Search Results

Search found 8115 results on 325 pages for 'dynamic inheritance'.

Page 75/325 | < Previous Page | 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82  | Next Page >

• XSD: xs:sequence & xs:choice combination for xs:extension elements?

  - by bguiz

  Hi, My question is about defining an XML schema that will validate the following sample XML: <rules> <other>...</other> <bool>...</bool> <other>...</other> <string>...</string> <other>...</other> </rules> The order of the child nodes does not matter. The cardinality of the child nodes is 0..unbounded. All the child elements of the rules node have a common base type, rule, like so: <xs:complexType name="booleanRule"> <xs:complexContent> <xs:extension base="rule"> ... </xs:extension> </xs:complexContent> </xs:complexType> <xs:complexType name="stringFilterRule"> <xs:complexContent> <xs:extension base="filterRule"> ... </xs:extension> </xs:complexContent> </xs:complexType> My current attempt at defining the schema for the rules node is below. However, Can I nest xs:choice within xs:sequence? If, where do I specify the maxOccurs="unbounded" attribute? Is there a better way to do this, such as an xs:sequence which specifies only the base type of its child elements? <xs:element name="rules"> <xs:complexType> <xs:sequence> <xs:choice> <xs:element name="bool" type="booleanRule" /> <xs:element name="string" type="stringRule" /> <xs:element name="other" type="someOtherRule" /> </xs:choice> </xs:sequence> </xs:complexType> </xs:element>

  Read the article

• Python New-style Classes and the Super Function

  - by sfjedi

  This is not the result I expect to see: class A(dict): def __init__(self, *args, **kwargs): self['args'] = args self['kwargs'] = kwargs class B(A): def __init__(self, *args, **kwargs): super(B, self).__init__(args, kwargs) print 'Instance A:', A('monkey', banana=True) #Instance A: {'args': ('monkey',), 'kwargs': {'banana': True}} print 'Instance B:', B('monkey', banana=True) #Instance B: {'args': (('monkey',), {'banana': True}), 'kwargs': {}} I'm just trying to get classes A and B to have consistent values set. I'm not sure why the kwargs are being inserted into the args, but I'm to presume I am either calling init() wrong from the subclass or I'm trying to do something that you just can't do. Any tips?

  Read the article

• How to use a class's type as the type argument for an inherited collection property in C#

  - by Edelweiss Peimann

  I am trying to create a representation of various types of card that inherit from a generic card class and which all contain references to their owning decks. I tried re-declaring them, as suggested here, but it still won't convert to the specific card type. The code I currently have is as such: public class Deck<T> : List<T> where T : Card { void Shuffle() { throw new NotImplementedException("Shuffle not yet implemented."); } } public class Card { public Deck<Card> OwningDeck { get; set; } } public class FooCard : Card { public Deck<FooCard> OwningDeck { get { return (Deck<FooCard>)base.OwningDeck; } set { OwningDeck = value; } } } The compile-time error I am getting: Error 2 Cannot convert type 'Game.Cards.Deck' to 'Game.Cards.Deck' And a warning suggesting I use a new operator to specify that the hiding is intentional. Would doing so be a violation of convention? Is there a better way? My question to stackoverflow is this: Can what I am trying to do be done elegantly in the .NET type system? If so, can some examples be provided?

  Read the article

• How to invalidate / refresh a domain instance association?

  - by Kimble

  There is a bug in Grails preventing me from using removeFrom* when the node I'm trying to remove is extending the collection type. Removing the node directly from the association won't update the second level cache. A hasMany B Is there any way to manually invalidate or force a reload on an association cache? Invoking refresh() on the many side didn't do the trick.

  Read the article

• Protected members in a superclass inaccessible by indirect subclass in Java

  - by MSumulong

  Why is it that in Java, a superclass' protected members are inaccessible by an indirect subclass in a different package? I know that a direct subclass in a different package can access the superclass' protected members. I thought any subclass can access its inherited protected members.

  Read the article

• Inheriting the main method

  - by Eric

  I want to define a base class that defines a main method that instantiates the class, and runs a method. There are a couple of problems though. Here is the base class: public abstract class Strategy { abstract void execute(SoccerRobot robot); public static void main(String args) { Strategy s = new /*Not sure what to put here*/(); s.execute(new SoccerRobot()) } } And here is an example derived class: public class UselessStrategy { void execute(SoccerRobot robot) { System.out.println("I'm useless") } } It defines a simple execute method, which should be called in a main method upon usage as a the main application. However, in order to do so, I need to instantiate the derived class from within the base class's main method. Which doesn't seem to be possible. I'd rather not have to repeat the main method for every derived class, as it feels somewhat unnessary. Is there a right way of doing this?

  Read the article

• C# Property Access vs Interface Implementation

  - by ehdv

  I'm writing a class to represent a Pivot Collection, the root object recognized by Pivot. A Collection has several attributes, a list of facet categories (each represented by a FacetCategory object) and a list of items (each represented by a PivotItem object). Therefore, an extremely simplified Collection reads: public class Collection { private List<FacetCategory> categories; private List<PivotItem> items; // other attributes } What I'm unsure of is how to properly grant access to those two lists. Because declaration order of both facet categories and items is visible to the user, I can't use sets, but the class also shouldn't allow duplicate categories or items. Furthermore, I'd like to make the Collection object as easy to use as possible. So my choices are: Have Collection implement IList<PivotItem> and have accessor methods for FacetCategory: In this case, one would add an item to Collection foo by writing foo.Add(bar). This works, but since a Collection is equally both kinds of list making it only pass as a list for one type (category or item) seems like a subpar solution. Create nested wrapper classes for List (CategoryList and ItemList). This has the advantage of making a consistent interface but the downside is that these properties would no longer be able to serve as lists (because I need to override the non-virtual Add method I have to implement IList rather than subclass List. Implicit casting wouldn't work because that would return the Add method to its normal behavior. Also, for reasons I can't figure out, IList is missing an AddRange method... public class Collection { private class CategoryList: IList<FacetCategory> { // ... } private readonly CategoryList categories = new CategoryList(); private readonly ItemList items = new ItemList(); public CategoryList FacetCategories { get { return categories; } set { categories.Clear(); categories.AddRange(value); } } public ItemList Items { get { return items; } set { items.Clear(); items.AddRange(value); } } } Finally, the third option is to combine options one and two, so that Collection implements IList<PivotItem> and has a property FacetCategories. Question: Which of these three is most appropriate, and why?

  Read the article

• handling pointer to member functions within hierachy in C++

  - by anatoli

  Hi, I'm trying to code the following situation: I have a base class providing a framework for handling events. I'm trying to use an array of pointer-to-member-functions for that. It goes as following: class EH { // EventHandler virtual void something(); // just to make sure we get RTTI public: typedef void (EH::*func_t)(); protected: func_t funcs_d[10]; protected: void register_handler(int event_num, func_t f) { funcs_d[event_num] = f; } public: void handle_event(int event_num) { (this->*(funcs_d[event_num]))(); } }; Then the users are supposed to derive other classes from this one and provide handlers: class DEH : public EH { public: typedef void (DEH::*func_t)(); void handle_event_5(); DEH() { func_t f5 = &DEH::handle_event_5; register_handler(5, f5); // doesn't compile ........ } }; This code wouldn't compile, since DEH::func_t cannot be converted to EH::func_t. It makes perfect sense to me. In my case the conversion is safe since the object under this is really DEH. So I'd like to have something like that: void EH::DEH_handle_event_5_wrapper() { DEH *p = dynamic_cast<DEH *>(this); assert(p != NULL); p->handle_event_5(); } and then instead of func_t f5 = &DEH::handle_event_5; register_handler(5, f5); // doesn't compile in DEH::DEH() put register_handler(5, &EH::DEH_handle_event_5_wrapper); So, finally the question (took me long enough...): Is there a way to create those wrappers (like EH::DEH_handle_event_5_wrapper) automatically? Or to do something similar? What other solutions to this situation are out there? Thanks.

  Read the article

• Can I "inherit" a delegate? Looking for ways to combine Moq and MSpec without conflicts around It...

  - by Tomas Lycken

  I have started to use MSpec for BDD, and since long ago I use Moq as my mocking framework. However, they both define It, which means I can't have using Moq and using Machine.Specifications in the same code file without having to specify the namespace explicitly each time I use It. Anyone who's used MSpec knows this isn't really an option. I googled for solutions to this problem, and this blogger mentions having forked MSpec for himself, and implemented paralell support for Given, When, Then. I'd like to do this, but I can't figure out how to declare for example Given without having to go through the entire framework looking for references to Establish, and changing code there to match that I want either to be OK. For reference, the Establish, Because and It are declared in the following way: public delegate void Establish(); public delegate void Because(); public delegate void It(); What I need is to somehow declare Given, so that everywhere the code looks for an Establish, Given is also OK.

  Read the article

• Refactoring a leaf class to a base class, and keeping it also a interface implementation

  - by elcuco

  I am trying to refactor a working code. The code basically derives an interface class into a working implementation, and I want to use this implementation outside the original project as a standalone class. However, I do not want to create a fork, and I want the original project to be able to take out their implementation, and use mine. The problem is that the hierarchy structure is very different and I am not sure if this would work. I also cannot use the original base class in my project, since in reality it's quite entangled in the project (too many classes, includes) and I need to take care of only a subdomain of the problems the original project is. I wrote this code to test an idea how to implement this, and while it's working, I am not sure I like it: #include <iostream> // Original code is: // IBase -> Derived1 // I need to refactor Derive2 to be both indipendet class // and programmers should also be able to use the interface class // Derived2 -> MyClass + IBase // MyClass class IBase { public: virtual void printMsg() = 0; }; /////////////////////////////////////////////////// class Derived1 : public IBase { public: virtual void printMsg(){ std::cout << "Hello from Derived 1" << std::endl; } }; ////////////////////////////////////////////////// class MyClass { public: virtual void printMsg(){ std::cout << "Hello from MyClass" << std::endl; } }; class Derived2: public IBase, public MyClass{ virtual void printMsg(){ MyClass::printMsg(); } }; class Derived3: public MyClass, public IBase{ virtual void printMsg(){ MyClass::printMsg(); } }; int main() { IBase *o1 = new Derived1(); IBase *o2 = new Derived2(); IBase *o3 = new Derived3(); MyClass *o4 = new MyClass(); o1->printMsg(); o2->printMsg(); o3->printMsg(); o4->printMsg(); return 0; } The output is working as expected (tested using gcc and clang, 2 different C++ implementations so I think I am safe here): [elcuco@pinky ~/src/googlecode/qtedit4/tools/qtsourceview/qate/tests] ./test1 Hello from Derived 1 Hello from MyClass Hello from MyClass Hello from MyClass [elcuco@pinky ~/src/googlecode/qtedit4/tools/qtsourceview/qate/tests] ./test1.clang Hello from Derived 1 Hello from MyClass Hello from MyClass Hello from MyClass The question is My original code was: class Derived3: public MyClass, public IBase{ virtual void IBase::printMsg(){ MyClass::printMsg(); } }; Which is what I want to express, but this does not compile. I must admit I do not fully understand why this code work, as I expect that the new method Derived3::printMsg() will be an implementation of MyClass::printMsg() and not IBase::printMsg() (even tough this is what I do want). How does the compiler chooses which method to re-implement, when two "sister classes" have the same virtual function name? If anyone has a better way of implementing this, I would like to know as well :)

  Read the article

• Why does my performance slow to a crawl I move methods into a base class?

  - by Juliet

  I'm writing different implementations of immutable binary trees in C#, and I wanted my trees to inherit some common methods from a base class. However, I find. I have lots of binary tree data structures to implement, and I wanted move some common methods into in a base binary tree class. Unfortunately, classes which derive from the base class are abysmally slow. Non-derived classes perform adequately. Here are two nearly identical implementations of an AVL tree to demonstrate: AvlTree: http://pastebin.com/V4WWUAyT DerivedAvlTree: http://pastebin.com/PussQDmN The two trees have the exact same code, but I've moved the DerivedAvlTree.Insert method in base class. Here's a test app: using System; using System.Collections.Generic; using System.Diagnostics; using System.Linq; using Juliet.Collections.Immutable; namespace ConsoleApplication1 { class Program { const int VALUE_COUNT = 5000; static void Main(string[] args) { var avlTreeTimes = TimeIt(TestAvlTree); var derivedAvlTreeTimes = TimeIt(TestDerivedAvlTree); Console.WriteLine("avlTreeTimes: {0}, derivedAvlTreeTimes: {1}", avlTreeTimes, derivedAvlTreeTimes); } static double TimeIt(Func<int, int> f) { var seeds = new int[] { 314159265, 271828183, 231406926, 141421356, 161803399, 266514414, 15485867, 122949829, 198491329, 42 }; var times = new List<double>(); foreach (int seed in seeds) { var sw = Stopwatch.StartNew(); f(seed); sw.Stop(); times.Add(sw.Elapsed.TotalMilliseconds); } // throwing away top and bottom results times.Sort(); times.RemoveAt(0); times.RemoveAt(times.Count - 1); return times.Average(); } static int TestAvlTree(int seed) { var rnd = new System.Random(seed); var avlTree = AvlTree<double>.Create((x, y) => x.CompareTo(y)); for (int i = 0; i < VALUE_COUNT; i++) { avlTree = avlTree.Insert(rnd.NextDouble()); } return avlTree.Count; } static int TestDerivedAvlTree(int seed) { var rnd = new System.Random(seed); var avlTree2 = DerivedAvlTree<double>.Create((x, y) => x.CompareTo(y)); for (int i = 0; i < VALUE_COUNT; i++) { avlTree2 = avlTree2.Insert(rnd.NextDouble()); } return avlTree2.Count; } } } AvlTree: inserts 5000 items in 121 ms DerivedAvlTree: inserts 5000 items in 2182 ms My profiler indicates that the program spends an inordinate amount of time in BaseBinaryTree.Insert. Anyone whose interested can see the EQATEC log file I've created with the code above (you'll need EQATEC profiler to make sense of file). I really want to use a common base class for all of my binary trees, but I can't do that if performance will suffer. What causes my DerivedAvlTree to perform so badly, and what can I do to fix it?

  Read the article

• Which design pattern is most appropriate?

  - by Anon

  Hello, I want to create a class that can use one of four algorithms (and the algorithm to use is only known at run-time). I was thinking that the Strategy design pattern sounds appropriate, but my problem is that each algorithm requires slightly different parameters. Would it be a bad design to use strategy, but pass in the relevant parameters into the constructor?. Here is an example (for simplicity, let's say there are only two possible algorithms) ... class Foo { private: // At run-time the correct algorithm is used, e.g. a = new Algorithm1(1); AlgorithmInterface* a; }; class AlgorithmInterface { public: virtual void DoSomething = 0; }; class Algorithm1 : public AlgorithmInterface { public: Algorithm1( int i ) : value(i) {} virtual void DoSomething(){ // Does something with int value }; int value; }; class Algorithm2 : public AlgorithmInterface { public: Algorithm2( bool b ) : value(b) {} virtual void DoSomething(){ // Do something with bool value }; bool value; };

  Read the article

• AS3 Memory management when instantiating extended classes

  - by araid

  I'm developing an AS3 application which has some memory leaks I can't find, so I'd like to ask some newbie questions about memory management. Imagine I have a class named BaseClass, and some classes that extend this one, such as ClassA, ClassB, etc. I declare a variable: myBaseClass:BaseClass = new ClassA(); After a while, I use it to instantiate a new object: myBaseClass = new ClassB(); some time after myBaseClass = new ClassC(); and the same thing keeps happening every x millis, triggered by a timer. Is there any memory problem here? Are the unused instances correctly deleted by the garbage collector? Thanks!

  Read the article

• C2664 when casting child class to templated parent class

  - by DC

  I have a parent class which is templated, and a child class which implements it. template< typename T1, typename T2> class ParentClass{ . . . }; class ChildClass : public ParentClass<MyT1, MyT2> { . . . }; And I want to have a pointer which I can use polymorphically: ParentClass<T1, T2>* ptr; ptr = static_cast<ParentClass<MyT1, MyT2>* >(new ChildClass() ); No matter how I cast it, I always get a C2664 which has the same expression: error C2664: cannot convert parameter 1 from 'ParentClass< T1,T2 *' to 'ParentClass< T1,T2 *' Is it not possible to cast pointer types between inherited types if the parent is templated, even if the types specified in the templates are the same?

  Read the article

• How to Return Variable for all tests to use Unittest

  - by chrissygormley

  Hello, I have a Python script and I am trying to set a variable so that if the first test fail's the rest of then will be set to fail. The script I have so far is: class Tests(): def function: result function.......... def errorHandle(self): return self.error def sudsPass(self): try: result = self.client.service.GetStreamUri(self.stream, self.token) except suds.WebFault, e: assert False except Exception, e: pass finally: if 'result' in locals(): self.error = True self.errorHandle() assert True else: self.error = False self.errorHandle() assert False def sudsFail(self): try: result = self.client.service.GetStreamUri(self.stream, self.token) except suds.WebFault, e: assert False except Exception, e: pass finally: if 'result' in locals() or self.error == False: assert False else: assert True class GetStreamUri(TestGetStreamUri): def runTest(self): self.sudsPass() class GetStreamUriProtocolFail(TestGetStreamUri): def runTest(self): self.stream.Transport.Protocol = "NoValue" self.errorHandle() self.sudsFail() if __name__ == '__main__': unittest.main() I am trying to get self.error to be set to False if the first test fail. I understand that it is being set in another test but I was hoping someone could help me find a solution to this problem using some other means. Thanks PS. Please ignore the strange tests. There is a problem with the error handling at the moment.

  Read the article

• C++ overloading virtual = operator

  - by taz

  Hello, here is the code for my question: class ICommon { public: virtual ICommon& operator=(const ICommon & p)const=0; }; class CSpecial : public ICommon { public: CSpecial& operator=(const CSpecial & cs) { //custom operations return *this; } }; CSpecial obj; Basically: I want the interface ICommon to force it's descendants to implement = operator but don't want to have any typecasts in the implementation. The compiler says "can't instantiate an abstract class. Any help/advice will be appreciated.

  Read the article

• EF 4.0 Code only assocation from abstract to derived

  - by Jeroen

  Using EF 4.0 Code only i want to make an assocation between an abstract and normal class. I have class 'Item', 'ContentBase' and 'Test'. 'ContentBase' is abstract and 'Test' derives from it. 'ContentBase' has a property 'Item' that links to an instance of 'Item'. So that 'Test.Item' or any class that derives from 'ContentBase' has an 'Item' navigation property. In my DB every record for Test has a matching record for Item. public class Item { public int Id { get; set;} } public abstract class ContentBase { public int ContentId { get; set;} public int Id { get; set;} public Item Item { get; set;} } public class Test : ContentBase { public string Name { get; set;} } now some init code public void SomeInitFunction() { var itemConfig = new EntityConfiguration<Item>(); itemConfig.HasKey(p => p.Id); itemConfig.Property(p => p.Id).IsIdentity(); this.ContextBuilder.Configurations.Add(itemConfig); var testConfig = new EntityConfiguration<Test>(); testConfig.HasKey(p => p.ContentId); testConfig.Property(p => p.ContentId).IsIdentity(); // the problem testConfig.Relationship(p => p.Item).HasConstraint((p, q) => p.Id == q.Id); this.ContextBuilder.Configurations.Add(testConfig); } This gives an error: A key is registered for the derived type 'Test'. Keys must be registered for the root type 'ContentBase'. anyway i try i get an error. What am i a doing wrong?

  Read the article

• Java method get the inheriting type

  - by DrDro

  I have several classes that extend C and I would need a method that accepts any argument of type C. But in this method I would like to know if I'm dealing with A or B. * public A extends C public B extends C public void goForIt(C c)() If I cast how can I retrieve the type in a clean way (I just read using getClass or instanceof is often not the best way). PS: Fell free to edit an explicit title. *Sorry but I can't type closing braces

  Read the article

• Why can't I *override* and *new* a Property (C#) at the same time?

  - by Tim Lovell-Smith

  According to this question it seems like you can do this for Methods. What I want to know is why it doesn't work when I try it with properties. public class Foo { public virtual object Value { get; set; } } public class Foo<T> : Foo { public override object Value { get { return base.Value; } set { base.Value = (T)value; //inject type-checking on sets } } public new T Value { get { return (T)base.Value; } set { base.Value = value; } } } Error message from C# 4.0 RC1 Error 1 The type 'ClassLibrary1.Foo' already contains a definition for 'Value' ClassLibrary1\Class1.cs 31 22 ClassLibrary1

  Read the article

• Interface(s) inheriting other interface(s) in WCF services.

  - by avance70

  In my solution there's a few WCF services, each of them implementing it's own callback interface. Let's say they are called: Subscribe1, with ISubscribe1 and ICallback1, etc. It happens there are a few methods shared among ICallbacks, so I made a following interface: interface ICallback { [OperationContract] CommonlyUsedMethod(); } and i inherited it in all: ICallback1 : ICallback, ICallback2 : ICallback, etc. And deleted the CommonlyUsedMethod() from all callback interfaces. Now, on the service-side code, everything compiles fine and services can start working as usual. But, when I updated the service references for the client, CommonlyUsedMethod() dissapeared from the reference.cs file (the ISubscribeCallback part), and could no longer be used to send data to back to the client.

  Read the article

• How to enforce users to create objects of class derived from mine with "new" only?

  - by sharptooth

  To implement reference counting we use an IUnknown-like interface and a smart pointer template class. The interface has implementation for all the reference-count methods, including Release(): void IUnknownLike::Release() { if( --refCount == 0 ) { delete this; } } The smart pointer template class has a copy constructor and an assignment operator both accepting raw pointers. So users can do the following: class Class : public IUnknownLike { }; void someFunction( CSmartPointer<Class> object ); //whatever function Class object; someFunction( &object ); and the program runs into undefined behavior - the object is created with reference count zero, the smart pointer is constructed and bumps it to one, then the function returns, smart pointer is destroyed, calls Release() which leads to delete of a stack-allocated variable. Users can as well do the following: struct COuter { //whatever else; Class inner;// IUnknownLike descendant }; COuter object; somefunction( &object.Inner ); and again an object not created with new is deleted. Undefined behavior at its best. Is there any way to change the IUnknownLike interface so that the user is forced to use new for creating all objects derived from IUnknownLike - both directly derived and indirectly derived (with classes in between the most derived and the base)?

  Read the article

• Maven POM: how to insist property is not overridden

  - by Joe Thomas

  I have a parent POM that uses a gmaven script to do some stuff: <plugin> <groupId>org.codehaus.gmaven</groupId> <artifactId>gmaven-plugin</artifactId> <version>1.4</version> <configuration combine.children="override"> <providerSelection>2.0</providerSelection> <scriptPath>${basedir}/build/groovy</scriptPath> </configuration> <executions> <execution> <id>groovy-properties-script</id> <phase>validate</phase> <goals> <goal>execute</goal> </goals> <configuration> <source>computeProperties.groovy</source> </configuration> </execution> <!-- ... --> All of the children are supposed to run this script as well, but they try to resolve the scriptpath based on their OWN basedir. Usually this is exactly what you want with properties, but here it doesn't work, and I can't figure out any way around it.

  Read the article

• StructureMap - Injecting a dependency into a base class?

  - by David

  In my domain I have a handful of "processor" classes which hold the bulk of the business logic. Using StructureMap with default conventions, I inject repositories into those classes for their various IO (databases, file system, etc.). For example: public interface IHelloWorldProcessor { string HelloWorld(); } public class HelloWorldProcessor : IHelloWorldProcessor { private IDBRepository _dbRepository; public HelloWorldProcessor(IDBRepository dbRepository) { _dbRepository = dbrepository; } public string HelloWorld(){ return _dbRepository.GetHelloWorld(); } } Now, there are some repositories that I'd like to be available to all processors, so I made a base class like this: public class BaseProcessor { protected ICommonRepository _commonRepository; public BaseProcessor(ICommonRepository commonRepository) { _commonRepository = commonRepository; } } But when my other processors inherit from it, I get a compiler error on each one saying that there's no constructor for BaseProcessor which takes zero arguments. Is there a way to do what I'm trying to do here? That is, to have common dependencies injected into a base class that my other classes can use without having to write the injections into each one?

  Read the article

• Having a base class function depend on its child class C#

  - by Junk Junk

  I have a Base class with a method that a child class will almost always override. However, instead of replacing the base class' method entirely, I would like for whatever is derived in the child class to be added to what is already in the base class. For Example: class BaseClass public string str() { var string = "Hello my name is" ; } class ChildClass : BaseClass public override string str(){ var string = "Sam"; } The point is that if I want to access the str() method by creating an instance of the ChildClass, the string will print out as "Hello, my name is Sam". I've been looking around and all I have been finding is that this should NOT happen, as the base class shouldn't even know that it is being inherited. So, if the design is false, how would I go about doing this? Keep in mind that there will be multiple child classes inheriting from BaseClass. Thank you

  Read the article

• Abstract base class puzzle

  - by 0x80

  In my class design I ran into the following problem: class MyData { int foo; }; class AbstraktA { public: virtual void A() = 0; }; class AbstraktB : public AbstraktA { public: virtual void B() = 0; }; template<class T> class ImplA : public AbstraktA { public: void A(){ cout << "ImplA A()"; } }; class ImplB : public ImplA<MyData>, public AbstraktB { public: void B(){ cout << "ImplB B()"; } }; void TestAbstrakt() { AbstraktB *b = (AbstraktB *) new ImplB; b->A(); b->B(); }; The problem with the code above is that the compiler will complain that AbstraktA::A() is not defined. Interface A is shared by multiple objects. But the implementation of A is dependent on the template argument. Interface B is the seen by the outside world, and needs to be abstrakt. The reason I would like this is that it would allow me to define object C like this: Define the interface C inheriting from abstrakt A. Define the implementation of C using a different datatype for template A. I hope I'm clear. Is there any way to do this, or do I need to rethink my design?

  Read the article

< Previous Page | 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82  | Next Page >