Search Results

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

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 27/41 | < Previous Page | 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34  | Next Page >

  • How can the generic method called know the type of the generic return?

    - by Paulo Guedes
    I couldn't find a duplicate for this question for Java, although there are a lot of them for C#. I have this method: public <T> T getSomething() { // } According to the type of T, I will have a different return. For example: String a = getSomething(); int b = getSomething(); For a, my method will return a specific String. For b, it will return a specific int. And so on. It seems that this can be done with typeof() in C#. How can I achieve it in Java?

    Read the article

  • understanding syb boilerplate elimination

    - by Pradeep
    In the example given in http://web.archive.org/web/20080622204226/http://www.cs.vu.nl/boilerplate/ -- Increase salary by percentage increase :: Float -> Company -> Company increase k = everywhere (mkT (incS k)) -- "interesting" code for increase incS :: Float -> Salary -> Salary incS k (S s) = S (s * (1+k)) how come increase function compiles without binding anything for the first Company mentioned in its type signature. Is it something like assigning to a partial function? Why is it done like that?

    Read the article

  • How to solve this Java type safety warning? (Struts2)

    - by Nicolas Raoul
    Map session = ActionContext.getContext().getSession(); session.put("user", user); This code generates a warning: Type safety: The method put(Object, Object) belongs to the raw type Map. References to generic type Map should be parameterized. Map<String, Serializable> session = (Map<String, Serializable>)ActionContext.getContext().getSession(); session.put("user", user); This code generates a warning: Type safety: Unchecked cast from Map to Map. The getSession method belongs to Struts2 so I can't modify it. I would like to avoid using @SuppressWarnings because other warnings can be useful. I guess all Struts2 users in the world faced the same problem... is there an elegant solution?

    Read the article

  • What's my best approach on this simple hierarchy Java Problem?

    - by Nazgulled
    First, I'm sorry for the question title but I can't think of a better one to describe my problem. Feel free to change it :) Let's say I have this abstract class Box which implements a couple of constructors, methods and whatever on some private variables. Then I have a couple of sub classes like BoxA and BoxB. Both of these implement extra things. Now I have another abstract class Shape and a few sub classes like Square and Circle. For both BoxA and BoxB I need to have a list of Shape objects but I need to make sure that only Square objects go into BoxA's list and only Circle objects go into BoxB's list. For that list (on each box), I need to have a get() and set() method and also a addShape() and removeShape() methods. Another important thing to know is that for each box created, either BoxA or BoxB, each respectively Shape list is exactly the same. Let's say I create a list of Square's named ls and two BoxA objects named boxA1 and boxA2. No matter what, both boxA1 and boxA2 must have the same ls list. This is my idea: public abstract class Box { // private instance variables public Box() { // constructor stuff } // public instance methods } public class BoxA extends Box { // private instance variables private static List<Shape> list; public BoxA() { // constructor stuff } // public instance methods public static List<Square> getList() { List<Square> aux = new ArrayList<Square>(); for(Square s : list.values()) { aux.add(s.clone()); // I know what I'm doing with this clone, don't worry about it } return aux; } public static void setList(List<Square> newList) { list = new ArrayList<Square>(newList); } public static void addShape(Square s) { list.add(s); } public static void removeShape(Square s) { list.remove(list.indexOf(s)); } } As the list needs to be the same for that type of object, I declared as static and all methods that work with that list are also static. Now, for BoxB the class would be almost the same regarding the list stuff. I would only replace Square by Triangle and the problem was solved. So, for each BoxA object created, the list would be only one and the same for each BoxB object created, but a different type of list of course. So, what's my problem you ask? Well, I don't like the code... The getList(), setList(), addShape() and removeShape() methods are basically repeated for BoxA and BoxB, only the type of the objects that the list will hold is different. I can't think of way to do it in the super class Box instead. Doing it statically too, using Shape instead of Square and Triangle, wouldn't work because the list would be only one and I need it to be only one but for each sub class of Box. How could I do this differently and better? P.S: I could not describe my real example because I don't know the correct words in English for the stuff I'm doing, so I just used a box and shapes example, but it's basically the same.

    Read the article

  • Getting the type of a parametrized class parameter?

    - by GuidoMB
    I have the following class public class MyClass<T> { public Class<T> getDomainClass() { GET THE CLASS OF T } } I've googled this problem and all the answers I could find told me to use getGenericSuperClass(), but the problem of this method is that I must have a second class that extends MyClass and I don't want to do this. What I need is to get the parametrized type of a concrete class?

    Read the article

  • scala 2.8 CanBuildFrom

    - by oxbow_lakes
    Following on from another question I asked, I wanted to understand a bit more about the Scala method TraversableLike[A].map whose signature is as follows: def map[B, That](f: A => B)(implicit bf: CanBuildFrom[Repr, B, That]): That Notice a few things about this method: it takes a function turning each A in the traversable into a B it returns That and takes an implicit argument of type CanBuildFrom[Repr, B, That] I can call this as follows: > val s: Set[Int] = List("Paris", "London").map(_.length) s: Set[Int] Set(5,6) What I cannot quite grasp is how the fact that That is bound to B (i.e. it is some collection of B's) is being enforced by the compiler. The type parameters look to be independent in both the signature above and in the signature of the trait CanBuildFrom itself: trait CanBuildFrom[-From, -Elem, +To] How is the scala compiler ensuring that That cannot be forced into something which does not make sense? > val s: Set[String] = List("Paris", "London").map(_.length) //will not compile EDIT - this question of course boils down to: How does the compiler decide what implicit CanBuildFrom objects are in scope for the call?

    Read the article

  • PropertyInfo.GetValue() - how do you index into a generic parameter using reflection in C#?

    - by flesh
    This (shortened) code.. for (int i = 0; i < count; i++) { object obj = propertyInfo.GetValue(Tcurrent, new object[] { i }); } .. is throwing a 'TargetParameterCountException : Parameter count mismatch' exception. The underlying type of 'propertyInfo' is a Collection of some T. 'count' is the number of items in the collection. I need to iterate through the collection and perform an operation on obj. Advice appreciated.

    Read the article

  • C# specifying generic delegate type param at runtime

    - by smerlin
    following setup, i have several generic functions, and i need to choose the type and the function identified by two strings at runtime. my first try looked like this: public static class FOOBAR { public delegate void MyDelegateType(int param); public static void foo<T>(int param){...} public static void bar<T>(int param){...} public static void someMethod(string methodstr, string typestr) { MyDelegateType mydel; Type mytype; switch(typestr) { case "int": mytype = typeof(int); break; case "double": mytype = typeof(double); break; default: throw new InvalidTypeException(typestr); } switch(methodstr) { case "foo": mydel = foo<mytype>; //error break; case "bar": mydel = bar<mytype>; //error break; default: throw new InvalidTypeException(methodstr); } for(int i=0; i<1000; ++i) mydel(i); } } since this didnt work, i nested those switchs (a methodstr switch inside the typestr switch or viceversa), but that solution is really ugly and unmaintainable. The number of types is pretty much fixed, but the number of functions like foo or bar will increase by high numbers, so i dont want nested switchs. So how can i make this working without using nested switchs ?

    Read the article

  • removing items from a generic List<t>

    - by frosty
    I have the following method, I wish to remove items from my collection that match the product Id. Seems fairly straight forward, but i get an exception. Basically my collection is getting out of sync. So what is the best way to remove an item from a collection. public void RemoveOrderItem(Model.Order currentOrder, int productId) { foreach (var orderItem in currentOrder.OrderItems) { if (orderItem.Product.Id == productId) { currentOrder.OrderItems.Remove(orderItem); } } } Exception Details: System.InvalidOperationException: Collection was modified; enumeration operation may not execute

    Read the article

  • C# Generic List constructor gives me a MethodAccessException

    - by evilfred
    Hi, I make a list in my code like so: List<IConnection> connections = new List<IConnection>(); where IConnection is my own interface. This is in a .NET 2.0 executable. If I run the code on my machine (with lots of .Net versions installed) it works fine. If I run it on my test machine (which only has .NET 3.5 SP1 installed) then I get a MethodAccessException in the System.Collections.Generic.List constructor. Any ideas what could be going wrong?

    Read the article

  • Unit test approach for generic classes/methods

    - by Greg
    Hi, What's the recommended way to cover off unit testing of generic classes/methods? For example (referring to my example code below). Would it be a case of have 2 or 3 times the tests to cover testing the methods with a few different types of TKey, TNode classes? Or is just one class enough? public class TopologyBase<TKey, TNode, TRelationship> where TNode : NodeBase<TKey>, new() where TRelationship : RelationshipBase<TKey>, new() { // Properties public Dictionary<TKey, NodeBase<TKey>> Nodes { get; private set; } public List<RelationshipBase<TKey>> Relationships { get; private set; } // Constructors protected TopologyBase() { Nodes = new Dictionary<TKey, NodeBase<TKey>>(); Relationships = new List<RelationshipBase<TKey>>(); } // Methods public TNode CreateNode(TKey key) { var node = new TNode {Key = key}; Nodes.Add(node.Key, node); return node; } public void CreateRelationship(NodeBase<TKey> parent, NodeBase<TKey> child) { . . .

    Read the article

  • can I have an abstract base class with the key attribute being generic

    - by Greg
    Hi, I want to create a re-usable library. I was going to use extension methods however I run into some issues in some cases for the client to have to specify in the calling method the types. QUESTION - If I use an abstract base class as the basis, can I specify an attribute/property in the class to be generic (e.g. the key property might be an 'int' in one case, or a 'string' in another)?

    Read the article

  • How to find the class object of Java generic type?

    - by Samuel Yung
    Assume I have a generic type P which is an Enum, that is <P extends Enum<P>>, and I want to get the Enum value from a string, for example: String foo = "foo"; P fooEnum = Enum.valueOf(P.class, foo); This will get a compile error because P.class is invalid. So what can I do in order to make the above code work?

    Read the article

  • How to make TObjectDictionary.Values accessible as property?

    - by Holgerwa
    I have an object like this: TMyObj = class private FObjList: TObjectDictionary <integer, TMyObject>; public constructor Create; destructor Destroy; // How to access Values correctly? Something similar to this not working code property Values: TValueCollection read FObjList.Values write FObjList.Values; end; var MyObj: TMyObj; To access the values of FObjList, I'd like to write: for tmpObject in MyObj.Values do ... How do I need to declare the property "Values" so that MyObj.Values behaves exactly as if I would access MyObj.FObjList.Values?

    Read the article

  • F# compilation error: Unexpected type application

    - by Jim Burger
    In F#, given the following class: type Foo() = member this.Bar<'t> (arg0:string) = ignore() Why does the following compile: let f = new Foo() f.Bar<Int32> "string" While the following won't compile: let f = new Foo() "string" |> f.Bar<Int32> //The compiler returns the error: "Unexpected type application"

    Read the article

  • Wouldn't it be nice to have a type variable referring to the class's instance.

    - by user93197
    I often have a pattern like this: class VectorBase<SubClass, Element> where SubClass : VectorBase<SubClass, Element>, new() where Element : Addable<Element> { Element[] data; public VectorBase(Element[] data) { this.data = data; } public SubClass add(SubClass second) { Element[] newData = new Element[data.Length]; for (int i = 0; i < newData.Length; i++) { newData[i] = data[i].add(second.data[i]); } SubClass result = new SubClass(); result.data = newData; return result; } } class VectorInt : VectorBase<VectorInt, Int32> { } class MyInt : Addable<MyInt> { int data; public MyInt(int data) { this.data = data; } public MyInt add(MyInt t) { return new MyInt(data + t.data); } } interface Addable<T> { T add(T t); } But I would rather just have: class VectorBase2<Element> where Element : Addable<Element> { Element[] data; public VectorBase(Element[] data) { this.data = data; } public SubClass add(SubClass second) { Element[] newData = new Element[data.Length]; for (int i = 0; i < newData.Length; i++) { newData[i] = data[i].add(second.data[i]); } SubClass result = new SubClass(data); return result; } } class VectorInt2 : VectorBase2<Int32> { } Why not make the subclass type available to all classes? Is this technically impossible?

    Read the article

  • Generic Dictionary - Getting Convertion Error

    - by pm_2
    The following code is giving me an error: // GetDirectoryList() returns Dictionary<string, DirectoryInfo> Dictionary<string, DirectoryInfo> myDirectoryList = GetDirectoryList(); // The following line gives a compile error foreach (Dictionary<string, DirectoryInfo> eachItem in myDirectoryList) The error it gives is as follows: Cannot convert type 'System.Collections.Generic.KeyValuePair<string,System.IO.DirectoryInfo>' to 'System.Collections.Generic.Dictionary<string,System.IO.DirectoryInfo>’ My question is: why is it trying to perform this conversion? Can I not use a foreach loop on this type of object?

    Read the article

  • Type-safe generic data structures in plain-old C?

    - by Bradford Larsen
    I have done far more C++ programming than "plain old C" programming. One thing I sorely miss when programming in plain C is type-safe generic data structures, which are provided in C++ via templates. For sake of concreteness, consider a generic singly linked list. In C++, it is a simple matter to define your own template class, and then instantiate it for the types you need. In C, I can think of a few ways of implementing a generic singly linked list: Write the linked list type(s) and supporting procedures once, using void pointers to go around the type system. Write preprocessor macros taking the necessary type names, etc, to generate a type-specific version of the data structure and supporting procedures. Use a more sophisticated, stand-alone tool to generate the code for the types you need. I don't like option 1, as it is subverts the type system, and would likely have worse performance than a specialized type-specific implementation. Using a uniform representation of the data structure for all types, and casting to/from void pointers, so far as I can see, necessitates an indirection that would be avoided by an implementation specialized for the element type. Option 2 doesn't require any extra tools, but it feels somewhat clunky, and could give bad compiler errors when used improperly. Option 3 could give better compiler error messages than option 2, as the specialized data structure code would reside in expanded form that could be opened in an editor and inspected by the programmer (as opposed to code generated by preprocessor macros). However, this option is the most heavyweight, a sort of "poor-man's templates". I have used this approach before, using a simple sed script to specialize a "templated" version of some C code. I would like to program my future "low-level" projects in C rather than C++, but have been frightened by the thought of rewriting common data structures for each specific type. What experience do people have with this issue? Are there good libraries of generic data structures and algorithms in C that do not go with Option 1 (i.e. casting to and from void pointers, which sacrifices type safety and adds a level of indirection)?

    Read the article

  • [VB.Net] Typecasting generic parameters.

    - by CFP
    Hello world! Using the following code: Function GetSetting(Of T)(ByVal SettingName As String, ByRef DefaultVal As T) As T Return If(Configuration.ContainsKey(SettingName), CType(Configuration(SettingName), T), DefaultVal) End Function Yields the following error: Value of type 'String' cannot be converted to 'T'. Any way I could specify that in all cases, the conversion will indeed be possible (I'm basically getting integers, booleans, doubles and strings). Thanks!

    Read the article

  • C++ Generic List Assignment

    - by S73417H
    I've clearly been stuck in Java land for too long... Is it possible to do the C++ equivalent of the following Java code: // Method List<Bar> getBars() { return new LinkedList<Bar>(); } // Assignment statement. List<Foo> stuff = getBars(); Where Foo is a sub-class of Bar. So in C++.... std::list<Bar> & getBars() { std::list<Bar> bars; return bars; } std::list<Foo> stuff = getBars(); Hope that makes sense....

    Read the article

  • is there some lightweight tecnique for adding type safety to identifier properties?

    - by shoren
    After using C++ I got used to the concept of Identifier which can be used with a class for the type, provides type safety and has no runtime overhead (the actual size is the size of the primitive). I want to do something like that, so I will not make mistakes like: personDao.find(book.getId());//I want compilation to fail personDao.find(book.getOwnerId());//I want compilation to succeed Possible solutuions that I don't like: For every entity have an entity id class wrapping the id primitive. I don't like the code bloat. Create a generic Identifier class. Code like this will not compile: void foo(Identifier book); void foo(Identifier person); Does anyone know of a better way? Is there a library with a utility such as this? Is implementing this an overkill? And the best of all, can this be done in Java without the object overhead like in C++?

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34  | Next Page >