Search Results

Search found 1008 results on 41 pages for 'generics'.

Page 24/41 | < Previous Page | 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31  | Next Page >

  • How do I make lambda functions generic in Scala?

    - by Electric Coffee
    As most of you probably know you can define functions in 2 ways in scala, there's the 'def' method and the lambda method... making the 'def' kind generic is fairly straight forward def someFunc[T](a: T) { // insert body here what I'm having trouble with here is how to make the following generic: val someFunc = (a: Int) => // insert body here of course right now a is an integer, but what would I need to do to make it generic? val someFunc[T] = (a: T) => doesn't work, neither does val someFunc = [T](a: T) => Is it even possible to make them generic, or should I just stick to the 'def' variant?

    Read the article

  • Improve this generic abstract class

    - by Keivan
    I have the following abstract class design, I was wondering if anyone can suggest any improvements in terms of stronger enforcement of our requirements or simplifying implementing of the ControllerBase. //Dependency Provider base public abstract class ControllerBase<TContract, TType> where TType : TContract, class { public static TContract Instance { get { return ComponentFactory.GetComponent<TContract, TType>(); } } public TContract GetComponent<TContract, TType>() where TType : TContract, class { component = (TType)Activator.CreateInstance(typeof(TType), true); RegisterComponentInstance<TContract>(component); } } //Contract public interface IController { void DoThing(); } //Actual Class Logic public class Controller: ControllerBase<IController,Controller> { public void DoThing(); //internal constructor internal Controller(){} } //Usage public static void Main() { Controller.Instance.DoThing(); } The following facts should always be true, TType should always implement TContract (Enforced using a generic constraint) TContract must be an interface (Can't find a way to enforce it) TType shouldn't have public constructor, just an internal one, is there any way to Enforce that using ControllerBase? TType must be an concrete class (Didn't include New() as a generic constrain since the constructors should be marked as Internal)

    Read the article

  • Passing an empty IEnumerable argument to a method

    - by avance70
    I have this method (simplified): void DoSomething(IEnumerable<int> numbers); And I invoke it like this: DoSomething(condition==true?results:new List<int>()); The variable results is formed with a LINQ select condition (IEnumerable). I was wondering is this List<int>() the best way (the fastest?) to pass an empty collection, or is new int[0] better? Or, something else would be faster, a Collection, etc.? In my example null wouldn't be ok.

    Read the article

  • Java Webservice with generic methods

    - by danby
    Hi, I was wondering if it is possible to make a generic webservice method in java like this: @WebMethod public <T extends Foo> void testGeneric(T data){ However when I try to consume this with a Java client I get an error stating: [ERROR] Schema descriptor {http://####/}testGeneric in message part "parameters" is not defined and could not be bound to Java. I know it is possible to make a method that takes a parameter such as List and this generates correctly using JAX-WS. I don't mind if there is a solution that means I am tied to using only a particular technology. Thanks, Dan.

    Read the article

  • C# Get Keys from a Dictionary<string, Stream>

    - by alex
    Suppose I have a Dictionary like so: Dictionary<string, Stream> How can I get a list (or IEnumerable or whatever) of JUST the Keys from this dictionary? Is this possible? I could enumerate the dictionary, and extract the keys one by one, but I was hoping to avoid this. In my instance, the Dictionary contains a list of filenames (file1.doc, filex.bmp etc...) and the stream content of the file from another part of the application.

    Read the article

  • c++ global operator not playing well with template class

    - by John
    ok, i found some similar posts on stackoverflow, but I couldn't find any that pertained to my exact situation and I was confused with some of the answers given. Ok, so here is my problem: I have a template matrix class as follows: template <typename T, size_t ROWS, size_t COLS> class Matrix { public: template<typename, size_t, size_t> friend class Matrix; Matrix( T init = T() ) : _matrix(ROWS, vector<T>(COLS, init)) { /*for( int i = 0; i < ROWS; i++ ) { _matrix[i] = new vector<T>( COLS, init ); }*/ } Matrix<T, ROWS, COLS> & operator+=( const T & value ) { for( vector<T>::size_type i = 0; i < this->_matrix.size(); i++ ) { for( vector<T>::size_type j = 0; j < this->_matrix[i].size(); j++ ) { this->_matrix[i][j] += value; } } return *this; } private: vector< vector<T> > _matrix; }; and I have the following global function template: template<typename T, size_t ROWS, size_t COLS> Matrix<T, ROWS, COLS> operator+( const Matrix<T, ROWS, COLS> & lhs, const Matrix<T, ROWS, COLS> & rhs ) { Matrix<T, ROWS, COLS> returnValue = lhs; return returnValue += lhs; } To me, this seems to be right. However, when I try to compile the code, I get the following error (thrown from the operator+ function): binary '+=' : no operator found which takes a right-hand operand of type 'const matrix::Matrix<T,ROWS,COLS>' (or there is no acceptable conversion) I can't figure out what to make of this. Any help if greatly appreciated!

    Read the article

  • How do I create a new AnyType[] array?

    - by cb
    Which is the best practice in this situation? I would like an un-initialized array of the same type and length as the original. public static <AnyType extends Comparable<? super AnyType>> void someFunction(AnyType[] someArray) { AnyType[] anotherArray = (AnyType[]) new Comparable[someArray.length]; ...or... AnyType[] anotherArray = (AnyType[]) new Object[someArray.length]; ...some other code... } Thanks, CB

    Read the article

  • how do I best create a set of list classes to match my business objects

    - by ken-forslund
    I'm a bit fuzzy on the best way to solve the problem of needing a list for each of my business objects that implements some overridden functions. Here's the setup: I have a baseObject that sets up database, and has its proper Dispose() method All my other business objects inherit from it, and if necessary, override Dispose() Some of these classes also contain arrays (lists) of other objects. So I create a class that holds a List of these. I'm aware I could just use the generic List, but that doesn't let me add extra features like Dispose() so it will loop through and clean up. So if I had objects called User, Project and Schedule, I would create UserList, ProjectList, ScheduleList. In the past, I have simply had these inherit from List< with the appropriate class named and then written the pile of common functions I wanted it to have, like Dispose(). this meant I would verify by hand, that each of these List classes had the same set of methods. Some of these classes had pretty simple versions of these methods that could have been inherited from a base list class. I could write an interface, to force me to ensure that each of my List classes has the same functions, but interfaces don't let me write common base functions that SOME of the lists might override. I had tried to write a baseObjectList that inherited from List, and then make my other Lists inherit from that, but there are issues with that (which is really why I came here). One of which was trying to use the Find() method with a predicate. I've simplified the problem down to just a discussion of Dispose() method on the list that loops through and disposes its contents, but in reality, I have several other common functions that I want all my lists to have. What's the best practice to solve this organizational matter?

    Read the article

  • MSMQ - Message Queue Abstraction and Pattern

    - by Maxim Gershkovich
    Hi All, Let me define the problem first and why a messagequeue has been chosen. I have a datalayer that will be transactional and EXTREMELY insert heavy and rather then attempt to deal with these issues when they occur I am hoping to implement my application from the ground up with this in mind. I have decided to tackle this problem by using the Microsoft Message Queue and perform inserts as time permits asynchronously. However I quickly ran into a problem. Certain inserts that I perform may need to be recalled (ie: retrieved) immediately (imagine this is for POS system and what happens if you need to recall the last transaction - one that still hasn’t been inserted). The way I decided to tackle this problem is by abstracting the MessageQueue and combining it in my data access layer thereby creating the illusion of a single set of data being returned to the user of the datalayer (I have considered the other issues that occur in such a scenario (ie: essentially dirty reads and such) and have concluded for my purposes I can control these issues). However this is where things get a little nasty... I’ve worked out how to get the messages back and such (trivial enough problem) but where I am stuck is; how do I create a generic (or at least somewhat generic) way of querying my message queue? One where I can minimize the duplication between the SQL queries and MessageQueue queries. I have considered using LINQ (but have very limited understanding of the technology) and have also attempted an implementation with Predicates which so far is pretty smelly. Are there any patterns for such a problem that I can utilize? Am I going about this the wrong way? Does anyone have an of their own ideas about how I can tackle this problem? Does anyone even understand what I am talking about? :-) Any and ALL input would be highly appreciated and seriously considered… Thanks again.

    Read the article

  • C# - implementing GetEnumerator() for a collection inherited from List<string>

    - by Vojtech
    Hi, I am trying to implement FilePathCollection. Its items would be simple file names (without a path - such as "image.jpg"). Once the collection is used via foreach cycle, it should return the full path created by concatenating with "baseDirectory". How can I do that? public class FilePathCollection : List<string> { string baseDirectory; public FileCollection(string baseDirectory) { this.baseDirectory = baseDirectory; } new public System.Collections.IEnumerator GetEnumerator() { foreach (string value in this._list) //this does not work because _list is private yield return baseDirectory + value; } } Thanks in advance! :-)

    Read the article

  • Why membership provider is not generic?

    - by Timmy O' Tool
    I have to confess that I hate membership provider. The default implementation is not very appropriate normally and I haven't seen so far a good implementation of a custom membership provider, probably because this is not possible :-) So the question is: In your opinion: which are the reasons for not having membership/role provider as a generic class? I mean, why Microsoft didn't selected this approach.

    Read the article

  • Reusable non generic method for generic methods

    - by Jehof
    I have the following base interface public interface IHandler{ void Handle(IMessage message); } and an generic interface inheriting the base interface public interface IHandler<TMessage> : IHandler where TMessage : IMessage{ void Handle(TMessage message); } My classes can implement the interface IHandler<TMessage> mutiple times. IMessage is an base interface for messages and isn´t relevant here. Currently i´m implementing the interfaces as follows. public class ExampleHandler : IHandler<ExampleMessage>, IHandler<OtherExampleMessag>{ void IHandler.Handle(IMessage message){ ExampleMessage example = message as ExampleMessage; if (example != null) { Handle(example); } else { OtherExampleMessage otherExample = message as OtherExampleMessage; if (otherExample != null) { Handle(otherExample); } } public void Handle(ExampleMessage) { //handle message; } public void Handle(OtherExampleMessage) { //handle message; } } What bothers me is the way i have to implement the Handle(IMessage) method, cause in my opinion its many redundant code, and i have to extend the method each time when i implement a new IHandler<TMessage> interface on my class. What i´m looking for is a more generic way to implement the Handle(IMessage) method (maybe in a base class for Handlers), but i´m currently stuck how to do that.

    Read the article

  • Create instance of generic type in Java?

    - by David Citron
    Is it possible to create an instance of a generic type in Java? I'm thinking based on what I've seen that the answer is "no" (due to type erasure), but I'd be interested if anyone can see something I'm missing: class SomeContainer<E> { E createContents() { return what??? } } EDIT: It turns out that Super Type Tokens could be used to resolve my issue, but it requires a lot of reflection-based code, as some of the answers below have indicated. I'll leave this open for a little while to see if anyone comes up with anything dramatically different than Ian Robertson's Artima Article.

    Read the article

  • Interface with generic parameters- can't get it to compile

    - by user997112
    I have an interface like so: public interface MyInterface<E extends Something1> { public void meth1(MyClass1<E> x); } and I have a subclass whose superclass implements the above interface: public class MyClass2<E extends Something1> extends Superclass{ public MyClass2(){ } public void meth1(MyClass1 x) { // TODO Auto-generated method stub } } superclass: public abstract class Superclass<E extends Something1> implements MyInterface{ MyClass1<E> x; protected E y; public Superclass(){ } } the problem is that the parameter for meth1() is supposed to be generic. If I do MyClass1 it doesn't like it and the only way I can get it to compile is by leaving out generic parameters- which feels wrong. What's going wrong?

    Read the article

  • Java class Class<T> and static method Class.forName() drive me crazy.

    - by matt
    Hi, this code doesn't compile. i'm wandering what i am doing wrong: private static Importable getRightInstance(String s) throws Exception { Class<Importable> c = Class.forName(s); Importable i = c.newInstance(); return i; } where Importable is an interface and the string s is the name of an implementing class. The compiler says: ./Importer.java:33: incompatible types found : java.lang.Class<capture#964 of ?> required: java.lang.Class<Importable> Class<Importable> c = Class.forName(format(s)); thanks for any help!

    Read the article

  • VB.NET Two different approaches to generic cross-threaded operations; which is better?

    - by BASnappl
    VB.NET 2010, .NET 4 Hello, I recently read about using SynchronizationContext objects to control the execution thread for some code. I have been using a generic subroutine to handle (possibly) cross-thread calls for things like updating UI controls that utilizes Invoke. I'm an amateur and have a hard time understanding the pros and cons of any particular approach. I am looking for some insight on which approach might be preferable and why. Update: This question is motivated, in part, by statements such as the following from the MSDN page on Control.InvokeRequired. An even better solution is to use the SynchronizationContext returned by SynchronizationContext rather than a control for cross-thread marshaling. Method 1: Public Sub InvokeControl(Of T As Control)(ByVal Control As T, ByVal Action As Action(Of T)) If Control.InvokeRequired Then Control.Invoke(New Action(Of T, Action(Of T))(AddressOf InvokeControl), New Object() {Control, Action}) Else Action(Control) End If End Sub Method 2: Public Sub UIAction(Of T As Control)(ByVal Control As T, ByVal Action As Action(Of Control)) SyncContext.Send(New Threading.SendOrPostCallback(Sub() Action(Control)), Nothing) End Sub Where SyncContext is a Threading.SynchronizationContext object defined in the constructor of my UI form: Public Sub New() InitializeComponent() SyncContext = WindowsFormsSynchronizationContext.Current End Sub Then, if I wanted to update a control (e.g., Label1) on the UI form, I would do: InvokeControl(Label1, Sub(x) x.Text = "hello") or UIAction(Label1, Sub(x) x.Text = "hello") So, what do y'all think? Is one way preferred or does it depend on the context? If you have the time, verbosity would be appreciated! Thanks in advance, Brian

    Read the article

  • How do I create a generic method with a generic in the where clause? (Man that's clear as mud!)

    - by Jordan
    Is there a way of doing this: protected void SubscribeToEvent<TEvent, TPayload>(Action<TPayload> a_action) where TEvent : CompositePresentationEvent<TPayload> { TEvent newEvent = _eventAggregator.GetEvent<TEvent>(); SubscriptionToken eventToken = newEvent.Subscribe(a_action); _lstEventSubscriptions.Add(new KeyValuePair<EventBase, SubscriptionToken>(newEvent, eventToken)); } without requiring the user to specify a TPayload parameter?

    Read the article

  • Trouble swapping values as keys in generic java BST class

    - by user1729869
    I was given a generic binary search tree class with the following declaration: public class BST<K extends Comparable<K>, V> I was asked to write a method that reverses the BST such that the values become the keys and keys become values. When I call the following method (defined in the class given) reverseDict.put(originalDict.get(key), key); I get the following two error messages from Netbeans: Exception in thread "main" java.lang.RuntimeException: Uncompilable source code - Erroneous sym type: BST.put And also: no suitable method found for put(V,K) method BST.put(BST<K,V>.Node,K,V) is not applicable (actual and formal argument lists differ in length) method BST.put(K,V) is not applicable (actual argument V cannot be converted to K by method invocation conversion) where V,K are type-variables: V extends Object declared in method <K,V>reverseBST(BST<K,V>) K extends Comparable<K> declared in method <K,V>reverseBST(BST<K,V>) From what the error messages are telling me, since my values do not extend Comparable I am unable to use them as keys. If I am right, how can I get around that without changing the class given (maybe a cast)?

    Read the article

  • Java compiler rejects variable declaration with parameterized inner class

    - by Johansensen
    I have some Groovy code which works fine in the Groovy bytecode compiler, but the Java stub generated by it causes an error in the Java compiler. I think this is probably yet another bug in the Groovy stub generator, but I really can't figure out why the Java compiler doesn't like the generated code. Here's a truncated version of the generated Java class (please excuse the ugly formatting): @groovy.util.logging.Log4j() public abstract class AbstractProcessingQueue <T> extends nz.ac.auckland.digitizer.AbstractAgent implements groovy.lang.GroovyObject { protected int retryFrequency; protected java.util.Queue<nz.ac.auckland.digitizer.AbstractProcessingQueue.ProcessingQueueMember<T>> items; public AbstractProcessingQueue (int processFrequency, int timeout, int retryFrequency) { super ((int)0, (int)0); } private enum ProcessState implements groovy.lang.GroovyObject { NEW, FAILED, FINISHED; } private class ProcessingQueueMember<E> extends java.lang.Object implements groovy.lang.GroovyObject { public ProcessingQueueMember (E object) {} } } The offending line in the generated code is this: protected java.util.Queue<nz.ac.auckland.digitizer.AbstractProcessingQueue.ProcessingQueueMember<T>> items; which produces the following compile error: [ERROR] C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\digitizer\target\generated-sources\groovy-stubs\main\nz\ac\auckland\digitizer\AbstractProcessingQueue.java:[14,96] error: improperly formed type, type arguments given on a raw type The column index of 96 in the compile error points to the <T> parameterization of the ProcessingQueueMember type. But ProcessingQueueMember is not a raw type as the compiler claims, it is a generic type: private class ProcessingQueueMember <E> extends java.lang.Object implements groovy.lang.GroovyObject { ... I am very confused as to why the compiler thinks that the type Queue<ProcessingQueueMember<T>> is invalid. The Groovy source compiles fine, and the generated Java code looks perfectly correct to me too. What am I missing here? Is it something to do with the fact that the type in question is a nested class? (in case anyone is interested, I have filed this bug report relating to the issue in this question) Edit: Turns out this was indeed a stub compiler bug- this issue is now fixed in 1.8.9, 2.0.4 and 2.1, so if you're still having this issue just upgrade to one of those versions. :)

    Read the article

  • Casting Type array to Generic array?

    - by George R
    The short version of the question - why can't I do this? I'm restricted to .NET 3.5. T[] genericArray; // Obviously T should be float! genericArray = new T[3]{ 1.0f, 2.0f, 0.0f }; // Can't do this either, why the hell not genericArray = new float[3]{ 1.0f, 2.0f, 0.0f }; Longer version - I'm working with the Unity engine here, although that's not important. What is - I'm trying to throw conversion between its fixed Vector2 (2 floats) and Vector3 (3 floats) and my generic Vector< class. I can't cast types directly to a generic array. using UnityEngine; public struct Vector { private readonly T[] _axes; #region Constructors public Vector(int axisCount) { this._axes = new T[axisCount]; } public Vector(T x, T y) { this._axes = new T[2] { x, y }; } public Vector(T x, T y, T z) { this._axes = new T[3]{x, y, z}; } public Vector(Vector2 vector2) { // This doesn't work this._axes = new T[2] { vector2.x, vector2.y }; } public Vector(Vector3 vector3) { // Nor does this this._axes = new T[3] { vector3.x, vector3.y, vector3.z }; } #endregion #region Properties public T this[int i] { get { return _axes[i]; } set { _axes[i] = value; } } public T X { get { return _axes[0];} set { _axes[0] = value; } } public T Y { get { return _axes[1]; } set { _axes[1] = value; } } public T Z { get { return this._axes.Length (Vector2 vector2) { Vector vector = new Vector(vector2); return vector; } public static explicit operator Vector(Vector3 vector3) { Vector vector = new Vector(vector3); return vector; } #endregion }

    Read the article

  • c# template member functions

    - by user3730583
    How can I define a template member function in C# For instance I will fill any collection which supports an Add(...) member function, please check out the sample code below public class CInternalCollection { public static void ExternalCollectionTryOne<T<int>>(ref T<int> ext_col, int para_selection = 0) { foreach (int int_value in m_int_col) { if (int_value > para_selection) ext_col.Add(int_value); } } public static void ExternalCollectionTryTwo<T>(ref T ext_col, int para_selection = 0) { foreach (int int_value in m_int_col) { if (int_value > para_selection) ext_col.Add(int_value); } } static int[] m_int_col = { 0, -1, -3, 5, 7, -8 }; } The ExternalCollectionTryOne<...(...) would be the preferred kind, because the int type can be explicit defined, but results in an error: Type parameter declaration must be an identifier not a type The type or namespace name 'T' could not be found (are you missing a using directive or an assembly reference?) The ExternalCollectionTryTwo<...(...) results in an error: 'T' does not contain a definition for 'Add' and no extension method 'Add' accepting a first argument of type 'T' could be found (are you missing a using directive or an assembly reference?)... I hope the problem is clear – any suggestions? ----------------------------- edit -------------------------- The answers with the interface ICollection<.. without a template member works fine and thanks all for this hint, but I still cannot define successfully a member template(generic) function So a more simpler example ... how can I define this public class CAddCollectionValues { public static void AddInt<T>(ref T number, int selection) { T new_T = new T(); //this line is just an easy demonstration to get a compile error with type T foreach (int i_value in m_int_col) { if (i_value > selection) number += i_value; //again the type T cannot be used } } static int[] m_int_col = { 0, -1, -3, 5, 7, -8 }; }

    Read the article

  • Generic TypeIdenitifier convertion.How?

    - by John
    How do I convert the TypeIdenitifier to a class type? I need to use implicit convertion. type TMyChildArray<T>=class(TMyArray<T>) private FData:Array of T; procedure AddEnd(); end; TTypeIdenitifierParentClass=class(TAnotherParentClass) protected TestField:Cardinal; end; procedure TMyChildArray<T>.AddEnd(); var elem:T; begin for elem in Fdata do TTypeIdenitifierParentClass(elem).TestField:=0; end; I get "Invalid typecast" on the implicit convertion "TTypeIdenitifierParentClass(elem).TestField:=0;". The principle I want to use is that the TypeIdenitifier will represent a class that descends from TTypeIdenitifierParentClass.There are many class types,but all of them descend that class. How do I do this?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31  | Next Page >