%rax callq *%rax Which is all well and good. However, what if I'm writing a template library that requires a callback of some sort with a specified argument list and the user of the library is expected to know what function they want to call at compile time? Then I would like to write my template to accept a function literal as a template parameter. So, similar to template <int int_literal> struct my_template {...};` I'd like to write template <func_literal_t func_literal> struct my_template {...}; and have calls to func_literal within my_template compile to callq <immediate address>. Is there a facility in C++ for this, or a work around to achieve the same effect? If not, why not (e.g. some cataclysmic side effects)? How about C++0x or another language? Solutions that are not portable are fine. Solutions that include the use of member function pointers would be ideal. I'm not particularly interested in being told "You are a <socially unacceptable term for a person of low IQ>, just use function pointers/functors." This is a curiosity based question, and it seems that it might be useful in some (albeit limited) applications. It seems like this should be possible since function names are just placeholders for a (relative) memory address, so why not allow more liberal use (e.g. aliasing) of this placeholder. p.s. I use function pointers and functions objects all the the time and they are great. But this post got me thinking about the don't pay for what you don't use principle in relation to function calls, and it seems like forcing the use of function pointers or similar facility when the function is known at compile time is a violation of this principle, though a small one. Edit The intent of this question is not to implement delegates, rather to identify a pattern that will embed a conventional function call, (in immediate mode) directly into third party code, possibly a template.

    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

  • Cannot call action method 'System.Web.Mvc.PartialViewResult Foo[T](T)' on controller 'Controller' be

    - by MedicineMan
    Cannot call action method 'System.Web.Mvc.PartialViewResult FooT' on controller 'Controller' because the action method is a generic method <% Html.RenderAction("Foo", model = Model}); %> Is there a workaround for this limitation on ASP MVC 2? I would really prefer to use a generic. The workaround that I have come up with is to change the model type to be an object. It works, but is not preferred: public PartialViewResult Foo<T>(T model) where T : class { // do stuff }

    Read the article

  • [C#] Problems with implementing generic IEnumerator and IComparable

    - by r0h
    Hi all! I'm working on an AVL Tree. The tree itself seems to be working but I need a iterator to walk through the values of the tree. Therefore I tried to implement the IEnumerator interace. Unfortunately I get a compile time error implementing IEnumerator and IComparable. First the code and below that the error. class AvlTreePreOrderEnumerator<T> : IEnumerator<T> where T :IComparable<T> { private AvlTreeNode<T> current = default(T); private AvlTreeNode<T> tree = null; private Queue<AvlTreeNode<T>> traverseQueue = null; public AvlTreePreOrderEnumerator(AvlTreeNode<T> tree) { this.tree = tree; //Build queue traverseQueue = new Queue<AvlTreeNode<T>>(); visitNode(this.tree.Root); } private void visitNode(AvlTreeNode<T> node) { if (node == null) return; else { traverseQueue.Enqueue(node); visitNode(node.LeftChild); visitNode(node.RightChild); } } public T Current { get { return current.Value; } } object IEnumerator.Current { get { return Current; } } public void Dispose() { current = null; tree = null; } public void Reset() { current = null; } public bool MoveNext() { if (traverseQueue.Count > 0) current = traverseQueue.Dequeue(); else current = null; return (current != null); } } The error given by VS2008: Error 1 The type 'T' cannot be used as type parameter 'T' in the generic type or method 'Opdr2_AvlTreeTest_Final.AvlTreeNode'. There is no boxing conversion or type parameter conversion from 'T' to 'System.IComparable'. For now I've not included the tree and node logic. I anybody thinks is necessary to resolve this probleem, just say so! Thx!

    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

  • 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

  • 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

  • Where are the function literals in c++?

    - by academicRobot
    First of all, maybe literals is not the right term for this concept, but its the closest I could think of (not literals in the sense of functions as first class citizens). The idea is that when you make a conventional function call, it compiles to something like this: callq <immediate address> But if you make a function call using a function pointer, it compiles to something like this: mov <memory location>,%rax callq *%rax Which is all well and good. However, what if I'm writing a template library that requires a callback of some sort with a specified argument list and the user of the library is expected to know what function they want to call at compile time? Then I would like to write my template to accept a function literal as a template parameter. So, similar to template <int int_literal> struct my_template {...};` I'd like to write template <func_literal_t func_literal> struct my_template {...}; and have calls to func_literal within my_template compile to callq <immediate address>. Is there a facility in C++ for this, or a work around to achieve the same effect? If not, why not (e.g. some cataclysmic side effects)? How about C++0x or another language? Solutions that are not portable are fine. Solutions that include the use of member function pointers would be ideal. I'm not particularly interested in being told "You are a <socially unacceptable term for a person of low IQ>, just use function pointers/functors." This is a curiosity based question, and it seems that it might be useful in some (albeit limited) applications. It seems like this should be possible since function names are just placeholders for a (relative) memory address, so why not allow more liberal use (e.g. aliasing) of this placeholder. p.s. I use function pointers and functions objects all the the time and they are great. But this post got me thinking about the don't pay for what you don't use principle in relation to function calls, and it seems like forcing the use of function pointers or similar facility when the function is known at compile time is a violation of this principle, though a small one.

    Read the article

  • Typesafe fire-and-forget asynchronous delegate invocation in C#

    - by LBushkin
    I recently found myself needing a typesafe "fire-and-forget" mechanism for running code asynchronously. Ideally, what I would want to do is something like: var myAction = (Action)(() => Console.WriteLine("yada yada")); myAction.FireAndForget(); // async invocation Unfortunately, the obvious choice of calling BeginInvoke() without a corresponding EndInvoke() does not work - it results in a slow resource leak (since the asyn state is held by the runtime and never released ... it's expecting an eventual call to EndInvoke(). I also can't run the code on the .NET thread pool because it may take a very long time to complete (it's advised to only run relatively short-lived code on the thread pool) - this makes it impossible to use the ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(). Initially, I only needed this behavior for methods whose signature matches Action, Action<...>, or Func<...>. So I put together a set of extension methods (see listing below) that let me do this without running into the resource leak. There are overloads for each version of Action/Func. Unfortunately, I now want to port this code to .NET 4 where the number of generic parameters on Action and Func have been increased substantially. Before I write a T4 script to generate these, I was also hoping to find a simpler more elegant way to do this. Any ideas are welcome. public static class AsyncExt { public static void FireAndForget( this Action action ) { action.BeginInvoke(OnActionCompleted, action); } public static void FireAndForget<T1>( this Action<T1> action, T1 arg1 ) { action.BeginInvoke(arg1, OnActionCompleted<T1>, action); } public static void FireAndForget<T1,T2>( this Action<T1,T2> action, T1 arg1, T2 arg2 ) { action.BeginInvoke(arg1, arg2, OnActionCompleted<T1, T2>, action); } public static void FireAndForget<TResult>(this Func<TResult> func, TResult arg1) { func.BeginInvoke(OnFuncCompleted<TResult>, func); } public static void FireAndForget<T1,TResult>(this Func<T1, TResult> action, T1 arg1) { action.BeginInvoke(arg1, OnFuncCompleted<T1,TResult>, action); } // more overloads of FireAndForget<..>() for Action<..> and Func<..> private static void OnActionCompleted( IAsyncResult result ) { var action = (Action)result.AsyncState; action.EndInvoke(result); } private static void OnActionCompleted<T1>( IAsyncResult result ) { var action = (Action<T1>)result.AsyncState; action.EndInvoke( result ); } private static void OnActionCompleted<T1,T2>(IAsyncResult result) { var action = (Action<T1,T2>)result.AsyncState; action.EndInvoke(result); } private static void OnFuncCompleted<TResult>( IAsyncResult result ) { var func = (Func<TResult>)result.AsyncState; func.EndInvoke( result ); } private static void OnFuncCompleted<T1,TResult>(IAsyncResult result) { var func = (Func<T1, TResult>)result.AsyncState; func.EndInvoke(result); } // more overloads of OnActionCompleted<> and OnFuncCompleted<> }

    Read the article

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