Search Results

Search found 2390 results on 96 pages for 'concrete inheritance'.

Page 35/96 | < Previous Page | 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42  | Next Page >

  • What's an elegant solution to get the property values from two classes (that have the same property

    - by SlipToFall
    Essentially I have to deal with a poorly implemented web service. They have two classes that don't derive from a parent class, but have the same properties (Ughh...). So it looks like this in my web service proxy class file: public partial class Product1 { public int Quantity; public int Price; } public partial class Product2 { public int Quantity; public int Price; } So what's the best way to grab the values from known properties without duplicating the code and casting to their respective classes? I know I probably could use reflection, but that can get ugly. If there is an easier less crazier way to do it (maybe in the new c# features?) please let me know.

    Read the article

  • How can one enforce calling a base class function after derived class constructor?

    - by Mike Elkins
    I'm looking for a clean C++ idiom for the following situation: class SomeLibraryClass { public: SomeLibraryClass() { /* start initialization */ } void addFoo() { /* we are a collection of foos */ } void funcToCallAfterAllAddFoos() { /* Making sure this is called is the issue */ } }; class SomeUserClass : public SomeLibraryClass { public: SomeUserClass() { addFoo(); addFoo(); addFoo(); // SomeUserClass has three foos. } }; class SomeUserDerrivedClass : public SomeUserClass { public: SomeUserDerrivedClass() { addFoo(); // This one has four foos. } }; So, what I really want is for SomeLibraryClass to enforce the calling of funcToCallAfterAllAddFoos at the end of the construction process. The user can't put it at the end of SomeUserClass::SomeUserClass(), that would mess up SomeUserDerrivedClass. If he puts it at the end of SomeUserDerrivedClass, then it never gets called for SomeUserClass. To further clarify what I need, imagine that /* start initialization */ acquires a lock, and funcToCallAfterAllAddFoos() releases a lock. The compiler knows when all the initializations for an object are done, but can I get at that information by some nice trick?

    Read the article

  • C++ Problem: Class Promotion using derived class

    - by Michael Fitzpatrick
    I have a class for Float32 that is derived from Float32_base class Float32_base { public: // Constructors Float32_base(float x) : value(x) {}; Float32_base(void) : value(0) {}; operator float32(void) {return value;}; Float32_base operator =(float x) {value = x; return *this;}; Float32_base operator +(float x) const { return value + x;}; protected: float value; } class Float32 : public Float32_base { public: float Tad() { return value + .01; } } int main() { Float32 x, y, z; x = 1; y = 2; // WILL NOT COMPILE! z = (x + y).Tad(); // COMPILES OK z = ((Float32)(x + y)).Tad(); } The issue is that the + operator returns a Float32_base and Tad() is not in that class. But 'x' and 'y' are Float32's. Is there a way that I can get the code in the first line to compile without having to resort to a typecast like I did on the next line?

    Read the article

  • Make sure base method gets called in C#

    - by Fnatte
    Can I somehow force a derived class to always call the overridden methods base? public class BaseClass { public virtual void Update() { if(condition) { throw new Exception("..."); // Prevent derived method to be called } } } And then in a derived class : public override void Update() { base.Update(); // Forced call // Do any work } I've searched and found a suggestion to use a non-virtual Update() but also a protected virtual UpdateEx(). It just doesn't feel very neat, isn't there any better way? I hope you get the question and I am sorry for any bad English.

    Read the article

  • Dynamic Object Not Creating for Privately Inherited Class.

    - by mahesh
    Hi, What is the reason for the following code that does not let me to create object. class base { public: void foo() { cout << "base::foo()"; } }; class derived : private base { public: void foo() { cout << "deived::foo()"; } }; void main() { base *d = new derived(); d->foo(); } It Gives me error : " 'type cast' : conversion from 'derived *' to 'base *' exists, but is inaccessible" Thanks in advance :)

    Read the article

  • calling a function from a set of overloads depending on the dynamic type of an object

    - by Jasper
    I feel like the answer to this question is really simple, but I really am having trouble finding it. So here goes: Suppose you have the following classes: class Base; class Child : public Base; class Displayer { public: Displayer(Base* element); Displayer(Child* element); } Additionally, I have a Base* object which might point to either an instance of the class Base or an instance of the class Child. Now I want to create a Displayer based on the element pointed to by object, however, I want to pick the right version of the constructor. As I currently have it, this would accomplish just that (I am being a bit fuzzy with my C++ here, but I think this the clearest way) object->createDisplayer(); virtual void Base::createDisplayer() { new Displayer(this); } virtual void Child::createDisplayer() { new Displayer(this); } This works, however, there is a problem with this: Base and Child are part of the application system, while Displayer is part of the GUI system. I want to build the GUI system independently of the Application system, so that it is easy to replace the GUI. This means that Base and Child should not know about Displayer. However, I do not know how I can achieve this without letting the Application classes know about the GUI. Am I missing something very obvious or am I trying something that is not possible?

    Read the article

  • Base form controls not visible in child form

    - by Kildareflare
    Hello I'm using C#.Net and have a base form that is inherited by several forms. Until yesterday, when the child (derived) form was opened in the designer the base forms controls would be displayed and shown as locked. Now, however the form is simply blank. None of the base forms controls are visible in the designer. Everything compiles, builds and runs OK. Has anyone else seen this? I've tried placing a call to the base forms InitializeComponent method in the derived forms OnLoad method but to no avail.

    Read the article

  • Generics in a bidirectional association

    - by Verhoevenv
    Let's say I have two classes A and B, with B a subtype of A. This is only part of a richer type hierarchy, obviously, but I don't think that's relevant. Assume A is the root of the hierarchy. There is a collection class C that keeps track of a list of A's. However, I want to make C generic, so that it is possible to make an instance that only keeps B's and won't accept A's. class A(val c: C[A]) { c.addEntry(this) } class B(c: C[A]) extends A(c) class C[T <: A]{ val entries = new ArrayBuffer[T]() def addEntry(e: T) { entries += e } } object Generic { def main(args : Array[String]) { val c = new C[B]() new B(c) } } The code above obviously give the error 'type mismatch: found C[B], required C[A]' on the new B(c) line. I'm not sure how this can be fixed. It's not possible to make C covariant in T (like C[+T <: A]) because the ArrayBuffer is non-variantly typed in T. It's not possible to make the constructor of B require a C[B] because C can't be covariant. Am I barking up the wrong tree here? I'm a complete Scala newbie, so any ideas and tips might be helpful. Thank you! EDIT: Basically, what I'd like to have is that the compiler accepts both val c = new C[B]() new B(c) and val c = new C[A]() new B(c) but would reject val c = new C[B]() new A(c) It's probably possible to relax the typing of the ArrayBuffer in C to be A instead of T, and thus in the addEntry method as well, if that helps.

    Read the article

  • Reading a Text file in xcode

    - by Nicolaj Zefting
    First off, I'm a complete beginner. This might be a stupid question, but here it goes: I'm currently working on an App than contains Latin texts that the users can view and read. I'm using Xcode 4 with the storybord function. Theway the app is built: user selects author - then the book - then app shows the text. I am kind of confused because i need to have various text files, depending on the users choice.

    Read the article

  • About calling an subclass' overriding method when casted to its superclass

    - by Omega
    #include <iostream> class Vehicle { public: void greet() { std::cout << "Hello, I'm a vehicle"; } }; class Car : public Vehicle { public: void greet() { std::cout << "Hello, I'm a car"; } }; class Bike : public Vehicle { public: void greet() { std::cout << "Hello, I'm a bike"; } }; void receiveVehicle(Vehicle vehicle) { vehicle.greet(); } int main() { receiveVehicle(Car()); return 0; } As you can see, I'm trying to send a parameter of type Vehicle to a function, which calls greet(). Car and Bike are subclasses of Vehicle. They overwrite greet(). However, I'm getting "Hello, I'm a vehicle". I suppose that this is because receiveVehicle receives a parameter of type Vehicle instead of a specific subclass like Car or Bike. But that's what I want: I want this function to work with any subclass of Vehicle. Why am I not getting the expected output?

    Read the article

  • Calling base Text method on custom TextBox

    - by The Demigeek
    I'm trying to create a CurrencyTextBox that inherits from TextBox. I'm seeing some really weird behavior that I just don't understand. After lots of testing, I think I can summarize as follows: In the class code, when I access base.Text (to get the textbox's text), I'm actually getting the return value of my overridden Text property. I thought the base keyword would ensure that the underlying object's methods get called. To demonstrate: public class cTestTextBox : System.Windows.Forms.TextBox { string strText = ""; public cTestTextBox() { SetVal("AAA"); base.Text = "TEST"; } public override string Text { get { string s = strText; s = "++" + s + "++"; return s; } } public void SetVal(string val) { strText = val; } } Place this control on a form and set a breakpoint on the constructor. Run the app. Hover your mouse over the base.Text expression. Note that the tooltip shows you the value of the overridden property, not the base property. Execute the SetVal() statement and again hover your mouse over the base.Text expression. Note that the tooltop shows you the value of the overridden property, not the base property. How do I reliably access the Text property of the textbox from which I'm inheriting?

    Read the article

  • "Overriding" instance variables in subtype: Possible risks?

    - by sebastiangeiger
    Say I had a class SuperClass and two subclasses SubClassA and SubClassB that inherit from SuperClass. abstract class SuperClass{ ... List someList; ... } class SubClassA extends SuperClass{ ... List<String> someList; ... } class SubClassB extends SuperClass{ ... List<Integer> someList; ... } That way it is convenient because I can get someList.size() in Superclass and have Typesafety in the Subclasses. The problem is that it does not "feel" right, can you think of potential hazards this apporach has that I am not aware of?

    Read the article

  • what would be the output?

    - by Abhishek Jain
    Please explain me below situation What would be the output? interface A{} class B implements A{} class C extends B{} Class D extends C{} class E extends D{ public static void main(String args[]){ C c = new C(); B b = c; A a = (E)c; A a = (B)c; C c = (C)(B)c; } }

    Read the article

  • How to Correct & Improve the Design of this Code?

    - by DaveDev
    HI Guys, I've been working on a little experiement to see if I could create a helper method to serialize any of my types to any type of HTML tag I specify. I'm getting a NullReferenceException when _writer = _viewContext.Writer; is called in protected virtual void Dispose(bool disposing) {/*...*/} I think I'm at a point where it almost works (I've gotten other implementations to work) and I was wondering if somebody could point out what I'm doing wrong? Also, I'd be interested in hearing suggestions on how I could improve the design? So basically, I have this code that will generate a Select box with a number of options: // the idea is I can use one method to create any complete tag of any type // and put whatever I want in the content area <% using (Html.GenerateTag<SelectTag>(Model, new { href = Url.Action("ActionName") })) { %> <%foreach (var fund in Model.Funds) {%> <% using (Html.GenerateTag<OptionTag>(fund)) { %> <%= fund.Name %> <% } %> <% } %> <% } %> This Html.GenerateTag helper is defined as: public static MMTag GenerateTag<T>(this HtmlHelper htmlHelper, object elementData, object attributes) where T : MMTag { return (T)Activator.CreateInstance(typeof(T), htmlHelper.ViewContext, elementData, attributes); } Depending on the type of T it'll create one of the types defined below, public class HtmlTypeBase : MMTag { public HtmlTypeBase() { } public HtmlTypeBase(ViewContext viewContext, params object[] elementData) { base._viewContext = viewContext; base.MergeDataToTag(viewContext, elementData); } } public class SelectTag : HtmlTypeBase { public SelectTag(ViewContext viewContext, params object[] elementData) { base._tag = new TagBuilder("select"); //base.MergeDataToTag(viewContext, elementData); } } public class OptionTag : HtmlTypeBase { public OptionTag(ViewContext viewContext, params object[] elementData) { base._tag = new TagBuilder("option"); //base.MergeDataToTag(viewContext, _elementData); } } public class AnchorTag : HtmlTypeBase { public AnchorTag(ViewContext viewContext, params object[] elementData) { base._tag = new TagBuilder("a"); //base.MergeDataToTag(viewContext, elementData); } } all of these types (anchor, select, option) inherit from HtmlTypeBase, which is intended to perform base.MergeDataToTag(viewContext, elementData);. This doesn't happen though. It works if I uncomment the MergeDataToTag methods in the derived classes, but I don't want to repeat that same code for every derived class I create. This is the definition for MMTag: public class MMTag : IDisposable { internal bool _disposed; internal ViewContext _viewContext; internal TextWriter _writer; internal TagBuilder _tag; internal object[] _elementData; public MMTag() {} public MMTag(ViewContext viewContext, params object[] elementData) { } public void Dispose() { Dispose(true /* disposing */); GC.SuppressFinalize(this); } protected virtual void Dispose(bool disposing) { if (!_disposed) { _disposed = true; _writer = _viewContext.Writer; _writer.Write(_tag.ToString(TagRenderMode.EndTag)); } } protected void MergeDataToTag(ViewContext viewContext, object[] elementData) { Type elementDataType = elementData[0].GetType(); foreach (PropertyInfo prop in elementDataType.GetProperties()) { if (prop.PropertyType.IsPrimitive || prop.PropertyType == typeof(Decimal) || prop.PropertyType == typeof(String)) { object propValue = prop.GetValue(elementData[0], null); string stringValue = propValue != null ? propValue.ToString() : String.Empty; _tag.Attributes.Add(prop.Name, stringValue); } } var dic = new Dictionary<string, object>(StringComparer.OrdinalIgnoreCase); var attributes = elementData[1]; if (attributes != null) { foreach (PropertyDescriptor descriptor in TypeDescriptor.GetProperties(attributes)) { object value = descriptor.GetValue(attributes); dic.Add(descriptor.Name, value); } } _tag.MergeAttributes<string, object>(dic); _viewContext = viewContext; _viewContext.Writer.Write(_tag.ToString(TagRenderMode.StartTag)); } } Thanks Dave

    Read the article

  • Nhibernate Common columns in base class

    - by sukh
    I want to design following scenario Base class (Id, Name, order, Value) 3 Derived classes derive1, derive2, derive3 inheriting properties from base There is no table for base class. And 1 table for each derived class. 3 tables have same columns. How can I create mapping file ignoring base class? Do I need to create 1 mapping file for each derived class? can I achieve this using only 1 mapping file?

    Read the article

  • C++ Dynamic object construction

    - by Rajesh Subramanian
    I have a base class, class Msg { ParseMsg() { ParseMsgData(); ParseTrailer(); } virtual void ParseMsgData() = 0; ParseTrailer(); }; and derived classes, class InitiateMsg { void ParseMsgData() { ... } }; class ReadOperationMsg { void ParseMsgData() { ... } }; class WriteOperationMsg { void ParseMsgData() { ... } }; and the scenario is below, void UsageFunction(string data) { Msg* msg = ParseHeader(data); ParseMsg } Msg* ParseHeader(string data) { Msg *msg = NULL; .... switch() { case 1: msg = new InitiateMsg(); break; case 2: msg = new ReadOperationMsg{(); break; case 3: msg = new WriteOperationMsg{(); break; .... } return msg; } based on the data ParseHeader method will decide which object has to be created, So I have implemented ParseHeader function outside the class where I am using. How can I make the ParseHeader function inside the Msg class and then use it? In C# the same is achieved by defining ParseHeader method as static with in class and use it from outside,

    Read the article

  • Does string inherits from Object in Javascript?

    - by Morgan Cheng
    Is Object the base class of all objects in Javascript, just like other language such as Java & C#? I tried below code in Firefox with Firebug installed. var t = new Object(); var s1 = new String('str'); var s2 = 'str'; console.log(typeof t); console.log(typeof s1); console.log(typeof s2); The console output is object object string So, s1 and s2 are of diffeent type?

    Read the article

  • How to have variables with dynamic data types in Java?

    - by Nazgulled
    Hi, I need to have a UserProfile class that it's just that, a user profile. This user profile has some vital user data of course, but it also needs to have lists of messages sent from the user friends. I need to save these messages in LinkedList, ArrayList, HashMap and TreeMap. But only one at a time and not duplicate the message for each data structure. Basically, something like a dynamic variable type where I could pick the data type for the messages. Is this, somehow, possible in Java? Or my best approach is something like this? I mean, have 2 different classes (for the user profile), one where I host the messages as Map<K,V> (and then I use HashMap and TreeMap where appropriately) and another class where I host them as List<E> (and then I use LinkedList and ArrayList where appropriately). And probably use a super class for the UserProfile so I don't have to duplicate variables and methods for fields like data, age, address, etc... Any thoughts?

    Read the article

  • javascript function object's inheritFrom method

    - by gawpertron
    I've come across this.inheritFrom that enables you to inherit from a super class. var superClass = function() { this.foo = 'foo'; this.bar = 'bar'; } var subClass = function() { this.inheritFrom = superClass; this.inheritFrom(); this.myFunction = function() { return this.foo; }; } I've looked in Mozilla and MSDN, but I can't seem to find it documented any where. As far as I can see it works in IE6 and Firefox 3. Any reason why it wouldn't be documented?

    Read the article

  • Why can a public class not inherit from a less visible one?

    - by Dan Tao
    I apologize if this question has been asked before. I've searched SO somewhat and wasn't able to find it. I'm just curious what the rationale behind this design was/is. Obviously I understand that private/internal members of a base type cannot, nor should they, be exposed through a derived public type. But it seems to my naive thinking that the "hidden" parts could easily remain hidden while some base functionality is still shared and a new interface is exposed publicly. I'm thinking of something along these lines: Assembly X internal class InternalClass { protected virtual void DoSomethingProtected() { // Let's say this method provides some useful functionality. // Its visibility is quite limited (only to derived types in // the same assembly), but at least it's there. } } public class PublicClass : InternalClass { public void DoSomethingPublic() { // Now let's say this method is useful enough that this type // should be public. What's keeping us from leveraging the // base functionality laid out in InternalClass's implementation, // without exposing anything that shouldn't be exposed? } } Assembly Y public class OtherPublicClass : PublicClass { // It seems (again, to my naive mind) that this could work. This class // simply wouldn't be able to "see" any of the methods of InternalClass // from AssemblyX directly. But it could still access the public and // protected members of PublicClass that weren't inherited from // InternalClass. Does this make sense? What am I missing? }

    Read the article

  • Get derived class type from a base's class static method

    - by Marco Bettiolo
    Hi, i would like to get the type of the derived class from a static method of its base class. How can this be accomplished? Thanks! class BaseClass { static void Ping () { Type t = this.GetType(); // should be DerivedClass, but it is not possible with a static method } } class DerivedClass : BaseClass {} // somewhere in the code DerivedClass.Ping();

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42  | Next Page >