Search Results

Search found 597 results on 24 pages for 'constructors'.

Page 7/24 | < Previous Page | 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14  | Next Page >

  • Is there anything wrong with taking immediate actions in constructors?

    - by pestaa
    I have classes like this one: class SomeObject { public function __construct($param1, $param2) { $this->process($param1, $param2); } ... } So I can instantly "call" it as some sort of global function just like new SomeObject($arg1, $arg2); which has the benefits of staying concise, being easy to understand, but might break unwritten rules of semantics by not waiting till a method is called. Should I continue to feel bad because of a bad practice, or there's really nothing to worry about? Clarification: I do want an instance of the class. I do use internal methods of the class only. I initialize the object in the constructor, but call the "important" action-taker methods too. I am selfish in the light of these sentences.

    Read the article

  • Generated Methods with Type Hints

    - by Ondrej Brejla
    Hi all! Today we would like to introduce you just another feature from upcoming NetBeans 7.3. It's about generating setters, constructors and type hints of their parameters. For years, you can use Insert Code action to generate setters, getters, constructors and such. Nothing new. But from NetBeans 7.3 you can generate Fluent Setters! What does it mean? Simply that $this is returned from a generated setter. This is how it looks like: But that's not everything :) As you know, before a method is generated, you have to choose a field, which will be associated with that method (in case of constructors, you choose fileds which should be initialized by that constructor). And from NetBeans 7.3, type hints are generated automatically for these parameters! But only if a proper PHPDoc is used in a corresponding field declaration, of course. Here is how it looks like. And that's all for today and as usual, please test it and if you find something strange, don't hesitate to file a new issue (product php, component Editor). Thanks a lot!

    Read the article

  • Should you declare methods using overloads or optional parameters in C# 4.0?

    - by Greg Beech
    I was watching Anders' talk about C# 4.0 and sneak preview of C# 5.0, and it got me thinking about when optional parameters are available in C# what is going to be the recommended way to declare methods that do not need all parameters specified? For example something like the FileStream class has about fifteen different constructors which can be divided into logical 'families' e.g. the ones below from a string, the ones from an IntPtr and the ones from a SafeFileHandle. FileStream(string,FileMode); FileStream(string,FileMode,FileAccess); FileStream(string,FileMode,FileAccess,FileShare); FileStream(string,FileMode,FileAccess,FileShare,int); FileStream(string,FileMode,FileAccess,FileShare,int,bool); It seems to me that this type of pattern could be simplified by having three constructors instead, and using optional parameters for the ones that can be defaulted, which would make the different families of constructors more distinct [note: I know this change will not be made in the BCL, I'm talking hypothetically for this type of situation]. What do you think? From C# 4.0 will it make more sense to make closely related groups of constructors and methods a single method with optional parameters, or is there a good reason to stick with the traditional many-overload mechanism?

    Read the article

  • Permission denied to access property 'toString'

    - by Anders
    I'm trying to find a generic way of getting the name of Constructors. My goal is to create a Convention over configuration framework for KnockoutJS My idea is to iterate over all objects in the window and when I find the contructor i'm looking for then I can use the index to get the name of the contructor The code sofar (function() { constructors = {}; window.findConstructorName = function(instance) { var constructor = instance.constructor; var name = constructors[constructor]; if(name !== undefined) { return name; } var traversed = []; var nestedFind = function(root) { if(typeof root == "function" || traversed[root]) { return } traversed[root] = true; for(var index in root) { if(root[index] == constructor) { return index; } var found = nestedFind(root[index]); if(found !== undefined) { return found; } } } name = nestedFind(window); constructors[constructor] = name; return name; } })(); var MyApp = {}; MyApp.Foo = function() { }; var instance = new MyApp.Foo(); console.log(findConstructorName(instance)); The problem is that I get a Permission denied to access property 'toString' Exception, and i cant even try catch so see which object is causing the problem Fiddle http://jsfiddle.net/4ZwaV/

    Read the article

  • readonly keyword

    - by nmarun
    This is something new that I learned about the readonly keyword. Have a look at the following class: 1: public class MyClass 2: { 3: public string Name { get; set; } 4: public int Age { get; set; } 5:  6: private readonly double Delta; 7:  8: public MyClass() 9: { 10: Initializer(); 11: } 12:  13: public MyClass(string name = "", int age = 0) 14: { 15: Name = name; 16: Age = age; 17: Initializer(); 18: } 19:  20: private void Initializer() 21: { 22: Delta = 0.2; 23: } 24: } I have a couple of public properties and a private readonly member. There are two constructors – one that doesn’t take any parameters and the other takes two parameters to initialize the public properties. I’m also calling the Initializer method in both constructors to initialize the readonly member. Now when I build this, the code breaks and the Error window says: “A readonly field cannot be assigned to (except in a constructor or a variable initializer)” Two things after I read this message: It’s such a negative statement. I’d prefer something like: “A readonly field can be assigned to (or initialized) only in a constructor or through a variable initializer” But in my defense, I AM assigning it in a constructor (only indirectly). All I’m doing is creating a method that does it and calling it in a constructor. Turns out, .net was not ‘frameworked’ this way. We need to have the member initialized directly in the constructor. If you have multiple constructors, you can just use the ‘this’ keyword on all except the default constructors to call the default constructor. This default constructor can then initialize your readonly members. This will ensure you’re not repeating the code in multiple places. A snippet of what I’m talking can be seen below: 1: public class Person 2: { 3: public int UniqueNumber { get; set; } 4: public string Name { get; set; } 5: public int Age { get; set; } 6: public DateTime DateOfBirth { get; set; } 7: public string InvoiceNumber { get; set; } 8:  9: private readonly string Alpha; 10: private readonly int Beta; 11: private readonly double Delta; 12: private readonly double Gamma; 13:  14: public Person() 15: { 16: Alpha = "FDSA"; 17: Beta = 2; 18: Delta = 3.0; 19: Gamma = 0.0989; 20: } 21:  22: public Person(int uniqueNumber) : this() 23: { 24: UniqueNumber = uniqueNumber; 25: } 26: } See the syntax in line 22 and you’ll know what I’m talking about. So the default constructor gets called before the one in line 22. These are known as constructor initializers and they allow one constructor to call another. The other ‘myth’ I had about readonly members is that you can set it’s value only once. This was busted as well (I recall Adam and Jamie’s show). Say you’ve initialized the readonly member through a variable initializer. You can over-write this value in any of the constructors any number of times. 1: public class Person 2: { 3: public int UniqueNumber { get; set; } 4: public string Name { get; set; } 5: public int Age { get; set; } 6: public DateTime DateOfBirth { get; set; } 7: public string InvoiceNumber { get; set; } 8:  9: private readonly string Alpha = "asdf"; 10: private readonly int Beta = 15; 11: private readonly double Delta = 0.077; 12: private readonly double Gamma = 1.0; 13:  14: public Person() 15: { 16: Alpha = "FDSA"; 17: Beta = 2; 18: Delta = 3.0; 19: Gamma = 0.0989; 20: } 21:  22: public Person(int uniqueNumber) : this() 23: { 24: UniqueNumber = uniqueNumber; 25: Beta = 3; 26: } 27:  28: public Person(string name, DateTime dob) : this() 29: { 30: Name = name; 31: DateOfBirth = dob; 32:  33: Alpha = ";LKJ"; 34: Gamma = 0.0898; 35: } 36:  37: public Person(int uniqueNumber, string name, int age, DateTime dob, string invoiceNumber) : this() 38: { 39: UniqueNumber = uniqueNumber; 40: Name = name; 41: Age = age; 42: DateOfBirth = dob; 43: InvoiceNumber = invoiceNumber; 44:  45: Alpha = "QWER"; 46: Beta = 5; 47: Delta = 1.0; 48: Gamma = 0.0; 49: } 50: } In the above example, every constructor over-writes the values for the readonly members. This is perfectly valid. There is a possibility that based on the way the object is instantiated, the readonly member will have a different value. Well, that’s all I have for today and read this as it’s on a related topic.

    Read the article

  • Super constructor must be a first statement in Java constructor [closed]

    - by Val
    I know the answer: "we need rules to prevent shooting into your own foot". Ok, I make millions of programming mistakes every day. To be prevented, we need one simple rule: prohibit all JLS and do not use Java. If we explain everything by "not shooting your foot", this is reasonable. But there is not much reason is such reason. When I programmed in Delphy, I always wanted the compiler to check me if I read uninitializable. I have discovered myself that is is stupid to read uncertain variable because it leads unpredictable result and is errorenous obviously. By just looking at the code I could see if there is an error. I wished if compiler could do this job. It is also a reliable signal of programming error if function does not return any value. But I never wanted it do enforce me the super constructor first. Why? You say that constructors just initialize fields. Super fields are derived; extra fields are introduced. From the goal point of view, it does not matter in which order you initialize the variables. I have studied parallel architectures and can say that all the fields can even be assigned in parallel... What? Do you want to use the unitialized fields? Stupid people always want to take away our freedoms and break the JLS rules the God gives to us! Please, policeman, take away that person! Where do I say so? I'm just saying only about initializing/assigning, not using the fields. Java compiler already defends me from the mistake of accessing notinitialized. Some cases sneak but this example shows how this stupid rule does not save us from the read-accessing incompletely initialized in construction: public class BadSuper { String field; public String toString() { return "field = " + field; } public BadSuper(String val) { field = val; // yea, superfirst does not protect from accessing // inconstructed subclass fields. Subclass constr // must be called before super()! System.err.println(this); } } public class BadPost extends BadSuper { Object o; public BadPost(Object o) { super("str"); this. o = o; } public String toString() { // superconstructor will boom here, because o is not initialized! return super.toString() + ", obj = " + o.toString(); } public static void main(String[] args) { new BadSuper("test 1"); new BadPost(new Object()); } } It shows that actually, subfields have to be inilialized before the supreclass! Meantime, java requirement "saves" us from writing specializing the class by specializing what the super constructor argument is, public class MyKryo extends Kryo { class MyClassResolver extends DefaultClassResolver { public Registration register(Registration registration) { System.out.println(MyKryo.this.getDepth()); return super.register(registration); } } MyKryo() { // cannot instantiate MyClassResolver in super super(new MyClassResolver(), new MapReferenceResolver()); } } Try to make it compilable. It is always pain. Especially, when you cannot assign the argument later. Initialization order is not important for initialization in general. I could understand that you should not use super methods before initializing super. But, the requirement for super to be the first statement is different. It only saves you from the code that does useful things simply. I do not see how this adds safety. Actually, safety is degraded because we need to use ugly workarounds. Doing post-initialization, outside the constructors also degrades safety (otherwise, why do we need constructors?) and defeats the java final safety reenforcer. To conclude Reading not initialized is a bug. Initialization order is not important from the computer science point of view. Doing initalization or computations in different order is not a bug. Reenforcing read-access to not initialized is good but compilers fail to detect all such bugs Making super the first does not solve the problem as it "Prevents" shooting into right things but not into the foot It requires to invent workarounds, where, because of complexity of analysis, it is easier to shoot into the foot doing post-initialization outside the constructors degrades safety (otherwise, why do we need constructors?) and that degrade safety by defeating final access modifier When there was java forum alive, java bigots attecked me for these thoughts. Particularly, they dislaked that fields can be initialized in parallel, saying that natural development ensures correctness. When I replied that you could use an advanced engineering to create a human right away, without "developing" any ape first, and it still be an ape, they stopped to listen me. Cos modern technology cannot afford it. Ok, Take something simpler. How do you produce a Renault? Should you construct an Automobile first? No, you start by producing a Renault and, once completed, you'll see that this is an automobile. So, the requirement to produce fields in "natural order" is unnatural. In case of alarmclock or armchair, which are still chair and clock, you may need first develop the base (clock and chair) and then add extra. So, I can have examples where superfields must be initialized first and, oppositely, when they need to be initialized later. The order does not exist in advance. So, the compiler cannot be aware of the proper order. Only programmer/constructor knows is. Compiler should not take more responsibility and enforce the wrong order onto programmer. Saying that I cannot initialize some fields because I did not ininialized the others is like "you cannot initialize the thing because it is not initialized". This is a kind of argument we have. So, to conclude once more, the feature that "protects" me from doing things in simple and right way in order to enforce something that does not add noticeably to the bug elimination at that is a strongly negative thing and it pisses me off, altogether with the all the arguments to support it I've seen so far. It is "a conceptual question about software development" Should there be the requirement to call super() first or not. I do not know. If you do or have an idea, you have place to answer. I think that I have provided enough arguments against this feature. Lets appreciate the ones who benefit form it. Let it just be something more than simple abstract and stupid "write your own language" or "protection" kind of argument. Why do we need it in the language that I am going to develop?

    Read the article

  • What is the possible benefit (if any) of allowing recursive contructors?

    - by Penang
    In Java, constructors cannot be recursive. Compile time error: "recursive constructor invocation". Let's assume that we did not have this restriction. Things to keep in mind: The return type of a constructor is void. Since it is a void method you can't harness the complete power of recursion. A constructor can invoke itself (or any other constructor) using this(). But a "call to this must be first statement in constructor" We could use non local data between consecutive calls to still have some possible gain from recursive constructors. Would there be any benefit from allowing recursive constructors?

    Read the article

  • C++ Scoping and ambiguity in constructor overloads

    - by loarabia
    I've tried the following code snippet in 3 different compilers (G++, clang++, CL.exe) and they all report to me that they cannot disambiguate the overloaded constructors. Now, I know how I could modify the call to the constructor to make it pick one or the other (either make explicit that the second argument is a unsigned literal value or explicitly cast it). However, I'm curious why the compiler would be attempting to choose between constructors in the first place given that one of the constructors is private and the call to the constructor is happening in the main function which should be outside the class's scope. Can anyone enlighten me? class Test { private: Test(unsigned int a, unsigned int *b) { } public: Test(unsigned int a, unsigned int b) { } }; int main() { Test t1 = Test(1,0); // compiler is confused }

    Read the article

  • Write a tree class in Java where each level has a unique object type

    - by user479576
    I need to write a tree class in Java where each level has a unique object type. The way it is written below does not take advantage of generics and causes alot of duplicate code. Is there a way to write this with Generics ? public class NodeB { private String nodeValue; //private List<NodeB> childNodes; // constructors // getters/setters } public class NodeA { private String value; private List<NodeB> childNodes; // constructors // getters/setters } public class Tree { private String value; private List<NodeA> childNodes; // constructors // tree methods }

    Read the article

  • Performing user authentication in a CodeIgniter controller constructor?

    - by msanford
    In "The Clean Code Talks -- Unit Testing" (http://youtu.be/wEhu57pih5w), Miško Hevery mentions that "as little work as possible should be done in constructors [to make classes more easily testable]'. It got me thinking about the way I have implemented my user authentication mechanism. Having delved into MVC development through CodeIgniter, I designed my first web application to perform user authentication for protected resources in controllers' constructors in cases where every public function in that controller requires the user to be authenticated. For controllers with public methods having mixed authentication requirements, I would naturally move the authentication from the constructor to each method requiring authentication (though I don't currently have a need for this). I made this choice primarily to keep the controller tight, and to ensure that all resources in the controller are always covered. As for code longevity and maintainability: given the application structure, I can't foresee a situation in which one of the affected controllers would need a public method that didn't require user authentication, but I can see this as a potential drawback in general with this implementation (i.e., requiring future refactoring). Is this a good idea?

    Read the article

  • Representing complex object dependencies

    - by max
    I have several classes with a reasonably complex (but acyclic) dependency graph. All the dependencies are of the form: class X instance contains an attribute of class Y. All such attributes are set during initialization and never changed again. Each class' constructor has just a couple parameters, and each object knows the proper parameters to pass to the constructors of the objects it contains. class Outer is at the top of the dependency hierarchy, i.e., no class depends on it. Currently, the UI layer only creates an Outer instance; the parameters for Outer constructor are derived from the user input. Of course, Outer in the process of initialization, creates the objects it needs, which in turn create the objects they need, and so on. The new development is that the a user who knows the dependency graph may want to reach deep into it, and set the values of some of the arguments passed to constructors of the inner classes (essentially overriding the values used currently). How should I change the design to support this? I could keep the current approach where all the inner classes are created by the classes that need them. In this case, the information about "user overrides" would need to be passed to Outer class' constructor in some complex user_overrides structure. Perhaps user_overrides could be the full logical representation of the dependency graph, with the overrides attached to the appropriate edges. Outer class would pass user_overrides to every object it creates, and they would do the same. Each object, before initializing lower level objects, will find its location in that graph and check if the user requested an override to any of the constructor arguments. Alternatively, I could rewrite all the objects' constructors to take as parameters the full objects they require. Thus, the creation of all the inner objects would be moved outside the whole hierarchy, into a new controller layer that lies between Outer and UI layer. The controller layer would essentially traverse the dependency graph from the bottom, creating all the objects as it goes. The controller layer would have to ask the higher-level objects for parameter values for the lower-level objects whenever the relevant parameter isn't provided by the user. Neither approach looks terribly simple. Is there any other approach? Has this problem come up enough in the past to have a pattern that I can read about? I'm using Python, but I don't think it matters much at the design level.

    Read the article

  • The rule of 5 - to use it or not?

    - by VJovic
    The rule of 3 (the rule of 5 in the new c++ standard) states : If you need to explicitly declare either the destructor, copy constructor or copy assignment operator yourself, you probably need to explicitly declare all three of them. But, on the other hand, the Martin's "Clean Code" advises to remove all empty constructors and destructors (page 293, G12:Clutter) : Of what use is a default constructor with no implementation? All it serves to do is clutter up the code with meaningless artifacts. So, how to handle these two opposite opinions? Should empty constructors/destructors really be implemented?

    Read the article

  • Vague MVC and Castle Windsor question. Sorry...

    - by Matt W
    I have inheritted some code in which the MVC Controller classes all get their constructors called by Castle....DefaultProxyFactory.Create() somewhere along the line (the call stack drops out to the , which isn't helping.) So, basically, how would I go about finding out where Castle is being told how to call the constructors of my Controllers? I am very new to Castle, Windsor and MicroKernel, etc, and not a master of ASP's MVC. Many thanks for any pointers - sorry about the vagueness, Matt.

    Read the article

  • How to Pass Parameters to Activator.CreateInstance<T>()

    - by DaveDev
    Hi guys I want to create an instance of a type that I specify in a generic method that I have. This type has a number of overloaded constructors. I'd like to be able to pass arguments to the constructors, but Activator.CreateInstance<T>() doesn't see to have this as an option. Is there another way to do it? Thanks Dave

    Read the article

  • avoiding the tedium of optional parameters

    - by Kyle
    If I have a constructor with say 2 required parameters and 4 optional parameters, how can I avoid writing 16 constructors or even the 10 or so constructors I'd have to write if I used default parameters (which I don't like because it's poor self-documentation)? Are there any idioms or methods using templates I can use to make it less tedious? (And easier to maintain?)

    Read the article

  • Calling super()

    - by Mike
    When do you call super() in Java? I see it in some constructors of the derived class, but isn't the constructors for each of the parent class called automatically? Why would you need to use super?

    Read the article

  • Is it bad practise to initialise fields outside of an explicit constructor

    - by MrTortoise
    So its monday and we are arguing about coding practises. The examples here are a litttle too simple, but the real deal has several constructors. In order to initialise the simple values (eg dates to their min value) I have moved the code out of the constructors and into the field definitions. public class ConstructorExample { string _string = "John"; } public class ConstructorExample2 { string _string; public ConstructorExample2() { _string = "John"; } } How should it be done by the book. I tend to be very case by case and so am maybe a little lax abotu this kind of thing. However i feel that accams razor tells me to move the initialisation out of multiple constructors. Of course I could always move this shared initialisation into a private method. The question is essentially ... is initialising fields where they are defined as opposed to the constructor bad in any way? The argument I am facing is one of error handling, but i do not feel it is relevant as there are no possible exceptions that won't be picked up at compile time.

    Read the article

  • Make conversion to a native type explicit in C++

    - by Tal Pressman
    I'm trying to write a class that implements 64-bit ints for a compiler that doesn't support long long, to be used in existing code. Basically, I should be able to have a typedef somewhere that selects whether I want to use long long or my class, and everything else should compile and work. So, I obviously need conversion constructors from int, long, etc., and the respective conversion operators (casts) to those types. This seems to cause errors with arithmetic operators. With native types, the compiler "knows" that when operator*(int, char) is called, it should promote the char to int and call operator*(int, int) (rather than casting the int to char, for example). In my case it gets confused between the various built-in operators and the ones I created. It seems to me like if I could flag the conversion operators as explicit somehow, that it would solve the issue, but as far as I can tell the explicit keyword is only for constructors (and I can't make constructors for built-in types). So is there any way of marking the casts as explicit? Or am I barking up the wrong tree here and there's another way of solving this? Or maybe I'm just doing something else wrong...

    Read the article

  • array and array_view from amp.h

    - by Daniel Moth
    This is a very long post, but it also covers what are probably the classes (well, array_view at least) that you will use the most with C++ AMP, so I hope you enjoy it! Overview The concurrency::array and concurrency::array_view template classes represent multi-dimensional data of type T, of N dimensions, specified at compile time (and you can later access the number of dimensions via the rank property). If N is not specified, it is assumed that it is 1 (i.e. single-dimensional case). They are rectangular (not jagged). The difference between them is that array is a container of data, whereas array_view is a wrapper of a container of data. So in that respect, array behaves like an STL container, whereas the closest thing an array_view behaves like is an STL iterator (albeit with random access and allowing you to view more than one element at a time!). The data in the array (whether provided at creation time or added later) resides on an accelerator (which is specified at creation time either explicitly by the developer, or set to the default accelerator at creation time by the runtime) and is laid out contiguously in memory. The data provided to the array_view is not stored by/in the array_view, because the array_view is simply a view over the real source (which can reside on the CPU or other accelerator). The underlying data is copied on demand to wherever the array_view is accessed. Elements which differ by one in the least significant dimension of the array_view are adjacent in memory. array objects must be captured by reference into the lambda you pass to the parallel_for_each call, whereas array_view objects must be captured by value (into the lambda you pass to the parallel_for_each call). Creating array and array_view objects and relevant properties You can create array_view objects from other array_view objects of the same rank and element type (shallow copy, also possible via assignment operator) so they point to the same underlying data, and you can also create array_view objects over array objects of the same rank and element type e.g.   array_view<int,3> a(b); // b can be another array or array_view of ints with rank=3 Note: Unlike the constructors above which can be called anywhere, the ones in the rest of this section can only be called from CPU code. You can create array objects from other array objects of the same rank and element type (copy and move constructors) and from other array_view objects, e.g.   array<float,2> a(b); // b can be another array or array_view of floats with rank=2 To create an array from scratch, you need to at least specify an extent object, e.g. array<int,3> a(myExtent);. Note that instead of an explicit extent object, there are convenience overloads when N<=3 so you can specify 1-, 2-, 3- integers (dependent on the array's rank) and thus have the extent created for you under the covers. At any point, you can access the array's extent thought the extent property. The exact same thing applies to array_view (extent as constructor parameters, incl. convenience overloads, and property). While passing only an extent object to create an array is enough (it means that the array will be written to later), it is not enough for the array_view case which must always wrap over some other container (on which it relies for storage space and actual content). So in addition to the extent object (that describes the shape you'd like to be viewing/accessing that data through), to create an array_view from another container (e.g. std::vector) you must pass in the container itself (which must expose .data() and a .size() methods, e.g. like std::array does), e.g.   array_view<int,2> aaa(myExtent, myContainerOfInts); Similarly, you can create an array_view from a raw pointer of data plus an extent object. Back to the array case, to optionally initialize the array with data, you can pass an iterator pointing to the start (and optionally one pointing to the end of the source container) e.g.   array<double,1> a(5, myVector.begin(), myVector.end()); We saw that arrays are bound to an accelerator at creation time, so in case you don’t want the C++ AMP runtime to assign the array to the default accelerator, all array constructors have overloads that let you pass an accelerator_view object, which you can later access via the accelerator_view property. Note that at the point of initializing an array with data, a synchronous copy of the data takes place to the accelerator, and then to copy any data back we'll see that an explicit copy call is required. This does not happen with the array_view where copying is on demand... refresh and synchronize on array_view Note that in the previous section on constructors, unlike the array case, there was no overload that accepted an accelerator_view for array_view. That is because the array_view is simply a wrapper, so the allocation of the data has already taken place before you created the array_view. When you capture an array_view variable in your call to parallel_for_each, the copy of data between the non-CPU accelerator and the CPU takes place on demand (i.e. it is implicit, versus the explicit copy that has to happen with the array). There are some subtleties to the on-demand-copying that we cover next. The assumption when using an array_view is that you will continue to access the data through the array_view, and not through the original underlying source, e.g. the pointer to the data that you passed to the array_view's constructor. So if you modify the data through the array_view on the GPU, the original pointer on the CPU will not "know" that, unless one of two things happen: you access the data through the array_view on the CPU side, i.e. using indexing that we cover below you explicitly call the array_view's synchronize method on the CPU (this also gets called in the array_view's destructor for you) Conversely, if you make a change to the underlying data through the original source (e.g. the pointer), the array_view will not "know" about those changes, unless you call its refresh method. Finally, note that if you create an array_view of const T, then the data is copied to the accelerator on demand, but it does not get copied back, e.g.   array_view<const double, 5> myArrView(…); // myArrView will not get copied back from GPU There is also a similar mechanism to achieve the reverse, i.e. not to copy the data of an array_view to the GPU. copy_to, data, and global copy/copy_async functions Both array and array_view expose two copy_to overloads that allow copying them to another array, or to another array_view, and these operations can also be achieved with assignment (via the = operator overloads). Also both array and array_view expose a data method, to get a raw pointer to the underlying data of the array or array_view, e.g. float* f = myArr.data();. Note that for array_view, this only works when the rank is equal to 1, due to the data only being contiguous in one dimension as covered in the overview section. Finally, there are a bunch of global concurrency::copy functions returning void (and corresponding concurrency::copy_async functions returning a future) that allow copying between arrays and array_views and iterators etc. Just browse intellisense or amp.h directly for the full set. Note that for array, all copying described throughout this post is deep copying, as per other STL container expectations. You can never have two arrays point to the same data. indexing into array and array_view plus projection Reading or writing data elements of an array is only legal when the code executes on the same accelerator as where the array was bound to. In the array_view case, you can read/write on any accelerator, not just the one where the original data resides, and the data gets copied for you on demand. In both cases, the way you read and write individual elements is via indexing as described next. To access (or set the value of) an element, you can index into it by passing it an index object via the subscript operator. Furthermore, if the rank is 3 or less, you can use the function ( ) operator to pass integer values instead of having to use an index object. e.g. array<float,2> arr(someExtent, someIterator); //or array_view<float,2> arr(someExtent, someContainer); index<2> idx(5,4); float f1 = arr[idx]; float f2 = arr(5,4); //f2 ==f1 //and the reverse for assigning, e.g. arr(idx[0], 7) = 6.9; Note that for both array and array_view, regardless of rank, you can also pass a single integer to the subscript operator which results in a projection of the data, and (for both array and array_view) you get back an array_view of rank N-1 (or if the rank was 1, you get back just the element at that location). Not Covered In this already very long post, I am not going to cover three very cool methods (and related overloads) that both array and array_view expose: view_as, section, reinterpret_as. We'll revisit those at some point in the future, probably on the team blog. Comments about this post by Daniel Moth welcome at the original blog.

    Read the article

  • Are injectable classes allowed to have constructor parameters in DI?

    - by Songo
    Given the following code: class ClientClass{ public function print(){ //some code to calculate $inputString $parser= new Parser($inputString); $result= $parser->parse(); } } class Parser{ private $inputString; public __construct($inputString){ $this->inputString=$inputString; } public function parse(){ //some code } } Now the ClientClass has dependency on class Parser. However, if I wanted to use Dependency Injection for unit testing it would cause a problem because now I can't send the input string to the parser constructor like before as its calculated inside ClientCalss itself: class ClientClass{ private $parser; public __construct(Parser $parser){ $this->parser=$parser; } public function print(){ //some code to calculate $inputString $result= $this->parser->parse(); //--> will throw an exception since no string was provided } } The only solution I found was to modify all my classes that took parameters in their constructors to utilize Setters instead (example: setInputString()). However, I think there might be a better solution than this because sometimes modifying existing classes can cause much harm than benefit. So, Are injectable classes not allowed to have input parameters? If a class must take input parameters in its constructor, what would be the way to inject it properly? UPDATE Just for clarification, the problem happens when in my production code I decide to do this: $clientClass= new ClientClass(new Parser($inputString));//--->I have no way to predict $inputString as it is calculated inside `ClientClass` itself. UPDATE 2 Again for clarification, I'm trying to find a general solution to the problem not for this example code only because some of my classes have 2, 3 or 4 parameters in their constructors not only one.

    Read the article

  • F# Objects &ndash; Part 3 &ndash; it&rsquo;s time to overload&hellip;

    - by MarkPearl
    Okay, some basic examples of overloading in F# Overloading Constructors Assume you have a F# object called person… type Person (firstname : string, lastname : string) = member v.Fullname = firstname + " " + lastname   This only has one constructor. To add additional constructors to the object by explicitly declaring them using the method member new. type Person (firstname : string, lastname : string) = new () = Person("Unknown", "Unknown") member v.Fullname = firstname + " " + lastname   In the code above I added another constructor to the Person object that takes no parameters and then refers to the primary constructor. Using the same technique in the code below I have created another constructor that accepts only the firstname as a parameter to create an object. type Person (firstname : string, lastname : string) = new () = Person("Unknown", "Unknown") new (firstname : string) = Person(firstname, "Unknown") member v.Fullname = firstname + " " + lastname   Overloading Operators So, you can overload operators of objects in F# as well… let’s look at example code… type Person(name : string) = member v.name = name static member (+) (person1 : Person , person2 : Person) = Person(person1.name + " " + person2.name)   In the code above we have overloaded the “+” operator. Whenever we add to Person objects together, it will now create a new object with the combined names…

    Read the article

  • Encapsulate standard C functions?

    - by Jack Stout
    While studying the C programming language and learning safe practices, I'm inclined to write a layer of functionality over several parts of the standard library. This would serve two purposes: I could use standard parts of the language in ways that feel more familiar or rational to me, and I could easily replace that functionality with my own, if I needed to. I could benefit from this, but should I do it? As an example, we can consider memory management. If I've written malloc() into the constructors of each of my objects, then decide that I need to handle memory allocation on my own, I have to edit the constructor associated with every object. By referencing my own function, I can change the contents of that function without writing a new constructors. It seems obvious that I should do this, but I'm used to Python. I'm extremely comfortable in that environment and have no problem linking to any part of the standard library from any part of my program because I know I will almost certainly leave that relationship untouched for the life of the project. The situation I'm running into with C feels like I'm trying to hide the language from myself. Will writing a layer of functionality over the C standard library help me in learning the language and developing a codebase, or will it stifle my understanding going forward?

    Read the article

  • What OO Design to use ( is there a Design Pattern )?

    - by Blundell
    I have two objects that represent a 'Bar/Club' ( a place where you drink/socialise). In one scenario I need the bar name, address, distance, slogon In another scenario I need the bar name, address, website url, logo So I've got two objects representing the same thing but with different fields. I like to use immutable objects, so all the fields are set from the constructor. One option is to have two constructors and null the other fields i.e: class Bar { private final String name; private final Distance distance; private final Url url; public Bar(String name, Distance distance){ this.name = name; this.distance = distance; this.url = null; } public Bar(String name, Url url){ this.name = name; this.distance = null; this.url = url; } // getters } I don't like this as you would have to null check when you use the getters In my real example the first scenario has 3 fields and the second scenario has about 10, so it would be a real pain having two constructors, the amount of fields I would have to declare null and then when the object are in use you wouldn't know which Bar you where using and so what fields would be null and what wouldn't. What other options do I have? Two classes called BarPreview and Bar? Some type of inheritance / interface? Something else that is awesome?

    Read the article

  • Managing game objects/components

    - by Xeon06
    Good day everyone, By far the biggest problem that has always dawned on my when programming games is how to structure my code. It just becomes an incredible mess after a while. The reason for that is because I have no idea how different classes should interact with each other. Let's have an example. Say I have a class Player, a class PlayerInput and a class Map. The player class contains information as to the location of the player, whereas the player input class handles changing that location, but by first making sure it's within a walkable area from the map class. How to structure this? My usual approach is to pass those components as parameters in the constructors of the parameters that need them, like so: var map = new Map(); var player = new Player(); var input = new PlayerInput(player, map); The problem with that is that it quickly gets messy, when you add new components you have to go through your constructors and update them, and it doesn't work well if you have mirroring references: var physics = new Physics(input); //Oops, doesn't work var input = new Input(physics); So, how do you guys usually manage this? Thanks.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14  | Next Page >