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 26/41 | < Previous Page | 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33  | Next Page >

  • Create instance of generic type in Java?

    - by David Citron
    Is it possible to create an instance of a generic type in Java? I'm thinking based on what I've seen that the answer is "no" (due to type erasure), but I'd be interested if anyone can see something I'm missing: class SomeContainer<E> { E createContents() { return what??? } } EDIT: It turns out that Super Type Tokens could be used to resolve my issue, but it requires a lot of reflection-based code, as some of the answers below have indicated. I'll leave this open for a little while to see if anyone comes up with anything dramatically different than Ian Robertson's Artima Article.

    Read the article

  • Can i use a generic implicit or explicit operator? C#

    - by acidzombie24
    How do i change the following statement so it accepts any type instead of long? Now here is the catch, if there is no constructor i dont want it compiling. So if theres a constructor for string, long and double but no bool how do i have this one line work for all of these support types? ATM i just copied pasted it but i wouldnt like doing that if i had 20types (as trivial as the task may be) public static explicit operator MyClass(long v) { return new MyClass(v); }

    Read the article

  • Returnimng collection of interfaces

    - by apoorv020
    I have created the following interface public interface ISolutionSpace { public boolean isFeasible(); public boolean isSolution(); public Set<ISolutionSpace> generateChildren(); } However, in the implementation of ISolutionSpace in a class called EightQueenSolutionSpace, I am going to return a set of EightQueenSolutionSpace instances, like the following stub: @Override public Set<ISolutionSpace> generateChildren() { return new HashSet<EightQueenSolutionSpace>(); } However this stub wont compile. What changes do I need to make? EDIT: I tried 'HashSet' as well and had tried using the extends keyword. However since 'ISolutionSpace' is an interface and EightQueenSolutionSpace is an implementation(and not a subclass) of 'ISolutionSpace', it is still not working.

    Read the article

  • C++Template in Java?

    - by RnMss
    I want something like this: public abstract class ListenerEx<LISTENER, PARENT> implements LISTENER { PARENT parent; public ListenerEx(PARENT p) { parent = p; } } But it doesn't compile. Is there a better solution? Is there something in Java like C++ template that would do check syntax after template deduction? The following explains why I need such a ListenerEX class, if you already know what it is, you don't need to read the following. I have a main window, and a button on it, and I want to get access to some method of the main window's within the listener: public class MainWindow extends JFrame { public void doSomething() { /* ... */ } public void doSomethingElse() { /* ... */ } private JButton button; public MainWindow() { button = new JButton(...); add(button); button.setActionListener(new ActionListener() { public void actionPerformed(ActionEvent e) { doSomething(); doSomethingElse(); } }); } } This would compile but does not work properly all the time. (Why would it compile when the ActionListener does not have doSomething() method?) Of course we can do it like this: public class MainWindow extends JFrame { public void doSomething() { } public void doSomethingElse() { } private JButton button; public MainWindow() { button = new JButton(...); add(button); class ActionListener1 implements ActionListener { MainWindow parent; public ActionListener(MainWindow p) { parent = p; } public void actionPerformed(ActionEvent e) { parent.doSomething(); parent.doSomethingElse(); } } button.setActionListener(new ActionListener1(this)); } } However I hate this style ... So I tried: public abstract class ActionListenerEx<P> implements ActionListener { P parent; public ActionListenerEx(P p) { parent = p; } } public class MainWindow extends JFrame { public void doSomething() { } public void doSomethingElse() { } private JButton button; public MainWindow() { button = new JButton(...); add(button); button.setActionListener(new ActionListenerEx<MainWindow>(this) { public void actionPerformed(ActionEvent e) { parent.doSomething(); parent.doSomethingElse(); } }); } } But there's lots of Listeners beside the ActionListener ... public abstract class ActionListenerEx<LISTENER, PARENT> implements LISTENER { PARENT parent; public ActionListenerEx(PARENT p) { parent = p; } } However, it won't compile ... I am fresh at Java, and I wonder if there's already better solution.

    Read the article

  • How to convert value of Generic Type Argument to a concrete type?

    - by Aleksey Bieneman
    I am trying to convert the value of the generic type parameter T value into integer after making sure that T is in fact integer: public class Test { void DoSomething<T>(T value) { var type = typeof(T); if (type == typeof(int)) { int x = (int)value; // Error 167 Cannot convert type 'T' to 'int' int y = (int)(object)value; // works though boxing and unboxing } } } Although it works through boxing and unboxing, this is an additional performance overhead and i was wandering if there's a way to do it directly. Thank you!

    Read the article

  • Getting class Type information for Elements on a collection

    - by DutrowLLC
    I would like to get gain access to the type of Object held in a Collection. Below is a simplified example of when and why I might want to do this. Is this even possible? List<Address> addressList = new LinkedList<Address>(); Main.addElement(addressList); Class Main{ public void addElement(Object inArgument){ List<Object> argument = (List<Object>)inArgument; argument.add( /* WOULD LIKE TO CREATE A NEW OBJECT OF THE APPROPRIATE TYPE HERE, IN THIS CASE, IT WOULD BE OF TYPE: "Address" */ ); } }

    Read the article

  • c# Why can't open generic types be passed as parameters?

    - by Rich Oliver
    Why can't open generic types be passed as parameters. I frequently have classes like: public class Example<T> where T: BaseClass { public int a {get; set;} public List<T> mylist {get; set;} } Lets say BaseClass is as follows; public BaseClass { public int num; } I then want a method of say: public int MyArbitarySumMethod(Example example)//This won't compile Example not closed { int sum = 0; foreach(BaseClass i in example.myList)//myList being infered as an IEnumerable sum += i.num; sum = sum * example.a; return sum; } I then have to write an interface just to pass this one class as a parameter as follows: public interface IExample { public int a {get; set;} public IEnumerable<BaseClass> myIEnum {get;} } The generic class then has to be modified to: public class Example<T>: IExample where T: BaseClass { public int a {get; set;} public List<T> mylist {get; set;} public IEnumerable<BaseClass> myIEnum {get {return myList;} } } That's a lot of ceremony for what I would have thought the compiler could infer. Even if something can't be changed I find it psychologically very helpful if I know the reasons / justifications for the absence of Syntax short cuts.

    Read the article

  • Convert Text with newlines to a List<String>

    - by Vaccano
    I need a way to take a list of numbers in string form to a List object. Here is an example: string ids = "10\r\n11\r\n12\r\n13\r\n14\r\n15\r\n16\r\n17\r\n18\r\n19"; List<String> idList = new List<String>(); idList.SomeCoolMethodToParseTheText(ids); <------+ | foreach (string id in idList) | { | // Do stuff with each id. | } | | // This is the Method that I need ----------------+ Is there something in the .net library so that I don't have to write the SomeCoolMethodToParseTheText myself?

    Read the article

  • understanding syb boilerplate elimination

    - by Pradeep
    In the example given in http://web.archive.org/web/20080622204226/http://www.cs.vu.nl/boilerplate/ -- Increase salary by percentage increase :: Float -> Company -> Company increase k = everywhere (mkT (incS k)) -- "interesting" code for increase incS :: Float -> Salary -> Salary incS k (S s) = S (s * (1+k)) how come increase function compiles without binding anything for the first Company mentioned in its type signature. Is it something like assigning to a partial function? Why is it done like that?

    Read the article

  • C# - Why can't I enforce derived classes to have parameterless constructors?

    - by FrisbeeBen
    I am trying to do the following: public class foo<T> where T : bar, new { _t = new T(); private T _t; } public abstract class bar { public abstract void someMethod(); // Some implementation } public class baz : bar { public overide someMethod(){//Implementation} } And I am attempting to use it as follows: foo<baz> fooObject = new foo<baz>(); And I get an error explaining that 'T' must be a non-abstract type with a public parameterless constructor in order to use it as parameter 'T' in the generic type or method. I fully understand why this must be, and also understand that I could pass a pre-initialized object of type 'T' in as a constructor argument to avoid having to 'new' it, but is there any way around this? any way to enforce classes that derive from 'bar' to supply parameterless constructors?

    Read the article

  • [VB.Net] Typecasting generic parameters.

    - by CFP
    Hello world! Using the following code: Function GetSetting(Of T)(ByVal SettingName As String, ByRef DefaultVal As T) As T Return If(Configuration.ContainsKey(SettingName), CType(Configuration(SettingName), T), DefaultVal) End Function Yields the following error: Value of type 'String' cannot be converted to 'T'. Any way I could specify that in all cases, the conversion will indeed be possible (I'm basically getting integers, booleans, doubles and strings). Thanks!

    Read the article

  • WCF: get generic type object (e.g. MyObject<T>) from remote machine

    - by Aaron
    I have two applications that are communicating through WCF. On the server the following object exists: public class MyObject<T> { ... public Entry<T> GetValue() } Where Entry<T> is another object with T Data as a public property. T could be any number of types (string, double, etc) On the client I have ClientObject<T> that needs to get the value of Data from the server (same type). Since I'm using WCF, I have to define my ServiceContract as an interface, and I can't have ClientObject<T> call Entry<T> GetMyObjectValue (string Name) which calls GetValue on the correct MyObject<T> because my interface isn't aware of the type information. I've tried implementing separate GetValue functions (GetMyObjectValueDouble, GetMyObjectValueString) in the interface and then have ClientObject determine the correct one to call. However, Entry<T> val = (Entry<T>)GetMyObjectValueDouble(...); doesn't work because it's not sure about the type information. How can I go about getting a generic object over WCF with the correct type information? Let me know if there are other details I can provide. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • How can I make this code more generic

    - by Greg
    Hi How could I make this code more generic in the sense that the Dictionary key could be a different type, depending on what the user of the library wanted to implement? For example someone might what to use the extension methods/interfaces in a case where there "unique key" so to speak for Node is actually an "int" not a "string" for example. public interface ITopology { Dictionary<string, INode> Nodes { get; set; } } public static class TopologyExtns { public static void AddNode(this ITopology topIf, INode node) { topIf.Nodes.Add(node.Name, node); } public static INode FindNode(this ITopology topIf, string searchStr) { return topIf.Nodes[searchStr]; } } public class TopologyImp : ITopology { public Dictionary<string, INode> Nodes { get; set; } public TopologyImp() { Nodes = new Dictionary<string, INode>(); } }

    Read the article

  • When is a parameterized method call useful?

    - by johann-christoph-jacob
    A Java method call may be parameterized like in the following code: class Test { <T> void test() { } public static void main(String[] args) { new Test().<Object>test(); // ^^^^^^^^ } } I found out this is possible from the Eclipse Java Formatter settings dialog and wondered if there are any cases where this is useful or required.

    Read the article

  • How to solve this Java type safety warning? (Struts2)

    - by Nicolas Raoul
    Map session = ActionContext.getContext().getSession(); session.put("user", user); This code generates a warning: Type safety: The method put(Object, Object) belongs to the raw type Map. References to generic type Map should be parameterized. Map<String, Serializable> session = (Map<String, Serializable>)ActionContext.getContext().getSession(); session.put("user", user); This code generates a warning: Type safety: Unchecked cast from Map to Map. The getSession method belongs to Struts2 so I can't modify it. I would like to avoid using @SuppressWarnings because other warnings can be useful. I guess all Struts2 users in the world faced the same problem... is there an elegant solution?

    Read the article

  • Convert IDictionary to Dictionary

    - by croisharp
    I have to convert System.Collections.Generic.IDictionary<string, decimal> to System.Collections.Generic.Dictionary<string, decimal>, and i can't. I tried the ToDictionary method and can't specify right arguments. I've tried the following: // my dictionary is PlannedSurfaces (of type IDictionary<string, decimal>) blabla.ToDictionary<string, decimal>(localConstruction.PlannedSurfaces)

    Read the article

  • Visual Studio 2008 having problems with namespaces when used as type in Generic coolection

    - by patrick
    I just upgraded last week from Visual Studio 2005 to 2008. I am having an issue with compiler resolving namespaces when I use a class as a type in a Generic collection. Intellisense recognizes the class and the compiler generates no errors when I use the class except when it is a type in a Generic collection declaration either as return type for a Property or as a parameter to a method. This is happening in my only project that is targeting the 3.5 framework, but changing the project containing the class to use the 3.5 framework doesn't fix the problem. Examples Compile fine MyClass myClass = new MyClass(); SortedList <DateTime,MyClass> listOfClasses = new SortedList<DateTime,MyClass> Compile error - Namespace could not be found public SortedList<DateTime,MyClass> ClassList { get; set; } private void DoSomethingToLists(SortedList<DateTime,MyClass> classList) Intellisense has no problem resolving the namespace, only the compiler. Is this a known bug or am I missing something obvious? Will SP1 fix it? I was able to create a new library containing just this class targeting 3.5 and am now able to successfully use this in both 3.5 and 2.0 projects. My guess is that even though I tried to change the target of my original library, since it was still referencing 2.0 projects there was some conflict.

    Read the article

  • C# Generic List constructor gives me a MethodAccessException

    - by evilfred
    Hi, I make a list in my code like so: List<IConnection> connections = new List<IConnection>(); where IConnection is my own interface. This is in a .NET 2.0 executable. If I run the code on my machine (with lots of .Net versions installed) it works fine. If I run it on my test machine (which only has .NET 3.5 SP1 installed) then I get a MethodAccessException in the System.Collections.Generic.List constructor. Any ideas what could be going wrong?

    Read the article

  • What's my best approach on this simple hierarchy Java Problem?

    - by Nazgulled
    First, I'm sorry for the question title but I can't think of a better one to describe my problem. Feel free to change it :) Let's say I have this abstract class Box which implements a couple of constructors, methods and whatever on some private variables. Then I have a couple of sub classes like BoxA and BoxB. Both of these implement extra things. Now I have another abstract class Shape and a few sub classes like Square and Circle. For both BoxA and BoxB I need to have a list of Shape objects but I need to make sure that only Square objects go into BoxA's list and only Circle objects go into BoxB's list. For that list (on each box), I need to have a get() and set() method and also a addShape() and removeShape() methods. Another important thing to know is that for each box created, either BoxA or BoxB, each respectively Shape list is exactly the same. Let's say I create a list of Square's named ls and two BoxA objects named boxA1 and boxA2. No matter what, both boxA1 and boxA2 must have the same ls list. This is my idea: public abstract class Box { // private instance variables public Box() { // constructor stuff } // public instance methods } public class BoxA extends Box { // private instance variables private static List<Shape> list; public BoxA() { // constructor stuff } // public instance methods public static List<Square> getList() { List<Square> aux = new ArrayList<Square>(); for(Square s : list.values()) { aux.add(s.clone()); // I know what I'm doing with this clone, don't worry about it } return aux; } public static void setList(List<Square> newList) { list = new ArrayList<Square>(newList); } public static void addShape(Square s) { list.add(s); } public static void removeShape(Square s) { list.remove(list.indexOf(s)); } } As the list needs to be the same for that type of object, I declared as static and all methods that work with that list are also static. Now, for BoxB the class would be almost the same regarding the list stuff. I would only replace Square by Triangle and the problem was solved. So, for each BoxA object created, the list would be only one and the same for each BoxB object created, but a different type of list of course. So, what's my problem you ask? Well, I don't like the code... The getList(), setList(), addShape() and removeShape() methods are basically repeated for BoxA and BoxB, only the type of the objects that the list will hold is different. I can't think of way to do it in the super class Box instead. Doing it statically too, using Shape instead of Square and Triangle, wouldn't work because the list would be only one and I need it to be only one but for each sub class of Box. How could I do this differently and better? P.S: I could not describe my real example because I don't know the correct words in English for the stuff I'm doing, so I just used a box and shapes example, but it's basically the same.

    Read the article

  • is there some lightweight tecnique for adding type safety to identifier properties?

    - by shoren
    After using C++ I got used to the concept of Identifier which can be used with a class for the type, provides type safety and has no runtime overhead (the actual size is the size of the primitive). I want to do something like that, so I will not make mistakes like: personDao.find(book.getId());//I want compilation to fail personDao.find(book.getOwnerId());//I want compilation to succeed Possible solutuions that I don't like: For every entity have an entity id class wrapping the id primitive. I don't like the code bloat. Create a generic Identifier class. Code like this will not compile: void foo(Identifier book); void foo(Identifier person); Does anyone know of a better way? Is there a library with a utility such as this? Is implementing this an overkill? And the best of all, can this be done in Java without the object overhead like in C++?

    Read the article

  • How do I make lambda functions generic in Scala?

    - by Electric Coffee
    As most of you probably know you can define functions in 2 ways in scala, there's the 'def' method and the lambda method... making the 'def' kind generic is fairly straight forward def someFunc[T](a: T) { // insert body here what I'm having trouble with here is how to make the following generic: val someFunc = (a: Int) => // insert body here of course right now a is an integer, but what would I need to do to make it generic? val someFunc[T] = (a: T) => doesn't work, neither does val someFunc = [T](a: T) => Is it even possible to make them generic, or should I just stick to the 'def' variant?

    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 | 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33  | Next Page >