Search Results

Search found 88144 results on 3526 pages for 'first class functions'.

Page 8/3526 | < Previous Page | 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15  | Next Page >

  • Overriding classes/functions from a .dll.

    - by Jeff
    Say I have class A and class B. B inherits from class A, and implements a few virtual functions. The only problem is that B is defined in a .dll. Right now, I have a function that returns an instance of class A, but it retrieves that from a static function in the .dll that returns an instance of class B. My plan is to call the created object, and hopefully, have the functions in the .dll executed instead of the functions defined in class A. For some reason, I keep getting restricted memory access errors. Is there something I don't understand that will keep this plan from working?

    Read the article

  • Usefulness of Toggle functions

    - by roygbiv
    Is it better to write functions that explicitly do something (i.e. HideForm/ShowForm etc...) or is it better to write 'Toggle' type functions (i.e. ToggleVisibility)? I find Toggle type functions awkard because it's hard to track the state by reading the code. In what situations is a toggle type function useful?

    Read the article

  • "Public" nested classes or not

    - by Frederick
    Suppose I have a class 'Application'. In order to be initialised it takes certain settings in the constructor. Let's also assume that the number of settings is so many that it's compelling to place them in a class of their own. Compare the following two implementations of this scenario. Implementation 1: class Application { Application(ApplicationSettings settings) { //Do initialisation here } } class ApplicationSettings { //Settings related methods and properties here } Implementation 2: class Application { Application(Application.Settings settings) { //Do initialisation here } class Settings { //Settings related methods and properties here } } To me, the second approach is very much preferable. It is more readable because it strongly emphasises the relation between the two classes. When I write code to instantiate Application class anywhere, the second approach is going to look prettier. Now just imagine the Settings class itself in turn had some similarly "related" class and that class in turn did so too. Go only three such levels and the class naming gets out out of hand in the 'non-nested' case. If you nest, however, things still stay elegant. Despite the above, I've read people saying on StackOverflow that nested classes are justified only if they're not visible to the outside world; that is if they are used only for the internal implementation of the containing class. The commonly cited objection is bloating the size of containing class's source file, but partial classes is the perfect solution for that problem. My question is, why are we wary of the "publicly exposed" use of nested classes? Are there any other arguments against such use?

    Read the article

  • Is It "Wrong"/Bad Design To Put A Thread/Background Worker In A Class?

    - by Jetti
    I have a class that will read from Excel (C# and .Net 4) and in that class I have a background worker that will load the data from Excel while the UI can remain responsive. My question is as follows: Is it bad design to have a background worker in a class? Should I create my class without it and use a background worker to operate on that class? I can't see any issues really of creating my class this way but then again I am a newbie so I figured I would make sure before I continue on. I hope that this question is relevant here as I don't think it should be on stackoverflow as my code works, this just a design issue.

    Read the article

  • VB.NET class inherits a base class and implements an interface issue (works in C#)

    - by 300 baud
    I am trying to create a class in VB.NET which inherits a base abstract class and also implements an interface. The interface declares a string property called Description. The base class contains a string property called Description. The main class inherits the base class and implements the interface. The existence of the Description property in the base class fulfills the interface requirements. This works fine in C# but causes issues in VB.NET. First, here is an example of the C# code which works: public interface IFoo { string Description { get; set; } } public abstract class FooBase { public string Description { get; set; } } public class MyFoo : FooBase, IFoo { } Now here is the VB.NET version which gives a compiler error: Public Interface IFoo Property Description() As String End Interface Public MustInherit Class FooBase Private _Description As String Public Property Description() As String Get Return _Description End Get Set(ByVal value As String) _Description = value End Set End Property End Class Public Class MyFoo Inherits FooBase Implements IFoo End Class If I make the base class (FooBase) implement the interface and add the Implements IFoo.Description to the property all is good, but I do not want the base class to implement the interface. The compiler error is: Class 'MyFoo' must implement 'Property Description() As String' for interface 'IFoo'. Implementing property must have matching 'ReadOnly' or 'WriteOnly' specifiers. Can VB.NET not handle this, or do I need to change my syntax somewhere to get this to work?

    Read the article

  • Accessing parent class attribute from sub-class body

    - by warwaruk
    I have a class Klass with a class attribute my_list. I have a subclass of it SubKlass, in which i want to have a class attribute my_list which is a modified version of the same attribute from parent class: class Klass(): my_list = [1, 2, 3] class SubKlass(Klass): my_list = Klass.my_list + [4, 5] # this works, but i must specify parent class explicitly #my_list = super().my_list + [4, 5] # SystemError: super(): __class__ cell not found #my_list = my_list + [4, 5] # NameError: name 'my_list' is not defined print(Klass.my_list) print(SubKlass.my_list) So, is there a way to access parent class attribute without specifying its name?

    Read the article

  • Are first-class functions a substitute for the Strategy pattern?

    - by Prog
    The Strategy design pattern is often regarded as a substitute for first-class functions in languages that lack them. So for example say you wanted to pass functionality into an object. In Java you'd have to pass in the object another object which encapsulates the desired behavior. In a language such as Ruby, you'd just pass the functionality itself in the form of an annonymous function. However I was thinking about it and decided that maybe Strategy offers more than a plain annonymous function does. This is because an object can hold state that exists independently of the period when it's method runs. However an annonymous function by itself can only hold state that ceases to exist the moment the function finishes execution. So my question is: when using a language that features first-class functions, would you ever use the Strategy pattern (i.e. encapsulate the functionality you want to pass around in an explicit object), or would you always use an annonymous function? When would you decide to use Strategy when you can use a first-class function?

    Read the article

  • Class member functions instantiated by traits

    - by Jive Dadson
    I am reluctant to say I can't figure this out, but I can't figure this out. I've googled and searched Stack Overflow, and come up empty. The abstract, and possibly overly vague form of the question is, how can I use the traits-pattern to instantiate non-virtual member functions? The question came up while modernizing a set of multivariate function optimizers that I wrote more than 10 years ago. The optimizers all operate by selecting a straight-line path through the parameter space away from the current best point (the "update"), then finding a better point on that line (the "line search"), then testing for the "done" condition, and if not done, iterating. There are different methods for doing the update, the line-search, and conceivably for the done test, and other things. Mix and match. Different update formulae require different state-variable data. For example, the LMQN update requires a vector, and the BFGS update requires a matrix. If evaluating gradients is cheap, the line-search should do so. If not, it should use function evaluations only. Some methods require more accurate line-searches than others. Those are just some examples. The original version instantiates several of the combinations by means of virtual functions. Some traits are selected by setting mode bits that are tested at runtime. Yuck. It would be trivial to define the traits with #define's and the member functions with #ifdef's and macros. But that's so twenty years ago. It bugs me that I cannot figure out a whiz-bang modern way. If there were only one trait that varied, I could use the curiously recurring template pattern. But I see no way to extend that to arbitrary combinations of traits. I tried doing it using boost::enable_if, etc.. The specialized state information was easy. I managed to get the functions done, but only by resorting to non-friend external functions that have the this-pointer as a parameter. I never even figured out how to make the functions friends, much less member functions. The compiler (VC++ 2008) always complained that things didn't match. I would yell, "SFINAE, you moron!" but the moron is probably me. Perhaps tag-dispatch is the key. I haven't gotten very deeply into that. Surely it's possible, right? If so, what is best practice? UPDATE: Here's another try at explaining it. I want the user to be able to fill out an order (manifest) for a custom optimizer, something like ordering off of a Chinese menu - one from column A, one from column B, etc.. Waiter, from column A (updaters), I'll have the BFGS update with Cholesky-decompositon sauce. From column B (line-searchers), I'll have the cubic interpolation line-search with an eta of 0.4 and a rho of 1e-4, please. Etc... UPDATE: Okay, okay. Here's the playing-around that I've done. I offer it reluctantly, because I suspect it's a completely wrong-headed approach. It runs okay under vc++ 2008. #include <boost/utility.hpp> #include <boost/type_traits/integral_constant.hpp> namespace dj { struct CBFGS { void bar() {printf("CBFGS::bar %d\n", data);} CBFGS(): data(1234){} int data; }; template<class T> struct is_CBFGS: boost::false_type{}; template<> struct is_CBFGS<CBFGS>: boost::true_type{}; struct LMQN {LMQN(): data(54.321){} void bar() {printf("LMQN::bar %lf\n", data);} double data; }; template<class T> struct is_LMQN: boost::false_type{}; template<> struct is_LMQN<LMQN> : boost::true_type{}; struct default_optimizer_traits { typedef CBFGS update_type; }; template<class traits> class Optimizer; template<class traits> void foo(typename boost::enable_if<is_LMQN<typename traits::update_type>, Optimizer<traits> >::type& self) { printf(" LMQN %lf\n", self.data); } template<class traits> void foo(typename boost::enable_if<is_CBFGS<typename traits::update_type>, Optimizer<traits> >::type& self) { printf("CBFGS %d\n", self.data); } template<class traits = default_optimizer_traits> class Optimizer{ friend typename traits::update_type; //friend void dj::foo<traits>(typename Optimizer<traits> & self); // How? public: //void foo(void); // How??? void foo() { dj::foo<traits>(*this); } void bar() { data.bar(); } //protected: // How? typedef typename traits::update_type update_type; update_type data; }; } // namespace dj int main_() { dj::Optimizer<> opt; opt.foo(); opt.bar(); std::getchar(); return 0; }

    Read the article

  • C++ non-member functions for nested template classes

    - by beldaz
    I have been writing several class templates that contain nested iterator classes, for which an equality comparison is required. As I believe is fairly typical, the comparison is performed with a non-member (and non-friend) operator== function. In doing so, my compiler (I'm using Mingw32 GCC 4.4 with flags -O3 -g -Wall) fails to find the function and I have run out of possible reasons. In the rather large block of code below there are three classes: a Base class, a Composed class that holds a Base object, and a Nested class identical to the Composed class except that it is nested within an Outer class. Non-member operator== functions are supplied for each. These classes are in templated and untemplated forms (in their own respective namespaces), with the latter equivalent to the former specialised for unsigned integers. In main, two identical objects for each class are compared. For the untemplated case there is no problem, but for the templated case the compiler fails to find operator==. What's going on? #include <iostream> namespace templated { template<typename T> class Base { T t_; public: explicit Base(const T& t) : t_(t) {} bool equal(const Base& x) const { return x.t_==t_; } }; template<typename T> bool operator==(const Base<T> &x, const Base<T> &y) { return x.equal(y); } template<typename T> class Composed { typedef Base<T> Base_; Base_ base_; public: explicit Composed(const T& t) : base_(t) {} bool equal(const Composed& x) const {return x.base_==base_;} }; template<typename T> bool operator==(const Composed<T> &x, const Composed<T> &y) { return x.equal(y); } template<typename T> class Outer { public: class Nested { typedef Base<T> Base_; Base_ base_; public: explicit Nested(const T& t) : base_(t) {} bool equal(const Nested& x) const {return x.base_==base_;} }; }; template<typename T> bool operator==(const typename Outer<T>::Nested &x, const typename Outer<T>::Nested &y) { return x.equal(y); } } // namespace templated namespace untemplated { class Base { unsigned int t_; public: explicit Base(const unsigned int& t) : t_(t) {} bool equal(const Base& x) const { return x.t_==t_; } }; bool operator==(const Base &x, const Base &y) { return x.equal(y); } class Composed { typedef Base Base_; Base_ base_; public: explicit Composed(const unsigned int& t) : base_(t) {} bool equal(const Composed& x) const {return x.base_==base_;} }; bool operator==(const Composed &x, const Composed &y) { return x.equal(y); } class Outer { public: class Nested { typedef Base Base_; Base_ base_; public: explicit Nested(const unsigned int& t) : base_(t) {} bool equal(const Nested& x) const {return x.base_==base_;} }; }; bool operator==(const Outer::Nested &x, const Outer::Nested &y) { return x.equal(y); } } // namespace untemplated int main() { using std::cout; unsigned int testVal=3; { // No templates first typedef untemplated::Base Base_t; Base_t a(testVal); Base_t b(testVal); cout << "a=b=" << testVal << "\n"; cout << "a==b ? " << (a==b ? "TRUE" : "FALSE") << "\n"; typedef untemplated::Composed Composed_t; Composed_t c(testVal); Composed_t d(testVal); cout << "c=d=" << testVal << "\n"; cout << "c==d ? " << (c==d ? "TRUE" : "FALSE") << "\n"; typedef untemplated::Outer::Nested Nested_t; Nested_t e(testVal); Nested_t f(testVal); cout << "e=f=" << testVal << "\n"; cout << "e==f ? " << (e==f ? "TRUE" : "FALSE") << "\n"; } { // Now with templates typedef templated::Base<unsigned int> Base_t; Base_t a(testVal); Base_t b(testVal); cout << "a=b=" << testVal << "\n"; cout << "a==b ? " << (a==b ? "TRUE" : "FALSE") << "\n"; typedef templated::Composed<unsigned int> Composed_t; Composed_t c(testVal); Composed_t d(testVal); cout << "c=d=" << testVal << "\n"; cout << "d==c ? " << (c==d ? "TRUE" : "FALSE") << "\n"; typedef templated::Outer<unsigned int>::Nested Nested_t; Nested_t e(testVal); Nested_t f(testVal); cout << "e=f=" << testVal << "\n"; cout << "e==f ? " << (e==f ? "TRUE" : "FALSE") << "\n"; // Above line causes compiler error: // error: no match for 'operator==' in 'e == f' } cout << std::endl; return 0; }

    Read the article

  • Objective-C Class Question?

    - by tarnfeld
    Hey, My head is about to explode with this logic, can anyone help? Class A #imports Class B. Class A calls Method A in Class B. This works great Class B wants to send a response back to Class A from another method that is called from Method A. If you #import Class A from Class B, it is in effect an infinite loop and the whole thing crashes. Is there a way to do this properly, like a parent type thing? BTW, I'm developing for iPhone.

    Read the article

  • Followup: Python 2.6, 3 abstract base class misunderstanding

    - by Aaron
    I asked a question at Python 2.6, 3 abstract base class misunderstanding. My problem was that python abstract base classes didn't work quite the way I expected them to. There was some discussion in the comments about why I would want to use ABCs at all, and Alex Martelli provided an excellent answer on why my use didn't work and how to accomplish what I wanted. Here I'd like to address why one might want to use ABCs, and show my test code implementation based on Alex's answer. tl;dr: Code after the 16th paragraph. In the discussion on the original post, statements were made along the lines that you don't need ABCs in Python, and that ABCs don't do anything and are therefore not real classes; they're merely interface definitions. An abstract base class is just a tool in your tool box. It's a design tool that's been around for many years, and a programming tool that is explicitly available in many programming languages. It can be implemented manually in languages that don't provide it. An ABC is always a real class, even when it doesn't do anything but define an interface, because specifying the interface is what an ABC does. If that was all an ABC could do, that would be enough reason to have it in your toolbox, but in Python and some other languages they can do more. The basic reason to use an ABC is when you have a number of classes that all do the same thing (have the same interface) but do it differently, and you want to guarantee that that complete interface is implemented in all objects. A user of your classes can rely on the interface being completely implemented in all classes. You can maintain this guarantee manually. Over time you may succeed. Or you might forget something. Before Python had ABCs you could guarantee it semi-manually, by throwing NotImplementedError in all the base class's interface methods; you must implement these methods in derived classes. This is only a partial solution, because you can still instantiate such a base class. A more complete solution is to use ABCs as provided in Python 2.6 and above. Template methods and other wrinkles and patterns are ideas whose implementation can be made easier with full-citizen ABCs. Another idea in the comments was that Python doesn't need ABCs (understood as a class that only defines an interface) because it has multiple inheritance. The implied reference there seems to be Java and its single inheritance. In Java you "get around" single inheritance by inheriting from one or more interfaces. Java uses the word "interface" in two ways. A "Java interface" is a class with method signatures but no implementations. The methods are the interface's "interface" in the more general, non-Java sense of the word. Yes, Python has multiple inheritance, so you don't need Java-like "interfaces" (ABCs) merely to provide sets of interface methods to a class. But that's not the only reason in software development to use ABCs. Most generally, you use an ABC to specify an interface (set of methods) that will likely be implemented differently in different derived classes, yet that all derived classes must have. Additionally, there may be no sensible default implementation for the base class to provide. Finally, even an ABC with almost no interface is still useful. We use something like it when we have multiple except clauses for a try. Many exceptions have exactly the same interface, with only two differences: the exception's string value, and the actual class of the exception. In many exception clauses we use nothing about the exception except its class to decide what to do; catching one type of exception we do one thing, and another except clause catching a different exception does another thing. According to the exception module's doc page, BaseException is not intended to be derived by any user defined exceptions. If ABCs had been a first class Python concept from the beginning, it's easy to imagine BaseException being specified as an ABC. But enough of that. Here's some 2.6 code that demonstrates how to use ABCs, and how to specify a list-like ABC. Examples are run in ipython, which I like much better than the python shell for day to day work; I only wish it was available for python3. Your basic 2.6 ABC: from abc import ABCMeta, abstractmethod class Super(): __metaclass__ = ABCMeta @abstractmethod def method1(self): pass Test it (in ipython, python shell would be similar): In [2]: a = Super() --------------------------------------------------------------------------- TypeError Traceback (most recent call last) /home/aaron/projects/test/<ipython console> in <module>() TypeError: Can't instantiate abstract class Super with abstract methods method1 Notice the end of the last line, where the TypeError exception tells us that method1 has not been implemented ("abstract methods method1"). That was the method designated as @abstractmethod in the preceding code. Create a subclass that inherits Super, implement method1 in the subclass and you're done. My problem, which caused me to ask the original question, was how to specify an ABC that itself defines a list interface. My naive solution was to make an ABC as above, and in the inheritance parentheses say (list). My assumption was that the class would still be abstract (can't instantiate it), and would be a list. That was wrong; inheriting from list made the class concrete, despite the abstract bits in the class definition. Alex suggested inheriting from collections.MutableSequence, which is abstract (and so doesn't make the class concrete) and list-like. I used collections.Sequence, which is also abstract but has a shorter interface and so was quicker to implement. First, Super derived from Sequence, with nothing extra: from abc import abstractmethod from collections import Sequence class Super(Sequence): pass Test it: In [6]: a = Super() --------------------------------------------------------------------------- TypeError Traceback (most recent call last) /home/aaron/projects/test/<ipython console> in <module>() TypeError: Can't instantiate abstract class Super with abstract methods __getitem__, __len__ We can't instantiate it. A list-like full-citizen ABC; yea! Again, notice in the last line that TypeError tells us why we can't instantiate it: __getitem__ and __len__ are abstract methods. They come from collections.Sequence. But, I want a bunch of subclasses that all act like immutable lists (which collections.Sequence essentially is), and that have their own implementations of my added interface methods. In particular, I don't want to implement my own list code, Python already did that for me. So first, let's implement the missing Sequence methods, in terms of Python's list type, so that all subclasses act as lists (Sequences). First let's see the signatures of the missing abstract methods: In [12]: help(Sequence.__getitem__) Help on method __getitem__ in module _abcoll: __getitem__(self, index) unbound _abcoll.Sequence method (END) In [14]: help(Sequence.__len__) Help on method __len__ in module _abcoll: __len__(self) unbound _abcoll.Sequence method (END) __getitem__ takes an index, and __len__ takes nothing. And the implementation (so far) is: from abc import abstractmethod from collections import Sequence class Super(Sequence): # Gives us a list member for ABC methods to use. def __init__(self): self._list = [] # Abstract method in Sequence, implemented in terms of list. def __getitem__(self, index): return self._list.__getitem__(index) # Abstract method in Sequence, implemented in terms of list. def __len__(self): return self._list.__len__() # Not required. Makes printing behave like a list. def __repr__(self): return self._list.__repr__() Test it: In [34]: a = Super() In [35]: a Out[35]: [] In [36]: print a [] In [37]: len(a) Out[37]: 0 In [38]: a[0] --------------------------------------------------------------------------- IndexError Traceback (most recent call last) /home/aaron/projects/test/<ipython console> in <module>() /home/aaron/projects/test/test.py in __getitem__(self, index) 10 # Abstract method in Sequence, implemented in terms of list. 11 def __getitem__(self, index): ---> 12 return self._list.__getitem__(index) 13 14 # Abstract method in Sequence, implemented in terms of list. IndexError: list index out of range Just like a list. It's not abstract (for the moment) because we implemented both of Sequence's abstract methods. Now I want to add my bit of interface, which will be abstract in Super and therefore required to implement in any subclasses. And we'll cut to the chase and add subclasses that inherit from our ABC Super. from abc import abstractmethod from collections import Sequence class Super(Sequence): # Gives us a list member for ABC methods to use. def __init__(self): self._list = [] # Abstract method in Sequence, implemented in terms of list. def __getitem__(self, index): return self._list.__getitem__(index) # Abstract method in Sequence, implemented in terms of list. def __len__(self): return self._list.__len__() # Not required. Makes printing behave like a list. def __repr__(self): return self._list.__repr__() @abstractmethod def method1(): pass class Sub0(Super): pass class Sub1(Super): def __init__(self): self._list = [1, 2, 3] def method1(self): return [x**2 for x in self._list] def method2(self): return [x/2.0 for x in self._list] class Sub2(Super): def __init__(self): self._list = [10, 20, 30, 40] def method1(self): return [x+2 for x in self._list] We've added a new abstract method to Super, method1. This makes Super abstract again. A new class Sub0 which inherits from Super but does not implement method1, so it's also an ABC. Two new classes Sub1 and Sub2, which both inherit from Super. They both implement method1 from Super, so they're not abstract. Both implementations of method1 are different. Sub1 and Sub2 also both initialize themselves differently; in real life they might initialize themselves wildly differently. So you have two subclasses which both "is a" Super (they both implement Super's required interface) although their implementations are different. Also remember that Super, although an ABC, provides four non-abstract methods. So Super provides two things to subclasses: an implementation of collections.Sequence, and an additional abstract interface (the one abstract method) that subclasses must implement. Also, class Sub1 implements an additional method, method2, which is not part of Super's interface. Sub1 "is a" Super, but it also has additional capabilities. Test it: In [52]: a = Super() --------------------------------------------------------------------------- TypeError Traceback (most recent call last) /home/aaron/projects/test/<ipython console> in <module>() TypeError: Can't instantiate abstract class Super with abstract methods method1 In [53]: a = Sub0() --------------------------------------------------------------------------- TypeError Traceback (most recent call last) /home/aaron/projects/test/<ipython console> in <module>() TypeError: Can't instantiate abstract class Sub0 with abstract methods method1 In [54]: a = Sub1() In [55]: a Out[55]: [1, 2, 3] In [56]: b = Sub2() In [57]: b Out[57]: [10, 20, 30, 40] In [58]: print a, b [1, 2, 3] [10, 20, 30, 40] In [59]: a, b Out[59]: ([1, 2, 3], [10, 20, 30, 40]) In [60]: a.method1() Out[60]: [1, 4, 9] In [61]: b.method1() Out[61]: [12, 22, 32, 42] In [62]: a.method2() Out[62]: [0.5, 1.0, 1.5] [63]: a[:2] Out[63]: [1, 2] In [64]: a[0] = 5 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- TypeError Traceback (most recent call last) /home/aaron/projects/test/<ipython console> in <module>() TypeError: 'Sub1' object does not support item assignment Super and Sub0 are abstract and can't be instantiated (lines 52 and 53). Sub1 and Sub2 are concrete and have an immutable Sequence interface (54 through 59). Sub1 and Sub2 are instantiated differently, and their method1 implementations are different (60, 61). Sub1 includes an additional method2, beyond what's required by Super (62). Any concrete Super acts like a list/Sequence (63). A collections.Sequence is immutable (64). Finally, a wart: In [65]: a._list Out[65]: [1, 2, 3] In [66]: a._list = [] In [67]: a Out[67]: [] Super._list is spelled with a single underscore. Double underscore would have protected it from this last bit, but would have broken the implementation of methods in subclasses. Not sure why; I think because double underscore is private, and private means private. So ultimately this whole scheme relies on a gentleman's agreement not to reach in and muck with Super._list directly, as in line 65 above. Would love to know if there's a safer way to do that.

    Read the article

  • Autohotkey script multiple functions

    - by Vince
    Is it possible to use this bottom script but add a second hotkey and function that goes with it. ;DoOver.ini ;[Settings] ;record={LCtrl}{F12} ;hotkey to start and stop recording ;playback={LCtrl}{F5} ;hotkey to start playback ;keydelay=10 ;ms to wait after sending a keypress ;windelay=100 ;ms to wait after activating a window ;movemouseafter=1 ;move the mouse to original pos after playback 1=yes 0=no [Settings] record={LCtrl}{F12} playback={LCtrl}{F5} keydelay=10 windelay=100 movemouseafter=1 macro={WinActive}{Down}{Down}{Down}{Down}{Down}{Down}{Down}{Down}{Down}{Down}{Down}{Down}{LCTRL Down}{Right}{Right}{LCTRL Up}{LSHIFT Down}{End}{LSHIFT Up}{LCTRL Down}{c}{LCTRL Up}{MouseClick,L,236,116,1,0,D}{MouseClick,L,54,116,1,0,U}{LCTRL Down}{LCTRL Up}{MouseClick,L,474,64,1,0,D}{MouseClick,L,474,64,1,0,U}{MouseClick,L,451,77,1,0,D}{MouseClick,L,451,77,1,0,U}{MouseClick,L,44,225,1,0,D}{MouseClick,L,44,225,1,0,U} OR playback={LCtrl}{F7} keydelay=10 windelay=100 movemouseafter=1 macro={WinActive}{Down}{Down}{Down}{Down}{Down}{Down}{Down}{Down}{Down}{Down}{Down}{Down}{Down}{LCTRL Down}{Right}{Right}{LCTRL Up}{LSHIFT Down}{End}{LSHIFT Up}{LCTRL Down}{c}{LCTRL Up}{MouseClick,L,236,116,1,0,D}{MouseClick,L,54,116,1,0,U}{LCTRL Down}{LCTRL Up}{MouseClick,L,474,64,1,0,D}{MouseClick,L,474,64,1,0,U}{MouseClick,L,451,77,1,0,D}{MouseClick,L,451,77,1,0,U}{MouseClick,L,44,225,1,0,D}{MouseClick,L,44,225,1,0,U} Maybe add something like what is printed in bold here. I know the coding isnt right here, but i think this is the best way to describe what I am looking for. Anybody?

    Read the article

  • Prefer class members or passing arguments between internal methods?

    - by geoffjentry
    Suppose within the private portion of a class there is a value which is utilized by multiple private methods. Do people prefer having this defined as a member variable for the class or passing it as an argument to each of the methods - and why? On one hand I could see an argument to be made that reducing state (ie member variables) in a class is generally a good thing, although if the same value is being repeatedly used throughout a class' methods it seems like that would be an ideal candidate for representation as state for the class to make the code visibly cleaner if nothing else. Edit: To clarify some of the comments/questions that were raised, I'm not talking about constants and this isn't relating to any particular case rather just a hypothetical that I was talking to some other people about. Ignoring the OOP angle for a moment, the particular use case that I had in mind was the following (assume pass by reference just to make the pseudocode cleaner) int x doSomething(x) doAnotherThing(x) doYetAnotherThing(x) doSomethingElse(x) So what I mean is that there's some variable that is common between multiple functions - in the case I had in mind it was due to chaining of smaller functions. In an OOP system, if these were all methods of a class (say due to refactoring via extracting methods from a large method), that variable could be passed around them all or it could be a class member.

    Read the article

  • Foolishness Check: PHP Class finds Class file but not Class in the file.

    - by Daniel Bingham
    I'm at a loss here. I've defined an abstract superclass in one file and a subclass in another. I have required the super-classes file and the stack trace reports to find an include it. However, it then returns an error when it hits the 'extends' line: Fatal error: Class 'HTMLBuilder' not found in View/Markup/HTML/HTML4.01/HTML4_01Builder.php on line 7. I had this working with another class tree that uses factories a moment ago. I just added the builder layer in between the factories and the consumer. The factory layer looked almost exactly the same in terms of includes and dependencies. So that makes me think I must have done something silly that's causes the HTMLBuilder.php file to not be included correctly or interpreted correctly or some such. Here's the full stack trace (paths slightly altered): # Time Memory Function Location 1 0.0001 53904 {main}( ) ../index.php:0 2 0.0002 67600 require_once( 'View/Page.php' ) ../index.php:3 3 0.0003 75444 require_once( 'View/Sections/SectionFactory.php' ) ../Page.php:4 4 0.0003 81152 require_once( 'View/Sections/HTML/HTMLSectionFactory.php' ) ../SectionFactory.php:3 5 0.0004 92108 require_once( 'View/Sections/HTML/HTMLTitlebarSection.php' ) ../HTMLSectionFactory.php:5 6 0.0005 99716 require_once( 'View/Markup/HTML/HTMLBuilder.php' ) ../HTMLTitlebarSection.php:3 7 0.0005 103580 require_once( 'View/Markup/MarkupBuilder.php' ) ../HTMLBuilder.php:3 8 0.0006 124120 require_once( 'View/Markup/HTML/HTML4.01/HTML4_01Builder.php' ) ../MarkupBuilder.php:3 Here's the code in question: Parent class (View/Markup/HTML/HTMLBuilder.php): <?php require_once('View/Markup/MarkupBuilder.php'); abstract class HTMLBuilder extends MarkupBuilder { public abstract function getLink($text, $href); public abstract function getImage($src, $alt); public abstract function getDivision($id, array $classes=NULL, array $children=NULL); public abstract function getParagraph($text, array $classes=NULL, $id=NULL); } ?> Child Class, (View/Markup/HTML/HTML4.01/HTML4_01Builder.php): <?php require_once('HTML4_01Factory.php'); require_once('View/Markup/HTML/HTMLBuilder.php'); class HTML4_01Builder extends HTMLBuilder { private $factory; public function __construct() { $this->factory = new HTML4_01Factory(); } public function getLink($href, $text) { $link = $this->factory->getA(); $link->addAttribute('href', $href); $link->addChild($this->factory->getText($text)); return $link; } public function getImage($src, $alt) { $image = $this->factory->getImg(); $image->addAttribute('src', $src); $image->addAttribute('alt', $alt); return $image; } public function getDivision($id, array $classes=NULL, array $children=NULL) { $div = $this->factory->getDiv(); $div->setID($id); if(!empty($classes)) { $div->addClasses($classes); } if(!empty($children)) { $div->addChildren($children); } return $div; } public function getParagraph($text, array $classes=NULL, $id=NULL) { $p = $this->factory->getP(); $p->addChild($this->factory->getText($text)); if(!empty($classes)) { $p->addClasses($classes); } if(!empty($id)) { $p->setID($id); } return $p; } } ?> I would appreciate any and all ideas. I'm at a complete loss here as to what is going wrong. I'm sure it's something stupid I just can't see...

    Read the article

  • PHP import functions

    - by ninuhadida
    Hi, I'm trying to find the best pragmatic approach to import functions on the fly... let me explain. Say I have a directory called functions which has these files: array_select.func.php stat_mediam.func.php stat_mean.func.php ..... I would like to: load each individual file (which has a function defined inside) and use it just like an internal php function.. such as array_pop(), array_shift(), etc. Once I stumbled on a tutorial (which I can't find again now) that compiled user defined functions as part of a PHP installation.. Although that's not a very good solution because on shared/reseller hosting you can't recompile the PHP installation. I don't want to have conflicts with future versions of PHP / other extensions, i.e. if a function named X by me, is suddenly part of the internal php functions (even though it might not have the same functionality per se) I don't want PHP to throw a fatal error because of this and fail miserably. So the best method that I can think of is to check if a function is defined, using function_exists(), if so throw a notice so that it's easy to track in the log files, otherwise define the function. However that will probably translate to having a lot of include/require statement in other files where I need such a function, which I don't really like. Or possibly, read the directory and loop over each *.func.php file and include_once. Though I find this a bit ugly. The question is, have you ever stumbled upon some source code which handled such a case? How was it implemented? Did you ever do something similar? I need as much ideas as possible! :)

    Read the article

  • Class member functions instantiated by traits [policies, actually]

    - by Jive Dadson
    I am reluctant to say I can't figure this out, but I can't figure this out. I've googled and searched Stack Overflow, and come up empty. The abstract, and possibly overly vague form of the question is, how can I use the traits-pattern to instantiate member functions? [Update: I used the wrong term here. It should be "policies" rather than "traits." Traits describe existing classes. Policies prescribe synthetic classes.] The question came up while modernizing a set of multivariate function optimizers that I wrote more than 10 years ago. The optimizers all operate by selecting a straight-line path through the parameter space away from the current best point (the "update"), then finding a better point on that line (the "line search"), then testing for the "done" condition, and if not done, iterating. There are different methods for doing the update, the line-search, and conceivably for the done test, and other things. Mix and match. Different update formulae require different state-variable data. For example, the LMQN update requires a vector, and the BFGS update requires a matrix. If evaluating gradients is cheap, the line-search should do so. If not, it should use function evaluations only. Some methods require more accurate line-searches than others. Those are just some examples. The original version instantiates several of the combinations by means of virtual functions. Some traits are selected by setting mode bits that are tested at runtime. Yuck. It would be trivial to define the traits with #define's and the member functions with #ifdef's and macros. But that's so twenty years ago. It bugs me that I cannot figure out a whiz-bang modern way. If there were only one trait that varied, I could use the curiously recurring template pattern. But I see no way to extend that to arbitrary combinations of traits. I tried doing it using boost::enable_if, etc.. The specialized state information was easy. I managed to get the functions done, but only by resorting to non-friend external functions that have the this-pointer as a parameter. I never even figured out how to make the functions friends, much less member functions. The compiler (VC++ 2008) always complained that things didn't match. I would yell, "SFINAE, you moron!" but the moron is probably me. Perhaps tag-dispatch is the key. I haven't gotten very deeply into that. Surely it's possible, right? If so, what is best practice? UPDATE: Here's another try at explaining it. I want the user to be able to fill out an order (manifest) for a custom optimizer, something like ordering off of a Chinese menu - one from column A, one from column B, etc.. Waiter, from column A (updaters), I'll have the BFGS update with Cholesky-decompositon sauce. From column B (line-searchers), I'll have the cubic interpolation line-search with an eta of 0.4 and a rho of 1e-4, please. Etc... UPDATE: Okay, okay. Here's the playing-around that I've done. I offer it reluctantly, because I suspect it's a completely wrong-headed approach. It runs okay under vc++ 2008. #include <boost/utility.hpp> #include <boost/type_traits/integral_constant.hpp> namespace dj { struct CBFGS { void bar() {printf("CBFGS::bar %d\n", data);} CBFGS(): data(1234){} int data; }; template<class T> struct is_CBFGS: boost::false_type{}; template<> struct is_CBFGS<CBFGS>: boost::true_type{}; struct LMQN {LMQN(): data(54.321){} void bar() {printf("LMQN::bar %lf\n", data);} double data; }; template<class T> struct is_LMQN: boost::false_type{}; template<> struct is_LMQN<LMQN> : boost::true_type{}; // "Order form" struct default_optimizer_traits { typedef CBFGS update_type; // Selection from column A - updaters }; template<class traits> class Optimizer; template<class traits> void foo(typename boost::enable_if<is_LMQN<typename traits::update_type>, Optimizer<traits> >::type& self) { printf(" LMQN %lf\n", self.data); } template<class traits> void foo(typename boost::enable_if<is_CBFGS<typename traits::update_type>, Optimizer<traits> >::type& self) { printf("CBFGS %d\n", self.data); } template<class traits = default_optimizer_traits> class Optimizer{ friend typename traits::update_type; //friend void dj::foo<traits>(typename Optimizer<traits> & self); // How? public: //void foo(void); // How??? void foo() { dj::foo<traits>(*this); } void bar() { data.bar(); } //protected: // How? typedef typename traits::update_type update_type; update_type data; }; } // namespace dj int main() { dj::Optimizer<> opt; opt.foo(); opt.bar(); std::getchar(); return 0; }

    Read the article

  • The Incremental Architect&rsquo;s Napkin - #5 - Design functions for extensibility and readability

    - by Ralf Westphal
    Originally posted on: http://geekswithblogs.net/theArchitectsNapkin/archive/2014/08/24/the-incremental-architectrsquos-napkin---5---design-functions-for.aspx The functionality of programs is entered via Entry Points. So what we´re talking about when designing software is a bunch of functions handling the requests represented by and flowing in through those Entry Points. Designing software thus consists of at least three phases: Analyzing the requirements to find the Entry Points and their signatures Designing the functionality to be executed when those Entry Points get triggered Implementing the functionality according to the design aka coding I presume, you´re familiar with phase 1 in some way. And I guess you´re proficient in implementing functionality in some programming language. But in my experience developers in general are not experienced in going through an explicit phase 2. “Designing functionality? What´s that supposed to mean?” you might already have thought. Here´s my definition: To design functionality (or functional design for short) means thinking about… well, functions. You find a solution for what´s supposed to happen when an Entry Point gets triggered in terms of functions. A conceptual solution that is, because those functions only exist in your head (or on paper) during this phase. But you may have guess that, because it´s “design” not “coding”. And here is, what functional design is not: It´s not about logic. Logic is expressions (e.g. +, -, && etc.) and control statements (e.g. if, switch, for, while etc.). Also I consider calling external APIs as logic. It´s equally basic. It´s what code needs to do in order to deliver some functionality or quality. Logic is what´s doing that needs to be done by software. Transformations are either done through expressions or API-calls. And then there is alternative control flow depending on the result of some expression. Basically it´s just jumps in Assembler, sometimes to go forward (if, switch), sometimes to go backward (for, while, do). But calling your own function is not logic. It´s not necessary to produce any outcome. Functionality is not enhanced by adding functions (subroutine calls) to your code. Nor is quality increased by adding functions. No performance gain, no higher scalability etc. through functions. Functions are not relevant to functionality. Strange, isn´t it. What they are important for is security of investment. By introducing functions into our code we can become more productive (re-use) and can increase evolvability (higher unterstandability, easier to keep code consistent). That´s no small feat, however. Evolvable code can hardly be overestimated. That´s why to me functional design is so important. It´s at the core of software development. To sum this up: Functional design is on a level of abstraction above (!) logical design or algorithmic design. Functional design is only done until you get to a point where each function is so simple you are very confident you can easily code it. Functional design an logical design (which mostly is coding, but can also be done using pseudo code or flow charts) are complementary. Software needs both. If you start coding right away you end up in a tangled mess very quickly. Then you need back out through refactoring. Functional design on the other hand is bloodless without actual code. It´s just a theory with no experiments to prove it. But how to do functional design? An example of functional design Let´s assume a program to de-duplicate strings. The user enters a number of strings separated by commas, e.g. a, b, a, c, d, b, e, c, a. And the program is supposed to clear this list of all doubles, e.g. a, b, c, d, e. There is only one Entry Point to this program: the user triggers the de-duplication by starting the program with the string list on the command line C:\>deduplicate "a, b, a, c, d, b, e, c, a" a, b, c, d, e …or by clicking on a GUI button. This leads to the Entry Point function to get called. It´s the program´s main function in case of the batch version or a button click event handler in the GUI version. That´s the physical Entry Point so to speak. It´s inevitable. What then happens is a three step process: Transform the input data from the user into a request. Call the request handler. Transform the output of the request handler into a tangible result for the user. Or to phrase it a bit more generally: Accept input. Transform input into output. Present output. This does not mean any of these steps requires a lot of effort. Maybe it´s just one line of code to accomplish it. Nevertheless it´s a distinct step in doing the processing behind an Entry Point. Call it an aspect or a responsibility - and you will realize it most likely deserves a function of its own to satisfy the Single Responsibility Principle (SRP). Interestingly the above list of steps is already functional design. There is no logic, but nevertheless the solution is described - albeit on a higher level of abstraction than you might have done yourself. But it´s still on a meta-level. The application to the domain at hand is easy, though: Accept string list from command line De-duplicate Present de-duplicated strings on standard output And this concrete list of processing steps can easily be transformed into code:static void Main(string[] args) { var input = Accept_string_list(args); var output = Deduplicate(input); Present_deduplicated_string_list(output); } Instead of a big problem there are three much smaller problems now. If you think each of those is trivial to implement, then go for it. You can stop the functional design at this point. But maybe, just maybe, you´re not so sure how to go about with the de-duplication for example. Then just implement what´s easy right now, e.g.private static string Accept_string_list(string[] args) { return args[0]; } private static void Present_deduplicated_string_list( string[] output) { var line = string.Join(", ", output); Console.WriteLine(line); } Accept_string_list() contains logic in the form of an API-call. Present_deduplicated_string_list() contains logic in the form of an expression and an API-call. And then repeat the functional design for the remaining processing step. What´s left is the domain logic: de-duplicating a list of strings. How should that be done? Without any logic at our disposal during functional design you´re left with just functions. So which functions could make up the de-duplication? Here´s a suggestion: De-duplicate Parse the input string into a true list of strings. Register each string in a dictionary/map/set. That way duplicates get cast away. Transform the data structure into a list of unique strings. Processing step 2 obviously was the core of the solution. That´s where real creativity was needed. That´s the core of the domain. But now after this refinement the implementation of each step is easy again:private static string[] Parse_string_list(string input) { return input.Split(',') .Select(s => s.Trim()) .ToArray(); } private static Dictionary<string,object> Compile_unique_strings(string[] strings) { return strings.Aggregate( new Dictionary<string, object>(), (agg, s) => { agg[s] = null; return agg; }); } private static string[] Serialize_unique_strings( Dictionary<string,object> dict) { return dict.Keys.ToArray(); } With these three additional functions Main() now looks like this:static void Main(string[] args) { var input = Accept_string_list(args); var strings = Parse_string_list(input); var dict = Compile_unique_strings(strings); var output = Serialize_unique_strings(dict); Present_deduplicated_string_list(output); } I think that´s very understandable code: just read it from top to bottom and you know how the solution to the problem works. It´s a mirror image of the initial design: Accept string list from command line Parse the input string into a true list of strings. Register each string in a dictionary/map/set. That way duplicates get cast away. Transform the data structure into a list of unique strings. Present de-duplicated strings on standard output You can even re-generate the design by just looking at the code. Code and functional design thus are always in sync - if you follow some simple rules. But about that later. And as a bonus: all the functions making up the process are small - which means easy to understand, too. So much for an initial concrete example. Now it´s time for some theory. Because there is method to this madness ;-) The above has only scratched the surface. Introducing Flow Design Functional design starts with a given function, the Entry Point. Its goal is to describe the behavior of the program when the Entry Point is triggered using a process, not an algorithm. An algorithm consists of logic, a process on the other hand consists just of steps or stages. Each processing step transforms input into output or a side effect. Also it might access resources, e.g. a printer, a database, or just memory. Processing steps thus can rely on state of some sort. This is different from Functional Programming, where functions are supposed to not be stateful and not cause side effects.[1] In its simplest form a process can be written as a bullet point list of steps, e.g. Get data from user Output result to user Transform data Parse data Map result for output Such a compilation of steps - possibly on different levels of abstraction - often is the first artifact of functional design. It can be generated by a team in an initial design brainstorming. Next comes ordering the steps. What should happen first, what next etc.? Get data from user Parse data Transform data Map result for output Output result to user That´s great for a start into functional design. It´s better than starting to code right away on a given function using TDD. Please get me right: TDD is a valuable practice. But it can be unnecessarily hard if the scope of a functionn is too large. But how do you know beforehand without investing some thinking? And how to do this thinking in a systematic fashion? My recommendation: For any given function you´re supposed to implement first do a functional design. Then, once you´re confident you know the processing steps - which are pretty small - refine and code them using TDD. You´ll see that´s much, much easier - and leads to cleaner code right away. For more information on this approach I call “Informed TDD” read my book of the same title. Thinking before coding is smart. And writing down the solution as a bunch of functions possibly is the simplest thing you can do, I´d say. It´s more according to the KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) principle than returning constants or other trivial stuff TDD development often is started with. So far so good. A simple ordered list of processing steps will do to start with functional design. As shown in the above example such steps can easily be translated into functions. Moving from design to coding thus is simple. However, such a list does not scale. Processing is not always that simple to be captured in a list. And then the list is just text. Again. Like code. That means the design is lacking visuality. Textual representations need more parsing by your brain than visual representations. Plus they are limited in their “dimensionality”: text just has one dimension, it´s sequential. Alternatives and parallelism are hard to encode in text. In addition the functional design using numbered lists lacks data. It´s not visible what´s the input, output, and state of the processing steps. That´s why functional design should be done using a lightweight visual notation. No tool is necessary to draw such designs. Use pen and paper; a flipchart, a whiteboard, or even a napkin is sufficient. Visualizing processes The building block of the functional design notation is a functional unit. I mostly draw it like this: Something is done, it´s clear what goes in, it´s clear what comes out, and it´s clear what the processing step requires in terms of state or hardware. Whenever input flows into a functional unit it gets processed and output is produced and/or a side effect occurs. Flowing data is the driver of something happening. That´s why I call this approach to functional design Flow Design. It´s about data flow instead of control flow. Control flow like in algorithms is of no concern to functional design. Thinking about control flow simply is too low level. Once you start with control flow you easily get bogged down by tons of details. That´s what you want to avoid during design. Design is supposed to be quick, broad brush, abstract. It should give overview. But what about all the details? As Robert C. Martin rightly said: “Programming is abot detail”. Detail is a matter of code. Once you start coding the processing steps you designed you can worry about all the detail you want. Functional design does not eliminate all the nitty gritty. It just postpones tackling them. To me that´s also an example of the SRP. Function design has the responsibility to come up with a solution to a problem posed by a single function (Entry Point). And later coding has the responsibility to implement the solution down to the last detail (i.e. statement, API-call). TDD unfortunately mixes both responsibilities. It´s just coding - and thereby trying to find detailed implementations (green phase) plus getting the design right (refactoring). To me that´s one reason why TDD has failed to deliver on its promise for many developers. Using functional units as building blocks of functional design processes can be depicted very easily. Here´s the initial process for the example problem: For each processing step draw a functional unit and label it. Choose a verb or an “action phrase” as a label, not a noun. Functional design is about activities, not state or structure. Then make the output of an upstream step the input of a downstream step. Finally think about the data that should flow between the functional units. Write the data above the arrows connecting the functional units in the direction of the data flow. Enclose the data description in brackets. That way you can clearly see if all flows have already been specified. Empty brackets mean “no data is flowing”, but nevertheless a signal is sent. A name like “list” or “strings” in brackets describes the data content. Use lower case labels for that purpose. A name starting with an upper case letter like “String” or “Customer” on the other hand signifies a data type. If you like, you also can combine descriptions with data types by separating them with a colon, e.g. (list:string) or (strings:string[]). But these are just suggestions from my practice with Flow Design. You can do it differently, if you like. Just be sure to be consistent. Flows wired-up in this manner I call one-dimensional (1D). Each functional unit just has one input and/or one output. A functional unit without an output is possible. It´s like a black hole sucking up input without producing any output. Instead it produces side effects. A functional unit without an input, though, does make much sense. When should it start to work? What´s the trigger? That´s why in the above process even the first processing step has an input. If you like, view such 1D-flows as pipelines. Data is flowing through them from left to right. But as you can see, it´s not always the same data. It get´s transformed along its passage: (args) becomes a (list) which is turned into (strings). The Principle of Mutual Oblivion A very characteristic trait of flows put together from function units is: no functional units knows another one. They are all completely independent of each other. Functional units don´t know where their input is coming from (or even when it´s gonna arrive). They just specify a range of values they can process. And they promise a certain behavior upon input arriving. Also they don´t know where their output is going. They just produce it in their own time independent of other functional units. That means at least conceptually all functional units work in parallel. Functional units don´t know their “deployment context”. They now nothing about the overall flow they are place in. They are just consuming input from some upstream, and producing output for some downstream. That makes functional units very easy to test. At least as long as they don´t depend on state or resources. I call this the Principle of Mutual Oblivion (PoMO). Functional units are oblivious of others as well as an overall context/purpose. They are just parts of a whole focused on a single responsibility. How the whole is built, how a larger goal is achieved, is of no concern to the single functional units. By building software in such a manner, functional design interestingly follows nature. Nature´s building blocks for organisms also follow the PoMO. The cells forming your body do not know each other. Take a nerve cell “controlling” a muscle cell for example:[2] The nerve cell does not know anything about muscle cells, let alone the specific muscel cell it is “attached to”. Likewise the muscle cell does not know anything about nerve cells, let a lone a specific nerve cell “attached to” it. Saying “the nerve cell is controlling the muscle cell” thus only makes sense when viewing both from the outside. “Control” is a concept of the whole, not of its parts. Control is created by wiring-up parts in a certain way. Both cells are mutually oblivious. Both just follow a contract. One produces Acetylcholine (ACh) as output, the other consumes ACh as input. Where the ACh is going, where it´s coming from neither cell cares about. Million years of evolution have led to this kind of division of labor. And million years of evolution have produced organism designs (DNA) which lead to the production of these different cell types (and many others) and also to their co-location. The result: the overall behavior of an organism. How and why this happened in nature is a mystery. For our software, though, it´s clear: functional and quality requirements needs to be fulfilled. So we as developers have to become “intelligent designers” of “software cells” which we put together to form a “software organism” which responds in satisfying ways to triggers from it´s environment. My bet is: If nature gets complex organisms working by following the PoMO, who are we to not apply this recipe for success to our much simpler “machines”? So my rule is: Wherever there is functionality to be delivered, because there is a clear Entry Point into software, design the functionality like nature would do it. Build it from mutually oblivious functional units. That´s what Flow Design is about. In that way it´s even universal, I´d say. Its notation can also be applied to biology: Never mind labeling the functional units with nouns. That´s ok in Flow Design. You´ll do that occassionally for functional units on a higher level of abstraction or when their purpose is close to hardware. Getting a cockroach to roam your bedroom takes 1,000,000 nerve cells (neurons). Getting the de-duplication program to do its job just takes 5 “software cells” (functional units). Both, though, follow the same basic principle. Translating functional units into code Moving from functional design to code is no rocket science. In fact it´s straightforward. There are two simple rules: Translate an input port to a function. Translate an output port either to a return statement in that function or to a function pointer visible to that function. The simplest translation of a functional unit is a function. That´s what you saw in the above example. Functions are mutually oblivious. That why Functional Programming likes them so much. It makes them composable. Which is the reason, nature works according to the PoMO. Let´s be clear about one thing: There is no dependency injection in nature. For all of an organism´s complexity no DI container is used. Behavior is the result of smooth cooperation between mutually oblivious building blocks. Functions will often be the adequate translation for the functional units in your designs. But not always. Take for example the case, where a processing step should not always produce an output. Maybe the purpose is to filter input. Here the functional unit consumes words and produces words. But it does not pass along every word flowing in. Some words are swallowed. Think of a spell checker. It probably should not check acronyms for correctness. There are too many of them. Or words with no more than two letters. Such words are called “stop words”. In the above picture the optionality of the output is signified by the astrisk outside the brackets. It means: Any number of (word) data items can flow from the functional unit for each input data item. It might be none or one or even more. This I call a stream of data. Such behavior cannot be translated into a function where output is generated with return. Because a function always needs to return a value. So the output port is translated into a function pointer or continuation which gets passed to the subroutine when called:[3]void filter_stop_words( string word, Action<string> onNoStopWord) { if (...check if not a stop word...) onNoStopWord(word); } If you want to be nitpicky you might call such a function pointer parameter an injection. And technically you´re right. Conceptually, though, it´s not an injection. Because the subroutine is not functionally dependent on the continuation. Firstly continuations are procedures, i.e. subroutines without a return type. Remember: Flow Design is about unidirectional data flow. Secondly the name of the formal parameter is chosen in a way as to not assume anything about downstream processing steps. onNoStopWord describes a situation (or event) within the functional unit only. Translating output ports into function pointers helps keeping functional units mutually oblivious in cases where output is optional or produced asynchronically. Either pass the function pointer to the function upon call. Or make it global by putting it on the encompassing class. Then it´s called an event. In C# that´s even an explicit feature.class Filter { public void filter_stop_words( string word) { if (...check if not a stop word...) onNoStopWord(word); } public event Action<string> onNoStopWord; } When to use a continuation and when to use an event dependens on how a functional unit is used in flows and how it´s packed together with others into classes. You´ll see examples further down the Flow Design road. Another example of 1D functional design Let´s see Flow Design once more in action using the visual notation. How about the famous word wrap kata? Robert C. Martin has posted a much cited solution including an extensive reasoning behind his TDD approach. So maybe you want to compare it to Flow Design. The function signature given is:string WordWrap(string text, int maxLineLength) {...} That´s not an Entry Point since we don´t see an application with an environment and users. Nevertheless it´s a function which is supposed to provide a certain functionality. The text passed in has to be reformatted. The input is a single line of arbitrary length consisting of words separated by spaces. The output should consist of one or more lines of a maximum length specified. If a word is longer than a the maximum line length it can be split in multiple parts each fitting in a line. Flow Design Let´s start by brainstorming the process to accomplish the feat of reformatting the text. What´s needed? Words need to be assembled into lines Words need to be extracted from the input text The resulting lines need to be assembled into the output text Words too long to fit in a line need to be split Does sound about right? I guess so. And it shows a kind of priority. Long words are a special case. So maybe there is a hint for an incremental design here. First let´s tackle “average words” (words not longer than a line). Here´s the Flow Design for this increment: The the first three bullet points turned into functional units with explicit data added. As the signature requires a text is transformed into another text. See the input of the first functional unit and the output of the last functional unit. In between no text flows, but words and lines. That´s good to see because thereby the domain is clearly represented in the design. The requirements are talking about words and lines and here they are. But note the asterisk! It´s not outside the brackets but inside. That means it´s not a stream of words or lines, but lists or sequences. For each text a sequence of words is output. For each sequence of words a sequence of lines is produced. The asterisk is used to abstract from the concrete implementation. Like with streams. Whether the list of words gets implemented as an array or an IEnumerable is not important during design. It´s an implementation detail. Does any processing step require further refinement? I don´t think so. They all look pretty “atomic” to me. And if not… I can always backtrack and refine a process step using functional design later once I´ve gained more insight into a sub-problem. Implementation The implementation is straightforward as you can imagine. The processing steps can all be translated into functions. Each can be tested easily and separately. Each has a focused responsibility. And the process flow becomes just a sequence of function calls: Easy to understand. It clearly states how word wrapping works - on a high level of abstraction. And it´s easy to evolve as you´ll see. Flow Design - Increment 2 So far only texts consisting of “average words” are wrapped correctly. Words not fitting in a line will result in lines too long. Wrapping long words is a feature of the requested functionality. Whether it´s there or not makes a difference to the user. To quickly get feedback I decided to first implement a solution without this feature. But now it´s time to add it to deliver the full scope. Fortunately Flow Design automatically leads to code following the Open Closed Principle (OCP). It´s easy to extend it - instead of changing well tested code. How´s that possible? Flow Design allows for extension of functionality by inserting functional units into the flow. That way existing functional units need not be changed. The data flow arrow between functional units is a natural extension point. No need to resort to the Strategy Pattern. No need to think ahead where extions might need to be made in the future. I just “phase in” the remaining processing step: Since neither Extract words nor Reformat know of their environment neither needs to be touched due to the “detour”. The new processing step accepts the output of the existing upstream step and produces data compatible with the existing downstream step. Implementation - Increment 2 A trivial implementation checking the assumption if this works does not do anything to split long words. The input is just passed on: Note how clean WordWrap() stays. The solution is easy to understand. A developer looking at this code sometime in the future, when a new feature needs to be build in, quickly sees how long words are dealt with. Compare this to Robert C. Martin´s solution:[4] How does this solution handle long words? Long words are not even part of the domain language present in the code. At least I need considerable time to understand the approach. Admittedly the Flow Design solution with the full implementation of long word splitting is longer than Robert C. Martin´s. At least it seems. Because his solution does not cover all the “word wrap situations” the Flow Design solution handles. Some lines would need to be added to be on par, I guess. But even then… Is a difference in LOC that important as long as it´s in the same ball park? I value understandability and openness for extension higher than saving on the last line of code. Simplicity is not just less code, it´s also clarity in design. But don´t take my word for it. Try Flow Design on larger problems and compare for yourself. What´s the easier, more straightforward way to clean code? And keep in mind: You ain´t seen all yet ;-) There´s more to Flow Design than described in this chapter. In closing I hope I was able to give you a impression of functional design that makes you hungry for more. To me it´s an inevitable step in software development. Jumping from requirements to code does not scale. And it leads to dirty code all to quickly. Some thought should be invested first. Where there is a clear Entry Point visible, it´s functionality should be designed using data flows. Because with data flows abstraction is possible. For more background on why that´s necessary read my blog article here. For now let me point out to you - if you haven´t already noticed - that Flow Design is a general purpose declarative language. It´s “programming by intention” (Shalloway et al.). Just write down how you think the solution should work on a high level of abstraction. This breaks down a large problem in smaller problems. And by following the PoMO the solutions to those smaller problems are independent of each other. So they are easy to test. Or you could even think about getting them implemented in parallel by different team members. Flow Design not only increases evolvability, but also helps becoming more productive. All team members can participate in functional design. This goes beyon collective code ownership. We´re talking collective design/architecture ownership. Because with Flow Design there is a common visual language to talk about functional design - which is the foundation for all other design activities.   PS: If you like what you read, consider getting my ebook “The Incremental Architekt´s Napkin”. It´s where I compile all the articles in this series for easier reading. I like the strictness of Function Programming - but I also find it quite hard to live by. And it certainly is not what millions of programmers are used to. Also to me it seems, the real world is full of state and side effects. So why give them such a bad image? That´s why functional design takes a more pragmatic approach. State and side effects are ok for processing steps - but be sure to follow the SRP. Don´t put too much of it into a single processing step. ? Image taken from www.physioweb.org ? My code samples are written in C#. C# sports typed function pointers called delegates. Action is such a function pointer type matching functions with signature void someName(T t). Other languages provide similar ways to work with functions as first class citizens - even Java now in version 8. I trust you find a way to map this detail of my translation to your favorite programming language. I know it works for Java, C++, Ruby, JavaScript, Python, Go. And if you´re using a Functional Programming language it´s of course a no brainer. ? Taken from his blog post “The Craftsman 62, The Dark Path”. ?

    Read the article

  • Developing web apps using ASP.NET MVC 3, Razor and EF Code First - Part 1

    - by shiju
    In this post, I will demonstrate web application development using ASP. NET MVC 3, Razor and EF code First. This post will also cover Dependency Injection using Unity 2.0 and generic Repository and Unit of Work for EF Code First. The following frameworks will be used for this step by step tutorial. ASP.NET MVC 3 EF Code First CTP 5 Unity 2.0 Define Domain Model Let’s create domain model for our simple web application Category class public class Category {     public int CategoryId { get; set; }     [Required(ErrorMessage = "Name Required")]     [StringLength(25, ErrorMessage = "Must be less than 25 characters")]     public string Name { get; set;}     public string Description { get; set; }     public virtual ICollection<Expense> Expenses { get; set; } }   Expense class public class Expense {             public int ExpenseId { get; set; }            public string  Transaction { get; set; }     public DateTime Date { get; set; }     public double Amount { get; set; }     public int CategoryId { get; set; }     public virtual Category Category { get; set; } } We have two domain entities - Category and Expense. A single category contains a list of expense transactions and every expense transaction should have a Category. In this post, we will be focusing on CRUD operations for the entity Category and will be working on the Expense entity with a View Model object in the later post. And the source code for this application will be refactored over time. The above entities are very simple POCO (Plain Old CLR Object) classes and the entity Category is decorated with validation attributes in the System.ComponentModel.DataAnnotations namespace. Now we want to use these entities for defining model objects for the Entity Framework 4. Using the Code First approach of Entity Framework, we can first define the entities by simply writing POCO classes without any coupling with any API or database library. This approach lets you focus on domain model which will enable Domain-Driven Development for applications. EF code first support is currently enabled with a separate API that is runs on top of the Entity Framework 4. EF Code First is reached CTP 5 when I am writing this article. Creating Context Class for Entity Framework We have created our domain model and let’s create a class in order to working with Entity Framework Code First. For this, you have to download EF Code First CTP 5 and add reference to the assembly EntitFramework.dll. You can also use NuGet to download add reference to EEF Code First.    public class MyFinanceContext : DbContext {     public MyFinanceContext() : base("MyFinance") { }     public DbSet<Category> Categories { get; set; }     public DbSet<Expense> Expenses { get; set; }         }   The above class MyFinanceContext is derived from DbContext that can connect your model classes to a database. The MyFinanceContext class is mapping our Category and Expense class into database tables Categories and Expenses using DbSet<TEntity> where TEntity is any POCO class. When we are running the application at first time, it will automatically create the database. EF code-first look for a connection string in web.config or app.config that has the same name as the dbcontext class. If it is not find any connection string with the convention, it will automatically create database in local SQL Express database by default and the name of the database will be same name as the dbcontext class. You can also define the name of database in constructor of the the dbcontext class. Unlike NHibernate, we don’t have to use any XML based mapping files or Fluent interface for mapping between our model and database. The model classes of Code First are working on the basis of conventions and we can also use a fluent API to refine our model. The convention for primary key is ‘Id’ or ‘<class name>Id’.  If primary key properties are detected with type ‘int’, ‘long’ or ‘short’, they will automatically registered as identity columns in the database by default. Primary key detection is not case sensitive. We can define our model classes with validation attributes in the System.ComponentModel.DataAnnotations namespace and it automatically enforces validation rules when a model object is updated or saved. Generic Repository for EF Code First We have created model classes and dbcontext class. Now we have to create generic repository pattern for data persistence with EF code first. If you don’t know about the repository pattern, checkout Martin Fowler’s article on Repository Let’s create a generic repository to working with DbContext and DbSet generics. public interface IRepository<T> where T : class     {         void Add(T entity);         void Delete(T entity);         T GetById(long Id);         IEnumerable<T> All();     }   RepositoryBasse – Generic Repository class public abstract class RepositoryBase<T> where T : class { private MyFinanceContext database; private readonly IDbSet<T> dbset; protected RepositoryBase(IDatabaseFactory databaseFactory) {     DatabaseFactory = databaseFactory;     dbset = Database.Set<T>(); }   protected IDatabaseFactory DatabaseFactory {     get; private set; }   protected MyFinanceContext Database {     get { return database ?? (database = DatabaseFactory.Get()); } } public virtual void Add(T entity) {     dbset.Add(entity);            }        public virtual void Delete(T entity) {     dbset.Remove(entity); }   public virtual T GetById(long id) {     return dbset.Find(id); }   public virtual IEnumerable<T> All() {     return dbset.ToList(); } }   DatabaseFactory class public class DatabaseFactory : Disposable, IDatabaseFactory {     private MyFinanceContext database;     public MyFinanceContext Get()     {         return database ?? (database = new MyFinanceContext());     }     protected override void DisposeCore()     {         if (database != null)             database.Dispose();     } } Unit of Work If you are new to Unit of Work pattern, checkout Fowler’s article on Unit of Work . According to Martin Fowler, the Unit of Work pattern "maintains a list of objects affected by a business transaction and coordinates the writing out of changes and the resolution of concurrency problems." Let’s create a class for handling Unit of Work   public interface IUnitOfWork {     void Commit(); }   UniOfWork class public class UnitOfWork : IUnitOfWork {     private readonly IDatabaseFactory databaseFactory;     private MyFinanceContext dataContext;       public UnitOfWork(IDatabaseFactory databaseFactory)     {         this.databaseFactory = databaseFactory;     }       protected MyFinanceContext DataContext     {         get { return dataContext ?? (dataContext = databaseFactory.Get()); }     }       public void Commit()     {         DataContext.Commit();     } }   The Commit method of the UnitOfWork will call the commit method of MyFinanceContext class and it will execute the SaveChanges method of DbContext class.   Repository class for Category In this post, we will be focusing on the persistence against Category entity and will working on other entities in later post. Let’s create a repository for handling CRUD operations for Category using derive from a generic Repository RepositoryBase<T>.   public class CategoryRepository: RepositoryBase<Category>, ICategoryRepository     {     public CategoryRepository(IDatabaseFactory databaseFactory)         : base(databaseFactory)         {         }                } public interface ICategoryRepository : IRepository<Category> { } If we need additional methods than generic repository for the Category, we can define in the CategoryRepository. Dependency Injection using Unity 2.0 If you are new to Inversion of Control/ Dependency Injection or Unity, please have a look on my articles at http://weblogs.asp.net/shijuvarghese/archive/tags/IoC/default.aspx. I want to create a custom lifetime manager for Unity to store container in the current HttpContext.   public class HttpContextLifetimeManager<T> : LifetimeManager, IDisposable {     public override object GetValue()     {         return HttpContext.Current.Items[typeof(T).AssemblyQualifiedName];     }     public override void RemoveValue()     {         HttpContext.Current.Items.Remove(typeof(T).AssemblyQualifiedName);     }     public override void SetValue(object newValue)     {         HttpContext.Current.Items[typeof(T).AssemblyQualifiedName] = newValue;     }     public void Dispose()     {         RemoveValue();     } }   Let’s create controller factory for Unity in the ASP.NET MVC 3 application. public class UnityControllerFactory : DefaultControllerFactory { IUnityContainer container; public UnityControllerFactory(IUnityContainer container) {     this.container = container; } protected override IController GetControllerInstance(RequestContext reqContext, Type controllerType) {     IController controller;     if (controllerType == null)         throw new HttpException(                 404, String.Format(                     "The controller for path '{0}' could not be found" +     "or it does not implement IController.",                 reqContext.HttpContext.Request.Path));       if (!typeof(IController).IsAssignableFrom(controllerType))         throw new ArgumentException(                 string.Format(                     "Type requested is not a controller: {0}",                     controllerType.Name),                     "controllerType");     try     {         controller= container.Resolve(controllerType) as IController;     }     catch (Exception ex)     {         throw new InvalidOperationException(String.Format(                                 "Error resolving controller {0}",                                 controllerType.Name), ex);     }     return controller; }   }   Configure contract and concrete types in Unity Let’s configure our contract and concrete types in Unity for resolving our dependencies.   private void ConfigureUnity() {     //Create UnityContainer               IUnityContainer container = new UnityContainer()                 .RegisterType<IDatabaseFactory, DatabaseFactory>(new HttpContextLifetimeManager<IDatabaseFactory>())     .RegisterType<IUnitOfWork, UnitOfWork>(new HttpContextLifetimeManager<IUnitOfWork>())     .RegisterType<ICategoryRepository, CategoryRepository>(new HttpContextLifetimeManager<ICategoryRepository>());                 //Set container for Controller Factory                ControllerBuilder.Current.SetControllerFactory(             new UnityControllerFactory(container)); }   In the above ConfigureUnity method, we are registering our types onto Unity container with custom lifetime manager HttpContextLifetimeManager. Let’s call ConfigureUnity method in the Global.asax.cs for set controller factory for Unity and configuring the types with Unity.   protected void Application_Start() {     AreaRegistration.RegisterAllAreas();     RegisterGlobalFilters(GlobalFilters.Filters);     RegisterRoutes(RouteTable.Routes);     ConfigureUnity(); }   Developing web application using ASP.NET MVC 3 We have created our domain model for our web application and also have created repositories and configured dependencies with Unity container. Now we have to create controller classes and views for doing CRUD operations against the Category entity. Let’s create controller class for Category Category Controller   public class CategoryController : Controller {     private readonly ICategoryRepository categoryRepository;     private readonly IUnitOfWork unitOfWork;           public CategoryController(ICategoryRepository categoryRepository, IUnitOfWork unitOfWork)     {         this.categoryRepository = categoryRepository;         this.unitOfWork = unitOfWork;     }       public ActionResult Index()     {         var categories = categoryRepository.All();         return View(categories);     }     [HttpGet]     public ActionResult Edit(int id)     {         var category = categoryRepository.GetById(id);         return View(category);     }       [HttpPost]     public ActionResult Edit(int id, FormCollection collection)     {         var category = categoryRepository.GetById(id);         if (TryUpdateModel(category))         {             unitOfWork.Commit();             return RedirectToAction("Index");         }         else return View(category);                 }       [HttpGet]     public ActionResult Create()     {         var category = new Category();         return View(category);     }           [HttpPost]     public ActionResult Create(Category category)     {         if (!ModelState.IsValid)         {             return View("Create", category);         }                     categoryRepository.Add(category);         unitOfWork.Commit();         return RedirectToAction("Index");     }       [HttpPost]     public ActionResult Delete(int  id)     {         var category = categoryRepository.GetById(id);         categoryRepository.Delete(category);         unitOfWork.Commit();         var categories = categoryRepository.All();         return PartialView("CategoryList", categories);       }        }   Creating Views in Razor Now we are going to create views in Razor for our ASP.NET MVC 3 application.  Let’s create a partial view CategoryList.cshtml for listing category information and providing link for Edit and Delete operations. CategoryList.cshtml @using MyFinance.Helpers; @using MyFinance.Domain; @model IEnumerable<Category>      <table>         <tr>         <th>Actions</th>         <th>Name</th>          <th>Description</th>         </tr>     @foreach (var item in Model) {             <tr>             <td>                 @Html.ActionLink("Edit", "Edit",new { id = item.CategoryId })                 @Ajax.ActionLink("Delete", "Delete", new { id = item.CategoryId }, new AjaxOptions { Confirm = "Delete Expense?", HttpMethod = "Post", UpdateTargetId = "divCategoryList" })                           </td>             <td>                 @item.Name             </td>             <td>                 @item.Description             </td>         </tr>          }       </table>     <p>         @Html.ActionLink("Create New", "Create")     </p> The delete link is providing Ajax functionality using the Ajax.ActionLink. This will call an Ajax request for Delete action method in the CategoryCotroller class. In the Delete action method, it will return Partial View CategoryList after deleting the record. We are using CategoryList view for the Ajax functionality and also for Index view using for displaying list of category information. Let’s create Index view using partial view CategoryList  Index.chtml @model IEnumerable<MyFinance.Domain.Category> @{     ViewBag.Title = "Index"; }    <h2>Category List</h2>    <script src="@Url.Content("~/Scripts/jquery.unobtrusive-ajax.min.js")" type="text/javascript"></script>    <div id="divCategoryList">               @Html.Partial("CategoryList", Model) </div>   We can call the partial views using Html.Partial helper method. Now we are going to create View pages for insert and update functionality for the Category. Both view pages are sharing common user interface for entering the category information. So I want to create an EditorTemplate for the Category information. We have to create the EditorTemplate with the same name of entity object so that we can refer it on view pages using @Html.EditorFor(model => model) . So let’s create template with name Category. Let’s create view page for insert Category information   @model MyFinance.Domain.Category   @{     ViewBag.Title = "Save"; }   <h2>Create</h2>   <script src="@Url.Content("~/Scripts/jquery.validate.min.js")" type="text/javascript"></script> <script src="@Url.Content("~/Scripts/jquery.validate.unobtrusive.min.js")" type="text/javascript"></script>   @using (Html.BeginForm()) {     @Html.ValidationSummary(true)     <fieldset>         <legend>Category</legend>                @Html.EditorFor(model => model)               <p>             <input type="submit" value="Create" />         </p>     </fieldset> }   <div>     @Html.ActionLink("Back to List", "Index") </div> ViewStart file In Razor views, we can add a file named _viewstart.cshtml in the views directory  and this will be shared among the all views with in the Views directory. The below code in the _viewstart.cshtml, sets the Layout page for every Views in the Views folder.      @{     Layout = "~/Views/Shared/_Layout.cshtml"; }   Source Code You can download the source code from http://efmvc.codeplex.com/ . The source will be refactored on over time.   Summary In this post, we have created a simple web application using ASP.NET MVC 3 and EF Code First. We have discussed on technologies and practices such as ASP.NET MVC 3, Razor, EF Code First, Unity 2, generic Repository and Unit of Work. In my later posts, I will modify the application and will be discussed on more things. Stay tuned to my blog  for more posts on step by step application building.

    Read the article

  • Using virtual functions

    - by Tucker Morgan
    I am starting to use virtual functions, and i am programming a simple text game, my question is this, if i have a virtual function called spec_abil with in a Super class called rpg_class. If you allow the player to class what class they want to play, say a mage class, a archer class, and a warrior class, which all have their own spec_abil function. How do you write it so that the program knows which one to use depending on the chosen class.

    Read the article

  • ctags doesn't work when class is defined like "class Gem::SystemExitException"

    - by dan
    You can define a class in a namespace like this class Gem class SystemExitException end end or class Gem::SystemExitException end When code uses first method of class definition, ctags indexes the class definition like this: SystemExitException test_class.rb /^ class SystemExitException$/;" c class:Gem With the second way, ctags indexes it like this: Gem rubygems/exceptions.rb /^class Gem::SystemExitException < SystemExit$/;" c The problem with the second way is that you can't put your cursor (in vim) over a reference to "Gem::SystemExitException" and have that jump straight to the class definition. Your only recourse is to page through all the (110!) class definitions that start with "Gem::" and find the one you're looking for. Does anyone know of a workaround? Maybe I should report this to the maintainer of ctags?

    Read the article

  • [R] multiple functions in one R script

    - by Philipp
    Hi, I guess it's a stupid question, but I don't get it :-( I wrote an R script, which creates heatmaps out of xls files. I am calling this R script with a Perl system call and pass over all the arguments. This all works fine. Now I wanted to make the R script less confusing by writing different functions in the R script, for example: args <- commandArgs(TRUE) parsexls <- function(filepath) { data <- read.xls(...) assign("data", data, globalenv()) } reorder <- function(var) { data <- data[order...] assign("data", data, globalenv()) } When I want to call the functions with parsexls(args[1]) reorder(args[2]) nothing happens. But when I place the parsexls(args[1]) in the script between the two functions shown above, the file is parsed correctly! The reorder(args[2]) seems never to be read. Any ideas what I am doing wrong? Phil

    Read the article

  • Error & status handling for functions

    - by Industrial
    Hi everyone, We're working with a new codeigniter based application that are cross referencing different PHP functions forwards and backwards from various libraries, models and such. We're running PHP5 on the server and we try to find a good way for managing errors and status reports that arises from the usage of our functions. While using return in functions, the execution is ended, so nothing more can be sent back. Right? What's the best practice to send a status information or error code upon ending execution of actual function? Should we look into using exceptions or any other approach? http://us.php.net/manual/en/language.exceptions.php

    Read the article

  • Problem about C++ class (inheritance, variables scope and functions)

    - by Luigi Giaccari
    I have a class that contains some data: class DATA Now I would to create some functions that uses those data. I can do it easily by writing member functions like DATA::usedata(); Since there are hundreds of functions, I would to keep an order in my code, so I would like to have some "categories" (not sure of the correct name) like: DATA data; data.memory.free(); data.memory.allocate(); data.file.import(); data.whatever.foo(); where memory, file and whatever are the "categories" and free, allocate and foo are the functions. I tried the inheritance way, but I got lost since I can not declare inside DATA a memory or file object, error C2079 occurs: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/9ekhdcxs%28VS.80%29.aspx Since I am not a programmer please don't be too complicated and if you have an easier way I am all ears.

    Read the article

  • MacPro will freeze after first startup and first time screen saver activates

    - by Rob Segal
    I've run into a bizarre situation every time my MacPro first starts up in the morning when I get to work and the screen saver activates for the first time. When I try to deactivate the screen saver hitting the keyboard or mouse nothing will happen. At best I will get one of the following... Able to move the mouse but clicking does nothing Login prompt will show up but typing on the keyboard does nothing At worst the screen will be fully locked. In all cases I will have to reboot my machine to get it to work again. After this initial restart the machine is fine for the rest of the day. Anyone encountered something like this before?

    Read the article

  • Why do pure virtual base classes get direct access to static data members while derived instances do

    - by Shamster
    I've created a simple pair of classes. One is pure virtual with a static data member, and the other is derived from the base, as follows: #include <iostream> template <class T> class Base { public: Base (const T _member) { member = _member; } static T member; virtual void Print () const = 0; }; template <class T> T Base<T>::member; template <class T> void Base<T>::Print () const { std::cout << "Base: " << member << std::endl; } template <class T> class Derived : public Base<T> { public: Derived (const T _member) : Base<T>(_member) { } virtual void Print () const { std::cout << "Derived: " << this->member << std::endl; } }; I've found from this relationship that when I need access to the static data member in the base class, I can call it with direct access as if it were a regular, non-static class member. i.e. - the Base::Print() method does not require a this- modifier. However, the derived class does require the this-member indirect access syntax. I don't understand why this is. Both class methods are accessing the same static data, so why does the derived class need further specification? A simple call to test it is: int main () { Derived<double> dd (7.0); dd.Print(); return 0; } which prints the expected "Derived: 7"

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15  | Next Page >