Search Results

Search found 5108 results on 205 pages for 'drupal templates'.

Page 83/205 | < Previous Page | 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90  | Next Page >

  • Abstract base class puzzle

    - by 0x80
    In my class design I ran into the following problem: class MyData { int foo; }; class AbstraktA { public: virtual void A() = 0; }; class AbstraktB : public AbstraktA { public: virtual void B() = 0; }; template<class T> class ImplA : public AbstraktA { public: void A(){ cout << "ImplA A()"; } }; class ImplB : public ImplA<MyData>, public AbstraktB { public: void B(){ cout << "ImplB B()"; } }; void TestAbstrakt() { AbstraktB *b = (AbstraktB *) new ImplB; b->A(); b->B(); }; The problem with the code above is that the compiler will complain that AbstraktA::A() is not defined. Interface A is shared by multiple objects. But the implementation of A is dependent on the template argument. Interface B is the seen by the outside world, and needs to be abstrakt. The reason I would like this is that it would allow me to define object C like this: Define the interface C inheriting from abstrakt A. Define the implementation of C using a different datatype for template A. I hope I'm clear. Is there any way to do this, or do I need to rethink my design?

    Read the article

  • How to specialize template for type derived from particular type

    - by relaxxx
    I have class World which manages creation of object... After creation it calls afterCreation method and I the created object is user-defined type derived from Entity (eg. MyEntity), I want to call addEntity. I the object was something else, I want to do nothing. addEntity must be called with appropriate T, because it generates unique IDs for every derived class etc. Here is my solution: template <int v> struct ToType { enum { value = v }; }; template <typename T> void World::afterCreation(T * t) { afterCreation(t, ToType<std::is_base_of<Entity, T>::value>()); } template <typename T> void World::afterCreation(T * t, ToType<true>) { addEntity(t); //here I cant pass Entity *, I need the real type, eg. MyEntity } template <typename T> void World::afterCreation(T * t, ToType<false>) { } My question is - Can in be done better way? How can I simulate following code without ToType or similar? template <typename T> void afterCreation(){/*generic impl*/} template <typename T where T is derived from Entity> void afterCreation(){/*some specific stuff*/} "specialize" in the title is only to describe my intention, no need to solve problem with template specialization

    Read the article

  • Odd C++ template behaviour with static member vars

    - by jon hanson
    This piece of code is supposed to calculate an approximation to e (i.e. the mathematical constant ~ 2.71828183) at compile-time, using the following approach; e1 = 2 / 1 e2 = (2 * 2 + 1) / (2 * 1) = 5 / 2 = 2.5 e3 = (3 * 5 + 1) / (3 * 2) = 16 / 6 ~ 2.67 e4 = (4 * 16 + 1) / (4 * 6) = 65 / 24 ~ 2.708 ... e(i) = (e(i-1).numer * i + 1) / (e(i-1).denom * i) The computation is returned via the result static member however, after 2 iterations it yields zero instead of the expected value. I've added a static member function f() to compute the same value and that doesn't exhibit the same problem. #include <iostream> #include <iomanip> // Recursive case. template<int ITERS, int NUMERATOR = 2, int DENOMINATOR = 1, int I = 2> struct CalcE { static const double result; static double f () {return CalcE<ITERS, NUMERATOR * I + 1, DENOMINATOR * I, I + 1>::f ();} }; template<int ITERS, int NUMERATOR, int DENOMINATOR, int I> const double CalcE<ITERS, NUMERATOR, DENOMINATOR, I>::result = CalcE<ITERS, NUMERATOR * I + 1, DENOMINATOR * I, I + 1>::result; // Base case. template<int ITERS, int NUMERATOR, int DENOMINATOR> struct CalcE<ITERS, NUMERATOR, DENOMINATOR, ITERS> { static const double result; static double f () {return result;} }; template<int ITERS, int NUMERATOR, int DENOMINATOR> const double CalcE<ITERS, NUMERATOR, DENOMINATOR, ITERS>::result = static_cast<double>(NUMERATOR) / DENOMINATOR; // Test it. int main (int argc, char* argv[]) { std::cout << std::setprecision (8); std::cout << "e2 ~ " << CalcE<2>::result << std::endl; std::cout << "e3 ~ " << CalcE<3>::result << std::endl; std::cout << "e4 ~ " << CalcE<4>::result << std::endl; std::cout << "e5 ~ " << CalcE<5>::result << std::endl; std::cout << std::endl; std::cout << "e2 ~ " << CalcE<2>::f () << std::endl; std::cout << "e3 ~ " << CalcE<3>::f () << std::endl; std::cout << "e4 ~ " << CalcE<4>::f () << std::endl; std::cout << "e5 ~ " << CalcE<5>::f () << std::endl; return 0; } I've tested this with VS 2008 and VS 2010, and get the same results in each case: e2 ~ 2 e3 ~ 2.5 e4 ~ 0 e5 ~ 0 e2 ~ 2 e3 ~ 2.5 e4 ~ 2.6666667 e5 ~ 2.7083333 Why does result not yield the expected values whereas f() does? According to Rotsor's comment below, this does work with GCC, so I guess the question is, am i relying on some type of undefined behaviour with regards to static initialisation order, or is this a bug with Visual Studio?

    Read the article

  • Vector of vectors of T in template<T> class

    - by topright
    Why this code does not compile (Cygwin)? #include <vector> template <class Ttile> class Tilemap { typedef std::vector< Ttile > TtileRow; typedef std::vector< TtileRow > TtileMap; typedef TtileMap::iterator TtileMapIterator; // error here }; error: type std::vector<std::vector<Ttile, std::allocator<_CharT> >, std::allocator<std::vector<Ttile, std::allocator<_CharT> > > >' is not derived from typeTilemap'

    Read the article

  • How do I display many images (by imagefield) in all my nodes of a type?

    - by Leon
    The thing is that I have hundreds of nodes each with 4 to 12 images all of them around the same size in an imagefield but I want to order that so it looks at the end in a grid or something like that. I know that panels and views are the answer but I think I've seen all of the tutorials available but nothing. If anyone know where can I find something like I need, I'll be very gratefull.

    Read the article

  • Class template specializations with shared functionality

    - by Thomas
    I'm writing a simple maths library with a template vector type: template<typename T, size_t N> class Vector { public: Vector<T, N> &operator+=(Vector<T, N> const &other); // ... more operators, functions ... }; Now I want some additional functionality specifically for some of these. Let's say I want functions x() and y() on Vector<T, 2> to access particular coordinates. I could create a partial specialization for this: template<typename T> class Vector<T, 3> { public: Vector<T, 3> &operator+=(Vector<T, 3> const &other); // ... and again all the operators and functions ... T x() const; T y() const; }; But now I'm repeating everything that already existed in the generic template. I could also use inheritance. Renaming the generic template to VectorBase, I could do this: template<typename T, size_t N> class Vector : public VectorBase<T, N> { }; template<typename T> class Vector<T, 3> : public VectorBase<T, 3> { public: T x() const; T y() const; }; However, now the problem is that all operators are defined on VectorBase, so they return VectorBase instances. These cannot be assigned to Vector variables: Vector<float, 3> v; Vector<float, 3> w; w = 5 * v; // error: no conversion from VectorBase<float, 3> to Vector<float, 3> I could give Vector an implicit conversion constructor to make this possible: template<typename T, size_t N> class Vector : public VectorBase<T, N> { public: Vector(VectorBase<T, N> const &other); }; However, now I'm converting from Vector to VectorBase and back again. Even though the types are the same in memory, and the compiler might optimize all this away, it feels clunky and I don't really like to have potential run-time overhead for what is essentially a compile-time problem. Is there any other way to solve this?

    Read the article

  • How do you return a pointer to a base class with a virtual function?

    - by Nick Sweet
    I have a base class called Element, a derived class called Vector, and I'm trying to redefine two virtual functions from Element in Vector. //element.h template <class T> class Element { public: Element(); virtual Element& plus(const Element&); virtual Element& minus(const Element&); }; and in another file //Vector.h #include "Element.h" template <class T> class Vector: public Element<T> { T x, y, z; public: //constructors Vector(); Vector(const T& x, const T& y = 0, const T& z =0); Vector(const Vector& u); ... //operations Element<T>& plus(const Element<T>& v) const; Element<T>& minus(const Element<T>& v) const; ... }; //sum template <class T> Element<T>& Vector<T>::plus(const Element<T>& v) const { Element<T>* ret = new Vector((x + v.x), (y + v.y), (z + v.z)); return *ret; } //difference template <class T> Element<T>& Vector<T>::minus(const Element<T>& v) const { Vector<T>* ret = new Vector((x - v.x), (y - v.y), (z - v.z)); return *ret; } but I always get error: 'const class Element' has no member named 'getx' So, can I define my virtual functions to take Vector& as an argument instead, or is there a way for me to access the data members of Vector through a pointer to Element? I'm still fairly new to inheritance polymorphism, fyi.

    Read the article

  • What is the proper way to declare a specialization of a template for another template type?

    - by Head Geek
    The usual definition for a specialization of a template function is something like this: class Foo { [...] }; namespace std { template<> void swap(Foo& left, Foo& right) { [...] } } // namespace std But how do you properly define the specialization when the type it's specialized on is itself a template? Here's what I've got: template <size_t Bits> class fixed { [...] }; namespace std { template<size_t Bits> void swap(fixed<Bits>& left, fixed<Bits>& right) { [...] } } // namespace std Is this the right way to declare swap? It's supposed to be a specialization of the template function std::swap, but I can't tell whether the compiler is seeing it as such, or whether it thinks that it's an overload of it or something.

    Read the article

  • Use date operations on a computed field filter in a view

    - by stephenhay
    I'd like to expose a filter in Views based on a Computed Field. This field should utilize the date operation "less than". Apparently, a date type is not available to computed field (varchar is). However, using varchar results in views treating the field as a string rather than as a date, without the operation I'm looking for. So I tried using a timestamp instead of a date, which allowed me to use an integer data type. The exposed view gives me a "less than" operation, but as it's still not a date, the user must type in a timestamp. Not handy. So I'm thinking the best way to do this is to create a new (hidden) CCK field which is a date field, and set the value of this field to the value of the Computed Field. I can then use the new CCK field for my exposed filter. But I'm not getting anywhere with this, as I'm unsure how to set another CCK field with a Computed Field. To return the value to the computed field itself, I'm using the standard: $node_field[0]['value'] = $newestdate; I would like to set the value of the new CCK field to $newestdate as well. Can anyone help?

    Read the article

  • velocity: join optional fields with a separator/prefix

    - by SlowStrider
    What would be the most concise/readable way in a velocity template to join multiple fields with a separator while leaving out empty or null Strings without adding excess separators? As an example we have a tooltip or appointments that goes like: Appointment ($number) [with $employee] [-] [$remarks] [-] [$roomToVisit] Where I used brackets to indicate optional data. When filled in it would normally show as Appointment (3) with John - ballroom - serve Java coffee When $remarks is empty but $roomToVisit is not, this becomes: Appointment (3) with John - ballroom When $remarks is "serve Java coffee" but $roomToVisit is empty we get: Appointment (3) with John - serve Java coffee When both are empty: Appointment (3) with John Bonus: also make the field prefix optional. When only $employee is empty we should get: Appointment (2) serve Java coffee - ballroom Ideally I would like the velocity template to look very similar to the first code box. If this is not possible, how would you achieve this with a minimum of distracting code tags? Similar ideas (first is much more verbose): Join with intelligent separators velocity: do something except in last loop iteration

    Read the article

  • update element in knockout template which was changed by 3td party library

    - by yakov
    I have 'div' element (recaptchaDiv) in knockout template which is not bound to any observable field: <div id="recaptchaDiv"></div> On the other hand, I update this 'div' by 3rd party library. In particular, this is google recaptcha. This is my code: Recaptcha.create("[my private key]", "recaptchaDiv", { theme: "clean", callback: Recaptcha.ToTest }); And it doesn't work (I see nothing). What I know: trying on FF console: $("#recaptchaDiv").html() - it shows the expected html code, I just can't see it in the browser What I tried: to move recaptchaDiv outside of the template and it works: I can see the captcha in the browser to bind recaptchaDiv on html property: in the template: <div id="recaptchaDiv" data-bind="html: recaptcha"></div> in the model: Recaptcha.create("[my private key]", "recaptchaDiv", { theme: "clean", callback: Recaptcha.ToTest }); recaptcha($("#recaptchaDiv").html()); and it doesn't work (replacing jquery on document.getElementById doesn't help) Any help will be very much appreciated!!! Thank you in advance.

    Read the article

  • limit by taxonomy in view

    - by bratna
    I use view to show node and i set filters to taxonomy:vocabulary (select 3 taxonomy). I want set limit by vocabulary (1 vocabulary show 3 node). Anyone know how to do this? Please help me. Thanks

    Read the article

  • New to php and need to format a php page from html statement

    - by Peter D
    My problem is the page shows a vertical line of options. I want to put them into a 4 column table to display instead of just down lhs of page. The code I want to change is as follows: </tr> <tr> <td>{LOOP: JOBTYPE} IF("{JOBTYPE.parent_id}"!="0"){&nbsp; {:IF} IF("{JOBTYPE.catcount}"=="0"){<input type="checkbox" name="jobtype[{JOBTYPE.id}]" value="{JOBTYPE.id}" {JOBTYPE.selected}>{JOBTYPE.title}<br>{:IF} IF("{JOBTYPE.catcount}"!="0"){<strong>{JOBTYPE.title}</strong><br>{:IF} {/LOOP: JOBTYPE}</td> </tr> <tr> <td>&nbsp;</td> </tr> As you can see I have another column there and can split cell further but i would like the job list to be displayed accross the page not vertically. Thank you in advance, Peter

    Read the article

  • Why is a Silverlight application created from an exported template show a blank screen in the browse

    - by Edward Tanguay
    I created a silverlight app (without website) named TestApp, with one TextBox: <UserControl x:Class="TestApp.MainPage" xmlns="http://schemas.microsoft.com/winfx/2006/xaml/presentation" xmlns:x="http://schemas.microsoft.com/winfx/2006/xaml" xmlns:d="http://schemas.microsoft.com/expression/blend/2008" xmlns:mc="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/markup-compatibility/2006" mc:Ignorable="d" d:DesignWidth="640" d:DesignHeight="480"> <Grid x:Name="LayoutRoot"> <TextBlock Text="this is a test"/> </Grid> </UserControl> I press F5 and see "this is a test" in my browser (firefox). I select File | Export Template | name it TestAppTemplate and save it. I create a new silverlight app based on the above template. The MainPage.xaml has the exact same XAML as above. I press F5 and see a blank screen in my browser. I look at the HTML source of both of these and they are identical. Everything I have compared in both projects is identical. What do I have to do so that a Silverlight application which is created from my exported template does not show a blank screen?

    Read the article

  • Inheritance inside a template - public members become invisible?

    - by Juliano
    I'm trying to use inheritance among classes defined inside a class template (inner classes). However, the compiler (GCC) is refusing to give me access to public members in the base class. Example code: template <int D> struct Space { struct Plane { Plane(Space& b); virtual int& at(int y, int z) = 0; Space& space; /* <= this member is public */ }; struct PlaneX: public Plane { /* using Plane::space; */ PlaneX(Space& b, int x); int& at(int y, int z); const int cx; }; int& at(int x, int y, int z); }; template <int D> int& Space<D>::PlaneX::at(int y, int z) { return space.at(cx, y, z); /* <= but it fails here */ }; Space<4> sp4; The compiler says: file.cpp: In member function ‘int& Space::PlaneX::at(int, int)’: file.cpp:21: error: ‘space’ was not declared in this scope If using Plane::space; is added to the definition of class PlaneX, or if the base class member is accessed through the this pointer, or if class Space is changed to a non-template class, then the compiler is fine with it. I don't know if this is either some obscure restriction of C++, or a bug in GCC (GCC versions 4.4.1 and 4.4.3 tested). Does anyone have an idea?

    Read the article

  • Cannot overload function

    - by anio
    So I've got a templatized class and I want to overload the behavior of a function when I have specific type, say char. For all other types, let them do their own thing. However, c++ won't let me overload the function. Why can't I overload this function? I really really do not want to do template specialization, because then I've got duplicate the entire class. Here is a toy example demonstrating the problem: http://codepad.org/eTgLG932 The same code posted here for your reading pleasure: #include <iostream> #include <cstdlib> #include <string> struct Bar { std::string blah() { return "blah"; } }; template <typename T> struct Foo { public: std::string doX() { return m_getY(my_t); } private: std::string m_getY(char* p_msg) { return std::string(p_msg); } std::string m_getY(T* p_msg) { return p_msg->blah(); } T my_t; }; int main(int, char**) { Foo<char> x; Foo<Bar> y; std::cout << "x " << x.doX() << std::endl; return EXIT_SUCCESS; } Thank you everyone for your suggestions. Two valid solutions have been presented. I can either specialize the doX method, or specialize m_getY() method. At the end of the day I prefer to keep my specializations private rather than public so I'm accepting Krill's answer.

    Read the article

  • Link error for user defined class type template parameter

    - by isurulucky
    Hi, I implemented a Simple STL map in C++. Factored out the comparison as a type as I was instructed to, then implemented the comparison as shown below: template <typename T> int KeyCompare<T>::operator () (T tKey1, T tKey2) { if(tKey1 < tKey2) return -1; else if(tKey1 > tKey2) return 1; else return 0; } here, tKey1 and tKet2 are the two keys I'm comparing. This worked well for all the basic data types and string. I added a template specialization to compare keys of a user defined type named Test and added a specialization as follows: int KeyCompare<Test>::operator () (Test tKey1, Test tKey2) { if(tKey1.a < tKey2.a) return -1; else if(tKey1.a > tKey2.a) return 1; else return 0; } when I run this, I get a linking error saying SimpleMap.obj : error LNK2005: "public: int __thiscall KeyCompare::operator()(class Test,class Test)" (??R?$KeyCompare@VTest@@@@QAEHVTest@@0@Z) already defined in MapTest.obj SimpleMap.obj : error LNK2005: "public: __thiscall KeyCompare::~KeyCompare(void)" (??1?$KeyCompare@VTest@@@@QAE@XZ) already defined in MapTest.obj SimpleMap.obj : error LNK2005: "public: __thiscall KeyCompare::KeyCompare(void)" (??0?$KeyCompare@VTester@@@@QAE@XZ) already defined in MapTest.obj MapTest.cpp is the test harness class in which I wrote the test case. I have used include guards as well, to stop multiple inclusions. Any idea what the matter is?? Thank you very much!!

    Read the article

  • How can I reuse a base class function in a derived class

    - by Armen Ablak
    Let's say we have these four classes: BinaryTree, SplayTree (which is a sub-class of BinaryTree), BinaryNode and SplayNode (which is a sub-class of BinaryNode). In class BinaryTree I have 2 Find functions, like this bool Find(const T &) const; virtual Node<T> * Find(const T &, Node<T> *) const; and in SplayTree I would like to reuse the second one, because it works in the same way (for example) as in SplayTree, the only thing different is the return type, which is SplayNode. I thought it might be enough if I use this line in SplayTree.cpp using BinaryTree::Find; but it isn't. So, how can I do this?

    Read the article

  • C++, function pointer to the template function pointer

    - by Ian
    I am having a pointer to the common static method class MyClass { private: static double ( *pfunction ) ( const Object *, const Object *); ... }; pointing to the static method class SomeClass { public: static double getA ( const Object *o1, const Object *o2); ... }; Initialization: double ( *MyClass::pfunction ) ( const Object *o1, const Object *o2 ) = &SomeClass::getA; I would like to convert this pointer to the static template function pointer: template <class T> static T ( *pfunction ) ( const Object <T> *, const Object <T> *); //Compile error where: class SomeClass { public: template <class T> static double getA ( const Object <T> *o1, const Object <T> *o2); ... }; But there is some error... Thanks for your help...

    Read the article

  • Where are the function address literals in c++?

    - by academicRobot
    First of all, maybe literals is not the right term for this concept, but its the closest I could think of (not literals in the sense of functions as first class citizens). <UPDATE> After some reading with help from answer by Chris Dodd, what I'm looking for is literal function addresses as template parameters. Chris' answer indicates how to do this for standard functions, but how can the addresses of member functions be used as template parameters? Since the standard prohibits non-static member function addresses as template parameters (c++03 14.3.2.3), I suspect the work around is quite complicated. Any ideas for a workaround? Below the original form of the question is left as is for context. </UPDATE> The idea is that when you make a conventional function call, it compiles to something like this: callq <immediate address> But if you make a function call using a function pointer, it compiles to something like this: mov <memory location>,%rax callq *%rax Which is all well and good. However, what if I'm writing a template library that requires a callback of some sort with a specified argument list and the user of the library is expected to know what function they want to call at compile time? Then I would like to write my template to accept a function literal as a template parameter. So, similar to template <int int_literal> struct my_template {...};` I'd like to write template <func_literal_t func_literal> struct my_template {...}; and have calls to func_literal within my_template compile to callq <immediate address>. Is there a facility in C++ for this, or a work around to achieve the same effect? If not, why not (e.g. some cataclysmic side effects)? How about C++0x or another language? Solutions that are not portable are fine. Solutions that include the use of member function pointers would be ideal. I'm not particularly interested in being told "You are a <socially unacceptable term for a person of low IQ>, just use function pointers/functors." This is a curiosity based question, and it seems that it might be useful in some (albeit limited) applications. It seems like this should be possible since function names are just placeholders for a (relative) memory address, so why not allow more liberal use (e.g. aliasing) of this placeholder. p.s. I use function pointers and functions objects all the the time and they are great. But this post got me thinking about the don't pay for what you don't use principle in relation to function calls, and it seems like forcing the use of function pointers or similar facility when the function is known at compile time is a violation of this principle, though a small one. Edit The intent of this question is not to implement delegates, rather to identify a pattern that will embed a conventional function call, (in immediate mode) directly into third party code, possibly a template.

    Read the article

  • Where are the function literals in c++?

    - by academicRobot
    First of all, maybe literals is not the right term for this concept, but its the closest I could think of (not literals in the sense of functions as first class citizens). The idea is that when you make a conventional function call, it compiles to something like this: callq <immediate address> But if you make a function call using a function pointer, it compiles to something like this: mov <memory location>,%rax callq *%rax Which is all well and good. However, what if I'm writing a template library that requires a callback of some sort with a specified argument list and the user of the library is expected to know what function they want to call at compile time? Then I would like to write my template to accept a function literal as a template parameter. So, similar to template <int int_literal> struct my_template {...};` I'd like to write template <func_literal_t func_literal> struct my_template {...}; and have calls to func_literal within my_template compile to callq <immediate address>. Is there a facility in C++ for this, or a work around to achieve the same effect? If not, why not (e.g. some cataclysmic side effects)? How about C++0x or another language? Solutions that are not portable are fine. Solutions that include the use of member function pointers would be ideal. I'm not particularly interested in being told "You are a <socially unacceptable term for a person of low IQ>, just use function pointers/functors." This is a curiosity based question, and it seems that it might be useful in some (albeit limited) applications. It seems like this should be possible since function names are just placeholders for a (relative) memory address, so why not allow more liberal use (e.g. aliasing) of this placeholder. p.s. I use function pointers and functions objects all the the time and they are great. But this post got me thinking about the don't pay for what you don't use principle in relation to function calls, and it seems like forcing the use of function pointers or similar facility when the function is known at compile time is a violation of this principle, though a small one.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90  | Next Page >