I am coding in Unity 2D and am making some scripts to build my mobile game (i am adding a score counter) and everytime i solve a problem another one occurs after. i was able to solve all those
previous problems until now. I have uploaded some screenshots to help:
This is whats happening in Unity:
This is whats happening in VSCode:
This is also happening in VSCode:
ScoreCounter cannot be private so change it to public or internal. This is explained in the documentation for Compiler Error CS1527:
Type declarations in a namespace can have either public or internal
access. If no accessibility is specified, internal is the default.
...when no namespace is explicitly declared in your program code, all
type declarations are located implicitly within the global namespace.
Also, declaring MonoBehaviour as an interface is likely to cause you problems. The UnityEngine namespace already defines MonoBehaviour as a class.
Related
MyHUD.h
UCLASS()
class FPS_API AMyHUD : public AHUD
{
GENERATED_BODY()
UPROPERTY(EditDefaultsOnly, Category = Gameplay)
class UUserWidget* DefaultWidget;
...
}
I make Blueprint BP_MyHUD extends MyHUD and Widget Blueprint. The problem is, the DefaultWidget in BP_MyHUD is set None after i restart UE4 program or compile using button in toolbar at Blueprint editor. How can i fix the value of DefaultWidget in BP_MyHUD?
By default variables are set to "Private" and thus can't be modified in derived classes.
Try putting this UPROPERTY after you say public: (you could also use protected:)
UCLASS()
class FPS_API AMyHUD : public AHUD
{
GENERATED_BODY()
public:
UPROPERTY(EditDefaultsOnly, Category = Gameplay)
class UUserWidget* DefaultWidget;
...
}
Also I am unsure of the EditDefaultsOnly specifier when it comes to blueprints. My understanding was without
BlueprintReadWrite
You could not edit the variables in blueprints. But if you've been using this with success with other variables it is likely not the problem.
A bit late to the party, but here's the answer:
It's not possible.
Non-BindWidget pointers with EditDefaultsOnly indeed generate a selector in the Details panel, but this selector is not meant to select a widget inside our component's archetype. It's meant to select a widget outside an instance of our component (it also need to be public and maybe a BlueprintReadWrite too). In this case, the value you put in the selector indeed stay across builds.
Sadly, this error-inducing selector appearing anyway means that two things aren't quite working properly around this behaviour :
At the moment UE clears the selector when you're building, it should really display a warning/error explaining why
You shouldn't really be able to put EditAnywhere/EditDefaultsOnly on a non-BindWidget property, only a EditInstanceOnly... yet there's no warning/error either =(
(credits to #Bohdon Sayre from BenUI's discord community for helping me on this one)
Swift offers 5 access modifiers: open, public, internal, fileprivate and private.
Of what I know about these specifiers, (mainly from link & link_2)
open means classes and class members can be subclassed and overridden both within and outside the defining module (target).
fileprivate restricts the use of an entity to its defining source file. Basically accessible by multiple classes within a single file.
private restricts the use of an entity to its enclosing declaration.
Now, public and internal seems pretty much the same to me :-
public means classes and class members can only be subclassed and overridden within the defining module (target).
internal enables an entity to be used within the defining module (target). Also, this happens to be the default specifier if nothing else is mentioned. We would typically use internal access when defining an app’s or a framework’s internal structure.
So basically how do public and internal differ?
This is my first Question here, so if I have missed out any details, please let me know. Thanks in advance.
Whatever you marked as public can be use within your app and outside of you app(module). If you marked something as internal that can only be used within your app(module). This is very helpful when your developing a library (framework) , you can use internal to hide library structure.
And Public members of A.swift and B.swift are available to C.swift and D.swift. The only restriction is that classes can't be subclassed (they would need to be open.)
- My answer base on #Keaz & #Alexander.
From Access Control manual:
Open access and public access enable entities to be used within any
source file from their defining module, and also in a source file from
another module that imports the defining module. You typically use
open or public access when specifying the public interface to a
framework. The difference between open and public access is described
below.
Internal access enables entities to be used within any source
file from their defining module, but not in any source file outside of
that module. You typically use internal access when defining an app’s
or a framework’s internal structure.
Difference is in visibility to other modules.
EDIT to answer #iCode comment:
You don't need all of them.
For simplest small single-dev application just using default internal will be enough.
If you will need to do it right you may add fileprivate/private accessors to hide some implementation.
If you're developing large app and want to separate code into modules, or if you're developing library you will need to use public/open to create inter-module interface.
How can I make protected (like in ruby) variable or function in Swift? I know Swift has only 3 levels but nonetheless is it possible?
Access Levels
Swift provides three different access levels for entities within your
code. These access levels are relative to the source file in which an
entity is defined, and also relative to the module that source file
belongs to.
Public access enables entities to be used within any source file from
their defining module, and also in a source file from another module
that imports the defining module. You typically use public access when
specifying the public interface to a framework.
Internal access
enables entities to be used within any source file from their defining
module, but not in any source file outside of that module. You
typically use internal access when defining an app’s or a framework’s
internal structure.
Private access restricts the use of an entity to
its own defining source file. Use private access to hide the
implementation details of a specific piece of functionality.
Public
access is the highest (least restrictive) access level and private
access is the lowest (or most restrictive) access level
Currently I see only one solution - write parent class with private modifier and children class in single file but it's kind of painful.
Swift prefers to not use protected. You can read the reasons here Access Control and protected
In contrast, protected conflates access with inheritance, adding an entirely new control axis to reason about. It doesn’t actually offer any real protection, since a subclass can always expose “protected” API through a new public method or property. It doesn’t offer additional optimization opportunities either, since new overrides can come from anywhere. And it’s unnecessarily restrictive — it allows subclasses, but not any of the subclass’s helpers, to access something.
In Ruby's point of view, it may be important. However in Swift, neither it is useless, nor it is a matter of the language.
Swift language is primarily based on modules when it comes to access levels. It even has public private(set) variables, which is much needed in Objective-C (causes boilerplate).
There's no equivalent to protected in Swift where only subclasses have access to the method. Personally, I don't miss it.
In Swift (as Objective-C) there is far less emphasis on subclassing than other languages. If you find you have a set of methods that you want to be protected, it is probably better to factor them out as a delegate.
Swift 3.0 not cantains protected modifier. In our sdk we use internal(set) modifier that approve set operation only in sdk project.
private var _authorized : Bool = false
public internal(set) var authorized : Bool
{
get
{
return _authorized;
}
set
{
_authorized = newValue
}
}
I just started using the Netbeans 7.1 beta and it is calling out errors of a type which I have never seen before. Specifically:
A managed bean with a public field should not declare any scope other than #Dependent.
The fields it is complaining about are public static final. I can understand the restriction on non-static fields, but I can't think of a good reason this would not be allowed for a static field. Unfortunately I use a lot of them since I don't like having constants in my code.
I note that even though I get the red dot in the margin in the editor, the maven-driven build still works and GlassFish still runs my application the way I would expect.
So what is my denoument on this issue? Am I going to have to move my static fields elsewhere or is there another way of handling this?
Quoting the javax.enterprise.inject package javadocs:
If a managed bean has a public field, it must have scope #Dependent.
But I do agree wih #BalusC that if this compiles, Netbeans should report it as Warning (does it?).
Anyway, are those constants really part of the API? I mean, do you access they anywhere else but within their own classes? If not, reduce visibility to private. (If you just need to access the constants from the view you can also create accessors for the private constant). If yes, I would suggest you to move them somewhere else anyway.
Public fields (static or not) aren't proxyable - that's why they can only be dependent scoped. To work around this you obviously can access them through getter methods.
I have an ASP.NET 3.5 web application project in which I'm trying to implement a searchable gridview. I originally started the project as a web site and converted it to a web application. After conversion, my class ended up in the folder Old_App_Code and is called SearchGridView.vb.
Imports System
Imports System.Collections
Imports System.Collections.Generic
Imports System.ComponentModel
Imports System.Text
Imports System.Web
Imports System.Web.UI
Imports System.Web.UI.WebControls
Imports System.Drawing.Design
<Assembly: TagPrefix("MyApp.WebControls", "SearchGridView")>
Namespace MyApp.WebControls
#Region "TemplateColumn"
Public Class NumberColumn
Implements ITemplate
Public Sub InstantiateIn(ByVal container As System.Web.UI.Control) Implements System.Web.UI.ITemplate.InstantiateIn
End Sub
End Class
#End Region
<ToolboxData("<{0}:SearchGridView runat=server></{0}:SearchGridView>")> _
<ParseChildren(True, "SearchFilters")> _
Public Class SearchGridView
Inherits GridView
The class file continues, but this is the first part of it.
Unfortunately, I receive the error message
Warning 1 Namespace or type specified in the project-level Imports 'MyApp.WebControls' doesn't contain any public member or cannot be found. Make sure the namespace or the type is defined and contains at least one public member. Make sure the imported element name doesn't use any aliases. DielWebProj
In web.config, I included a namespace tag for MyApp.WebControls and I included an imports tag in the .aspx page as well.
Can anyone shed light as to why this error is being raised and how I would remedy it?
Thanks,
Sid
I have a broadly similar problem to you. I have a website project using a custom control, inheriting from GriView, in the app_code folder. I was recieving the very same error, but noted that it happened only after I would add a second class or module to app_code, and would disappear if I removed it.
So the workaround I have at the moment is to just leave my custom control as the sole occupant of app_code.
One option might be to make the control part of its own project and add it as a reference to the we site/app?
I'll update this if I can find a decent solution.
EDIT:
Well, in my case it was because the control I was using was written in C#, whereas the rest of the project, and classes I added to app_code, were in VB.
The app_code folder is compiled to a single assembly, so classes of different languages cannot share it, unless you create seperate sub-folders and do some config file jiggerypokery. More details here