Search Results

Search found 10632 results on 426 pages for 'outer classes'.

Page 45/426 | < Previous Page | 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52  | Next Page >

  • Partitioning data set in r based on multiple classes of observations

    - by Danny
    I'm trying to partition a data set that I have in R, 2/3 for training and 1/3 for testing. I have one classification variable, and seven numerical variables. Each observation is classified as either A, B, C, or D. For simplicity's sake, let's say that the classification variable, cl, is A for the first 100 observations, B for observations 101 to 200, C till 300, and D till 400. I'm trying to get a partition that has 2/3 of the observations for each of A, B, C, and D (as opposed to simply getting 2/3 of the observations for the entire data set since it will likely not have equal amounts of each classification). When I try to sample from a subset of the data, such as sample(subset(data, cl=='A')), the columns are reordered instead of the rows. To summarize, my goal is to have 67 random observations from each of A, B, C, and D as my training data, and store the remaining 33 observations for each of A, B, C, and D as testing data. I have found a very similar question to mine, but it did not factor in multiple variables. I feel silly asking this question because it seems so simple, but I'm stumped. Also, this is my first question on this site, so I apologize in advance for any faux pas on my part.

    Read the article

  • Implementing implicitly shared classes outside of Qt

    - by Timothy Baldridge
    I'm familiar with the way Qt uses D-pointers for managing data. How do I do this in my code? I tried this method: 1) move all data into a struct 2) add a QAtomicInt to the struct 3) implement a = operator and change my constructor/deconstructor to check-up on the reference count. The issue is, when I go to do a shallow copy of the object, I get an error about QObject declaring = as private. How then do I accomplish this? Here's an example of my copy operator: HttpRequest & HttpRequest::operator=(const HttpRequest &other) { other.d->ref.ref(); if (!d->ref.deref()) delete d; d = other.d; return *this; } Am I going about this the wrong way?

    Read the article

  • PHP Classes: Call method in instance of a class by instance's name

    - by Ursus Russus
    Hi, i have a class of this kind Class Car { private $color; public function __construct($color){ $this->color=$color; } public function get_color(){ return $this->$color; } } Then i create some instances of it: $blue_car = new car('blue'); $green_car = new car('green'); etc. Now i need to call method get_color() on the fly, according to instance's name $instance_name='green_car'; Is there any way to do it?

    Read the article

  • Dynamic Operator Overloading on dict classes in Python

    - by Ishpeck
    I have a class that dynamically overloads basic arithmetic operators like so... import operator class IshyNum: def __init__(self, n): self.num=n self.buildArith() def arithmetic(self, other, o): return o(self.num, other) def buildArith(self): map(lambda o: setattr(self, "__%s__"%o,lambda f: self.arithmetic(f, getattr(operator, o))), ["add", "sub", "mul", "div"]) if __name__=="__main__": number=IshyNum(5) print number+5 print number/2 print number*3 print number-3 But if I change the class to inherit from the dictionary (class IshyNum(dict):) it doesn't work. I need to explicitly def __add__(self, other) or whatever in order for this to work. Why?

    Read the article

  • Pass in a value into Python Class through command line

    - by chrissygormley
    Hello, I have got some code to pass in a variable into a script from the command line. The script is: import sys, os def function(var): print var class function_call(object): def __init__(self, sysArgs): try: self.function = None self.args = [] self.modulePath = sysArgs[0] self.moduleDir, tail = os.path.split(self.modulePath) self.moduleName, ext = os.path.splitext(tail) __import__(self.moduleName) self.module = sys.modules[self.moduleName] if len(sysArgs) > 1: self.functionName = sysArgs[1] self.function = self.module.__dict__[self.functionName] self.args = sysArgs[2:] except Exception, e: sys.stderr.write("%s %s\n" % ("PythonCall#__init__", e)) def execute(self): try: if self.function: self.function(*self.args) except Exception, e: sys.stderr.write("%s %s\n" % ("PythonCall#execute", e)) if __name__=="__main__": test = test() function_call(sys.argv).execute() This works by entering ./function <function> <arg1 arg2 ....>. The problem is that I want to to select the function I want that is in a class rather than just a function by itself. The code I have tried is the same except that function(var): is in a class. I was hoping for some ideas on how to modify my function_call class to accept this. Thanks for any help.

    Read the article

  • Testing for the existence of a field in a class

    - by Brett
    Hi, i have a quick question. I have a 2D array that stores an instance of a class. The elements of the array are assigned a particular class based on a text file that is read earlier in the program. Since i do not know without looking in the file what class is stored at a particular element i could refer to a field that doesn't exist at that index (referring to appearance when an instance of temp is stored in that index). i have come up with a method of testing this, but it is long winded and requires a second matrix. Is there a function to test for the existence of a field in a class? class temp(): name = "default" class temp1(): appearance = "@"

    Read the article

  • Passing arguments to anonymous inner classes

    - by synic
    I'm trying to make an API library for our web services, and I'm wondering if it's possible to do something like this: abstract class UserRequest(val userId: Int) { def success(message: String) def error(error: ApiError) } api.invokeRequest(new UserRequest(121) { override def success(message: String) = { // handle success } override def error(error: ApiError) = { // handle the error } } I'm talking about passing parameters to the anonymous inner class, and also overriding the two methods. I'm extremely new to Scala, and I realize my syntax might be completely wrong. I'm just trying to come up with a good design for this library before I start coding it. I'm willing to take suggestions for this, if I'm doing it the completely wrong way, or if there's a better way. The idea is that the API will take some sort of request object, use it to make a request in a thread via http, and when the response has been made, somehow signal back to the caller if the request was a success or an error. The request/error functions have to be executed on the main thread.

    Read the article

  • XSD.exe question about include files and code generation

    - by Roger Willcocks
    If you have an XSD with an includes reference. Is it possible to generate 2 separate class files. 1 for the XSD, and 1 for the included XSD? My Scenario 4 XSDs, each of which share 15-20 element definitions in common. Rather than maintaining, I'd like to end up with the 4 XSDs all referencing a fifth file with the common definitions, and code generating 5 .cs files to use.

    Read the article

  • Should I call class destructor in this code?

    - by peterg
    I am using this sample to decode/encode some data I am retrieving/sending from/to a web server, and I want to use it like this: BOOL HandleMessage(UINT uMsg,WPARAM wParam,LPARAM lParam,LRESULT* r) { if(uMsg == WM_DESTROY) { PostQuitMessage(0); return TRUE; } else if(uMsg == WM_CREATE) { // Start timer StartTimer(); return TRUE; } else if(uMsg == WM_TIMER) { //get data from server char * test = "test data"; Base64 base64; char *temp = base64.decode(test); MessageBox(TEXT(temp), 0, 0); } } The timer is set every 5 minutes. Should I use delete base64 at the end? Does delete deallocates everything used by base64?

    Read the article

  • What if I made an explicit reference to 'this' for use inside an inner class?

    - by badp
    So far, I've used this approach to access this from the scope of an inner class: class FooManagementWindow extends JFrame { JButton rejectFoo; //... void getFooAcceptingPanel(){ //... final FooManagementWindow referenceToThis = this; rejectFoo = new JButton("Reject"); rejectFoo.addEventListener(new EventListener() { @Override public void actionPerformed(ActionEvent arg) { referenceToThis.setEnabled(false); //this requires a network call //... referenceToThis.setEnabled(true); //the user may resume his work } }); //... } } However, I just learned that instead of declaring referenceToThis, a direct reference is kept for me as: FooManagementWindow.this I have no reason to think my less standard approach may lead to errors or weird corner cases. Or are there?

    Read the article

  • Will this static class break in a multi user scenario ?

    - by Perpetualcoder
    Say I make a static class like following with an extension method: public static class MyStaticExtensionClass { private static readonly Dictionary<int, SomeClass> AlgoMgmtDict = new Dictionary<int, SomeClass>(); public static OutputClass ToOutput(this InputClass input) { // clears up the dict // does some kind of transform over the input class // return an OutputClass object } } In a multi user system, will the state management dictionary fail to provide correct values for the transform algorithm? Will a regular class be a better design or shoving the Dictionary inside the method a better design?

    Read the article

  • 2 Classes need each other declared C++

    - by Prodigga
    I have a "Game" class which holds all the games settings and manages the game. I have a "Grid" class which is the grid the game is played on. The "Game" class initializes a "Grid" object as one of its members (passing itself ("this") as one of the parameters for "Grid"s constructor).. The "Grid" object therefor needs to deal with a "Game*" pointer. To do this it needs to know what "Game" is; i need to declare it before "Grid". But "Game" uses "Grid"...so it also needs "Grid" declared before it. so confused on how to include headers/etc correctly here..

    Read the article

  • Shared(Static) classes with events in C#

    - by diamandiev
    Here is an example of what i would do in vb: Public Class Class1 Public Shared WithEvents Something As New EventClass Public Shared Sub DoStuff() Handles Something.Test End Sub End Class Public Class EventClass Public Event Test() End Class Now how do i do this in c#. I know there is not handles clause in c# so i need some function that is called and assign the event handlers there. However since its a shared class there is no constructor i must put it somewhere outside of a function. Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • Java loading user-specified classes at runtime

    - by user349043
    I'm working on robot simulation in Java (a Swing application). I have an abstract class "Robot" from which different types of Robots are derived, e.g. public class StupidRobot extends Robot { int m_stupidness; int m_insanityLevel; ... } public class AngryRobot extends Robot { float m_aggression; ... } As you can see, each Robot subclass has a different set of parameters. What I would like to do is control the simulation setup in the initial UI. Choose the number and type of Robots, give it a name, fill in the parameters etc. This is one of those times where being such a dinosaur programmer, and new to Java, I wonder if there is some higher level stuff/thinking that could help me here. So here is what I've got: (1) User Interface Scrolling list of Robot types on the left. "Add " and "<< Remove" buttons in the middle. Default-named scrolling list of Robots on the right. "Set Parameters" button underneath. (So if you wanted an AngryRobot, you'd select AngryRobot on the left list, click "Add" and "AngryRobot1" would show up on the right.) When selecting a Robot on the right, click "Set Parameters..." button which would call yet another model dialog where you'd fill in the parameters. Different dialog called for each Robot type. (2) Data structures an implementation As an end-product I think a HashMap would be most convenient. The keys would be Robot types and the accompanying object would be all of the parameters. The initializer could just retrieve each item one and a time and instantiate. Here's what the data structures would look like: enum ROBOT_TYPE {STUPID, ANGRY, etc} public class RobotInitializer { public ROBOT_TYPE m_type; public string m_name; public int[] m_int_params; public float[] m_float_params; etc. The initializer's constructor would create the appropriate length parameter arrays based on the type: public RobotInitializer(ROBOT_TYPE type, int[] int_array, float[] float_array, etc){ switch (type){ case STUPID: m_int_params = new int[STUPID_INT_PARAM_LENGTH]; System.arraycopy(int_array,0,m_int_params,0,STUPID_INT_PARAM_LENGTH); etc. Once all the RobotInitializers are instantiated, they are added to the HashMap. Iterating through the HashMap, the simulation initializer takes items from the Hashmap and instantiates the appropriate Robots. Is this reasonable? If not, how can it be improved? Thanks

    Read the article

  • Add methods to generated WCF client proxy code

    - by dcstraw
    I'd like to add one additional method for each service operation in my WCF client proxy code (i.e. the generated class that derives from ClientBase). I have written a Visual Studio extension that has an IOperationContractGenerationExtension implementation, but this interface only seems to expose the ability to modify the service interface, not the ClientBase-derived class. Is there any way to generate new methods in the proxy client class?

    Read the article

  • Python:How to override inner class methods if the inner class is defined as a property of the top cl

    - by Maddy
    I have a code snippet like this class A(object): class b: def print_hello(self): print "Hello world" b = property(b) And I want to override the inner class 'b'(please dont worry about the lowercase name) behaviour. Say, I want to add a new method or I want to change an existing method, like: class C(A): class b(A.b): def print_hello(self): print "Inner Class: Hello world" b = property(b) Now if I create C's object as c = C(), and call c.b I get TypeError: 'property' object is not callable error. How would I get pass this and call print_hello of the extended inner class? Disclaimer: I dont want to change the code for A class.

    Read the article

  • How to generalize a method call in Java (to avoid code duplication)

    - by dln385
    I have a process that needs to call a method and return its value. However, there are several different methods that this process may need to call, depending on the situation. If I could pass the method and its arguments to the process (like in Python), then this would be no problem. However, I don't know of any way to do this in Java. Here's a concrete example. (This example uses Apache ZooKeeper, but you don't need to know anything about ZooKeeper to understand the example.) The ZooKeeper object has several methods that will fail if the network goes down. In this case, I always want to retry the method. To make this easy, I made a "BetterZooKeeper" class that inherits the ZooKeeper class, and all of its methods automatically retry on failure. This is what the code looked like: public class BetterZooKeeper extends ZooKeeper { private void waitForReconnect() { // logic } @Override public Stat exists(String path, Watcher watcher) { while (true) { try { return super.exists(path, watcher); } catch (KeeperException e) { // We will retry. } waitForReconnect(); } } @Override public byte[] getData(String path, boolean watch, Stat stat) { while (true) { try { return super.getData(path, watch, stat); } catch (KeeperException e) { // We will retry. } waitForReconnect(); } } @Override public void delete(String path, int version) { while (true) { try { super.delete(path, version); return; } catch (KeeperException e) { // We will retry. } waitForReconnect(); } } } (In the actual program there is much more logic and many more methods that I took out of the example for simplicity.) We can see that I'm using the same retry logic, but the arguments, method call, and return type are all different for each of the methods. Here's what I did to eliminate the duplication of code: public class BetterZooKeeper extends ZooKeeper { private void waitForReconnect() { // logic } @Override public Stat exists(final String path, final Watcher watcher) { return new RetryableZooKeeperAction<Stat>() { @Override public Stat action() { return BetterZooKeeper.super.exists(path, watcher); } }.run(); } @Override public byte[] getData(final String path, final boolean watch, final Stat stat) { return new RetryableZooKeeperAction<byte[]>() { @Override public byte[] action() { return BetterZooKeeper.super.getData(path, watch, stat); } }.run(); } @Override public void delete(final String path, final int version) { new RetryableZooKeeperAction<Object>() { @Override public Object action() { BetterZooKeeper.super.delete(path, version); return null; } }.run(); return; } private abstract class RetryableZooKeeperAction<T> { public abstract T action(); public final T run() { while (true) { try { return action(); } catch (KeeperException e) { // We will retry. } waitForReconnect(); } } } } The RetryableZooKeeperAction is parameterized with the return type of the function. The run() method holds the retry logic, and the action() method is a placeholder for whichever ZooKeeper method needs to be run. Each of the public methods of BetterZooKeeper instantiates an anonymous inner class that is a subclass of the RetryableZooKeeperAction inner class, and it overrides the action() method. The local variables are (strangely enough) implicitly passed to the action() method, which is possible because they are final. In the end, this approach does work and it does eliminate the duplication of the retry logic. However, it has two major drawbacks: (1) it creates a new object every time a method is called, and (2) it's ugly and hardly readable. Also I had to workaround the 'delete' method which has a void return value. So, here is my question: is there a better way to do this in Java? This can't be a totally uncommon task, and other languages (like Python) make it easier by allowing methods to be passed. I suspect there might be a way to do this through reflection, but I haven't been able to wrap my head around it.

    Read the article

  • Am I trying to Implement Multiple Inheritance. How can I do this.

    - by Shantanu Gupta
    I have created a class say A which has some functions defined as protected. Now Class B inherits A and class C inherits B. Class A has private default constructor and protected parameterized constructor. I want Class B to be able to access all the protected functions defined in Class A but class C can have access on some of the functions only not all the functions and class C is inheriting class B. How can I restrict access to some of the functions of Class A from Class C ? EDIT: namespace Db { public Class A { private A(){} protected A(string con){assign this value} protected DataTable getTable(){return Table;} protected Sqlparameters setParameters(){return parameter;} } } namespace Data { public Class B:A { protected B():base("constring"){} protected DataTable output(){return getTable();} protected sqlparameter values(param IDataParameter[] parameter){} } } namespace Bsns { public Class C:B { protected C():base(){} protected DataTable show() {return values(setparameter());} } } EDIT I think what I am trying to do here is Multiple inheritance. Please check. Class A { //suppose 10 functions are declared } Class B:A { //5 functions declared which are using A's function in internal body } Class C:B { //using all functions of B but require only 4 functions of A to be accessible by C. }

    Read the article

  • Define the base class or base functionality of a dynamic proxy (e.g. Castle, LinFu)

    - by Graham
    Hi, I've asked this in the NHibernate forumns but I think this is more of a general question. NHibernate uses proxy generators (e.g. Castle) to create its proxy. What I'd like to do is to extend the proxy generated so that it implements some of my own custom behaviour (i.e. a comparer). I need this because the following standard .NET behaviour fails to produce the correct results: //object AC is a concrete class collection.Contains(AC) = true //object AP is a proxy with the SAME id and therefore represents the same instance as concrete AC collection.Contains(AP) = false If my comparer was implemented by AP (i.e. do id's match) then collection.Contains(AP) would return true, as I'd expect if proxies were implicit. (NB: For those who say NH inherits from your base class, then yes it does, but NH can also inherit from an interface - which is what we're doing) I'm not at all sure this is possible or where to start. Is this something that can be done in any of the common proxy generators that NH uses?

    Read the article

  • destructor and copy-constructor calling..(why does it get called at these times)

    - by sil3nt
    Hello there, I have the following code #include <iostream> using namespace std; class Object { public: Object(int id){ cout << "Construct(" << id << ")" << endl; m_id = id; } Object(const Object& obj){ cout << "Copy-construct(" << obj.m_id << ")" << endl; m_id = obj.m_id; } Object& operator=(const Object& obj){ cout << m_id << " = " << obj.m_id << endl; m_id = obj.m_id; return *this; } ~Object(){ cout << "Destruct(" << m_id << ")" << endl; } private: int m_id; }; Object func(Object var) { return var; } int main(){ Object v1(1); cout << "( a )" << endl; Object v2(2); v2 = v1; cout << "( b )" << endl; Object v4 = v1; Object *pv5; pv5 = &v1; pv5 = new Object(5); cout << "( c )" << endl; func(v1); cout << "( d )" << endl; delete pv5; } which outputs Construct(1) ( a ) Construct(2) 2 = 1 ( b ) Copy-construct(1) Construct(5) ( c ) Copy-construct(1) Copy-construct(1) Destruct(1) Destruct(1) ( d ) Destruct(5) Destruct(1) Destruct(1) Destruct(1) I have some issues with this, firstly why does Object v4 = v1; call the copy constructor and produce Copy-construct(1) after the printing of ( b ). Also after the printing of ( c ) the copy-constructor is again called twice?, Im not certain of how this function works to produce that Object func(Object var) { return var; } and just after that Destruct(1) gets called twice before ( d ) is printed. sorry for the long question, I'm confused with the above.

    Read the article

  • Python base classes share attributes?

    - by tad
    Code in test.py: class Base(object): def __init__(self, l=[]): self.l = l def add(self, num): self.l.append(num) def remove(self, num): self.l.remove(num) class Derived(Base): def __init__(self, l=[]): super(Derived, self).__init__(l) Python shell session: Python 2.6.5 (r265:79063, Apr 1 2010, 05:22:20) [GCC 4.4.3 20100316 (prerelease)] on linux2 Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information. >>> import test >>> a = test.Derived() >>> b = test.Derived() >>> a.l [] >>> b.l [] >>> a.add(1) >>> a.l [1] >>> b.l [1] >>> c = test.Derived() >>> c.l [1] I was expecting "C++-like" behavior, in which each derived object contains its own instance of the base class. Is this still the case? Why does each object appear to share the same list instance?

    Read the article

  • Help with psudo classes in CSS

    - by Anil Namde
    <a class="success" href="javascript:void(0)"></a> //CSS for setting background for above link a.success:hover{ //set background image } What my intent is to change the class of link on server side based on success/fail and set icon for the link accordingly. But above CSS is not working as expected. Can someone plz help with this.

    Read the article

  • How to unit test generic classes

    - by Rowland Shaw
    I'm trying to set up some unit tests for an existing compact framework class library. However, I've fallen at the first hurdle, where it appears that the test framework is unable to load the types involved (even though they're both in the class library being tested) Test method MyLibrary.Tests.MyGenericClassTest.MyMethodTest threw exception: System.MissingMethodException: Could not load type 'MyLibrary.MyType' from assembly 'MyLibrary, Version=1.0.3778.36113, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=null'.. My code is loosely: public class MyGenericClass<T> : List<T> where T : MyType, new() { public bool MyMethod(T foo) { throw new NotImplementedException(); } } With test methods: public void MyMethodTestHelper<T>() where T : MyType, new() { MyGenericClass<T> target = new MyGenericClass<T>(); foo = new T(); expected = true; actual = target.MyMethod(foo); Assert.AreEqual(expected, actual); } [TestMethod()] public void MyMethodTest() { MyMethodTestHelper<MyType>(); } I'm a bit stumped though, as I can't even get it to break in the debugger to get to the inner exception, so what else do I check? EDIT this does seem to be something specific to the Compact Framework - recompiling the class libraries and the unit tests for the full framework, gives the expected output (i.e. the debugger stops when I'm going to throw a NotImplementedException).

    Read the article

  • What classes should I map against with NHibernate?

    - by apollodude217
    Currently, we use NHibernate to map business objects to database tables. Said business objects enforce business rules: The set accessors will throw an exception on the spot if the contract for that property is violated. Also, the properties enforce relationships with other objects (sometimes bidirectional!). Well, whenever NHibernate loads an object from the database (e.g. when ISession.Get(id) is called), the set accessors of the mapped properties are used to put the data into the object. What's good is that the middle tier of the application enforces business logic. What's bad is that the database does not. Sometimes crap finds its way into the database. If crap is loaded into the application, it bails (throws an exception). Sometimes it clearly should bail because it cannot do anything, but what if it can continue working? E.g., an admin tool that gathers real-time reports runs a high risk of failing unnecessarily instead of allowing an admin to even fix a (potential) problem. I don't have an example on me right now, but in some instances, letting NHibernate use the "front door" properties that also enforce relationships (especially bidi) leads to bugs. What are the best solutions? Currently, I will, on a per-property basis, create a "back door" just for NHibernate: public virtual int Blah {get {return _Blah;} set {/*enforces BR's*/}} protected virtual int _Blah {get {return blah;} set {blah = value;}} private int blah; I showed the above in C# 2 (no default properties) to demonstrate how this gets us basically 3 layers of, or views, to blah!!! While this certainly works, it does not seem ideal as it requires the BL to provide one (public) interface for the app-at-large, and another (protected) interface for the data access layer. There is an additional problem: To my knowledge, NHibernate does not give you a way to distinguish between the name of the property in the BL and the name of the property in the entity model (i.e. the name you use when you query, e.g. via HQL--whenever you give NHibernate the name (string) of a property). This becomes a problem when, at first, the BR's for some property Blah are no problem, so you refer to it in your O/R mapping... but then later, you have to add some BR's that do become a problem, so then you have to change your O/R mapping to use a new _Blah property, which breaks all existing queries using "Blah" (common problem with programming against strings). Has anyone solved these problems?!

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52  | Next Page >