Hi this is my first time making a question so hopefully i have done this right :)
In my code Im trying to make a Arraylist that is within a class that only holds floats so I made this: (some information is taken away to make it easier to read)
class object {
private ArrayList yc=new ArrayList<Float>();
private ArrayList xc=new ArrayList<Float>();
object(float xer,float yer,float rer){
xc.add(10.0);
x=xer;
y=yer;
r=rer;
}
void update(){
print(xc.get(0))
x=xc.get(0);
}
}
everything else except x=xc.get(0) works outside of the class this assignment works but inside the class it doesn't
hope this makes sense thanks.
It seems like when you initialised the variable xc you specified the type of the ArrayList to Float. However, when declaring xc, you did not specify the type.
When you try to assign variable x with xc.get(0), you are basically assigning any Object to variable x that was declared as a Float.
To solve this issue you can declare your variable xc specifying the type of the ArrayList: private ArrayList<Float> xc = new ArrayList<Float>();
Also, processing offers the helper class FloatList as well if this suits your program.
This should solve your issue, depending on the rest of your code.
Related
new to unity so please ignore if I sound stupid.
I have to scripts references in a script. Example, script A and B are referenced in script C.
I need to store script A and B variable names in a another variable so that I can use that variable in conditioning.
private FemalePlayerAnimations femalePlayerAnimations;
private MalePlayerAnimations malePlayerAnimations;
private Variable variable; // Got Problem Here
void Awake()
{
femalePlayerAnimations = GetComponent<FemalePlayerAnimations>();
malePlayerAnimations = GetComponent<MalePlayerAnimations>();
}
void Start()
{
if(1 + 1 = 2) // Some Condition
{
variable = femalePlayerAnimations;
}
else if(1 + 2 = 3) // Some Another Condition
{
variable = malePlayerAnimation;
}
}
Thanks in advance.
If I understand your question correctly, you'll need to use inheritence and have your male/female animations inherit from the same base class.
i.e.
public abstract class BasePlayerAnimator : MonoBehavior {}
public class MalePlayerAnimator : BasePlayerAnimator {}
public class FemalePlayerAnimator : BasePlayerAnimator {}
Real question though is why do you need two different classes for male/female animations? wouldn't a single class with 2 different instances cover your needs?
I have a feeling you don't simply want the name of the variable as a string.
The logic you are trying to implement here won't work. You can't have a variable that holds the FemalePlayerAnimations class hold a MalePlayerAnimations class.
You should reconsider the design of your program as you can have two different instances (prefabs) of the same theoratical PlayerAnimations class. This is how Animation Controllers work in Unity.
Alternatively you could use a boolean field to store states, for example: bool useFemaleAnimations that is changed in the conditions and implement the correct "script" where applicable.
I'm currently testing some simple AngelScript stuff, and noticed something I find a bit strange when it comes to how objects are initialized from classes.
Let's say I define a class like this:
class MyClass {
int i;
MyClass(int i) {
this.i = i;
}
}
I can create an object of this class by doing this:
MyClass obj = MyClass(5);
However it seems I can also create an object by doing this:
MyClass obj;
The problem here is that obj.i becomes a default value as it is undefined.
Additionally, adding a default constructor to my class and a print function call in each one reveals that when I do MyClass obj = MyClass(5); BOTH constructors are called, not just the one with the matching parameter. This seems risky to me, as it could initialize a lot of properties unnecessarily for this "ghost" instance.
I can avoid this double-initialization by using a handle, but this seems more like a work-around rather than a solution:
MyClass# obj = MyClass(5);
So my question sums up to:
Can I require a specific constructor to be called?
Can I prevent a default constructor from running?
What's the proper way to deal with required parameters when creating objects?
Mind that this is purely in the AngelScript script language, completely separate from the C++ code of the host application. The host is from 2010 and is not open-source, and my knowledge of their implementation is very limited, so if the issue lies there, I can't change it.
In order to declare class and send the value you choose to constructor try:
MyClass obj(5);
To prevent using default constructor create it and use:
.
MyClass()
{
abort("Trying to create uninitialized object of type that require init parameters");
}
or
{
exit(1);
}
or
{
assert(1>2,"Trying to create uninitialized object of type that require init parameters");
}
or
{
engine.Exit();
}
in case that any of those is working in you environment.
declaring the constructor as private seems not to work in AS, unlike other languages.
I have already asked a question here where I basically require an instance of a base class to be converted into a subclass (or a new instance of the subclass to be created using the instance of the base class' properties). The conclusion seems to be that the best way to do this is to manually assign every property I need to transfer in the constructor of the base class.
While this is feasible in some cases, it certainly is not when there are many properties to transfer, or when the base class is subject to change — every time you add a property to the base class, the constructor needs to be changed too, so this solutions is inelegant.
I have searched online, and can't see any reason for why this kind of type-casting isn't implemented. The arguments I have seen so far describe this operation to 'not make any sense' (making a minivan from a car was an analogy I saw), question what to do about the non-inherited variables in the subclass, or claim that there must be some better solution for what was trying to be achieved.
As far as I can see, the operation doesn't need to 'make sense' as long as it's useful, so that isn't much of a good reason. What's wrong with adding a few more properties (and perhaps methods/overriding them) to change an instance into a subclass? In the case of the non-inherited variables, that can simply be solved by allowing this kind of type-cast only a constructor is added to the subclass or by just simply setting them to their default values. After all, constructors usually call MyBase.New(...) anyway. What's the difference between using the constructor of the base (essentially creating a new instance of the base) and using an instance which is already initialised? Lastly, I don't think the third argument is well-justified — there are times when all of the other solutions are inelegant.
So finally, is there any other reason for why this kind of casting isn't allowed, and is there an elegant way to circumvent this?
Edit:
Since I don't know a lot about this topic, I think I meant to say 'convert' rather than 'cast'. I'll also add an example to show what I'm trying to succeed. The conversion would only be allowed at the initialisation of the Subclass:
Class BaseClass
Dim x as Integer
Dim y as Integer
End Class
Class Subclass1 : Inherits BaseClass
Dim z as Integer
Sub New(Byval value As Integer)
'Standard initialisation method
MyBase.New()
z = value
End Sub
Sub New(Byval value As Integer, Byval baseInstance As BaseClass)
'Type conversion from base class to subclass
baseInstance.passAllproperties()
'This assigns all properties of baseInstance belonging to BaseClass to Me.
'Properties not in BaseClass (eg. if baseInstance is Subclass2) are ignored.
z = value
End Sub
End Class
Class Subclass2 : Inherits BaseClass
Dim v As Integer
End Class
What you describe is not casting. Have you ever heard the expression"to cast something in a different light"? It means to look at the same thing in a different way or to make the same thing look different. That is the exact way that the term "cast" is used in programming. When you cast, you do NOT change the type of the object but only the type of the reference used to access the object. If you want to cast from a base type to a derived type then the object you're referring to has to actually be that derived type. If it's not then you're not performing a cast but rather a conversion.
So, why can't you convert an instance of a base type to an instance of a derived type. Well, why would you be able to? Yes, it's something that might save writing a bit of code on occasion but does it actually make sense? Let's say that you have a base type with one property and a derived type that adds another property. Let's also say that that derived type has constructors that require you to provide a value for that second property. You're suggesting that the language should provide you with a way to magically convert an instance of the base class into an instance of the derived class, which would mean it would have to slow you to circumvent that rule defined by the author via the constructors. Why would that be a good thing?
Use System.Reflection to iterate over properties and fields of the base class and apply them to the derived class. This example includes a single public property and single public field, but will also work with multiple private/protected properties and fields. You can paste the entire example into a new console application to test it.
Imports System.Reflection
Module Module1
Sub Main()
Dim p As New Parent
p.Property1 = "abc"
p.Field1 = "def"
Dim c = New Child(p)
Console.WriteLine("Property1 = ""{0}"", Field1 = ""{1}""", c.Property1, c.Field1)
Console.ReadLine()
End Sub
Class Parent
Public Property Property1 As String = "not set"
Public Property Field1 As String = "not set"
End Class
Class Child
Inherits Parent
Public Sub New(myParent As Parent)
Dim fieldInfo = GetType(Parent).GetFields(BindingFlags.NonPublic _
Or BindingFlags.Instance)
For Each field In fieldInfo
field.SetValue(Me, field.GetValue(myParent))
Next
Dim propertyInfo = GetType(Parent).GetProperties(BindingFlags.NonPublic _
Or BindingFlags.Instance)
For Each prop In propertyInfo
prop.SetValue(Me, prop.GetValue(myParent))
Next
End Sub
End Class
End Module
Output:
Property1 = "abc", Field1 = "def"
This solution is automated, so you won't need to change anything when adding or removing properties and fields in the base class.
In general, because of this:
Class TheBase
End Class
Class Derived1 : TheBase
Sub Foo()
End Sub
End Class
Class Derived2 : TheBase
Sub Bar()
End Sub
End Class
Sub Main()
Dim myDerived1 As New Derived1
' cast derived to base
Dim myTheBase = CType(myDerived1, TheBase)
' cast base to derived?
' but myTheBase is actually a Derived1
Dim myDerived2 As Derived2 = CType(myTheBase, Derived2)
' which function call would you like to succeed?
myDerived2.Foo()
myDerived2.Bar()
End Sub
I've been looking into the topic of creating instances of a class within its own definition. Something like this:
public class myClass
{
public static myClass aObject = new myClass();
public static myClass bObject = new myClass();
}
I kind-of understand how this is possible, but I'm confused as to why it would be useful.
Also, my logic says that it should be possible to do something like this:
aObject.bObject.someMethod();
aObject is an instance of myClass, so it should contain bObject, right? I feel like I'm missing some fundamental understanding of how classes work, so I would really like to know what's going on here, and why someone would want to do this.
aObject.bObject.someMethod() would definitely work if someMethod() was defined as a part of myClass. As to why something like that would be done, I'll give an example that is used in java.
Say you have a class called Color that represents colors. You can make a new color of of its RGB value with the constructor Color(byte r, byte g, byte b). There are also constants in the Color class that represent commonly used colors, like red or green or pink. You can quickly access the pink color just by saying Color.PINK, since PINK is a Color variable that is inside the Color class. That way you don't have to construct a new color object each time you want to use pink in a method.
aObject.bObject.someMethod();
This is like saying "of object a's object b... do something." So its like a ball (called A) has a ball inside it (called B) which has a ball inside it (called C).. ect.
A linked list is a list does something like this, in that:
class Link {
public long data; // data item
public Link next; // next link in list
// =============================================================
public Link(long value){ // constructor
data = value; // assign parameter to data's data field
}
}
Link has inside of it a pointer to another link which does the same until you make a null object.
I think this is what you were asking...
I am attempting to create two identical objects in VB6 by assignment statements; something like this...
Dim myobj1 As Class1
Dim myobj2 As Class1
Set myobj1 = New Class1
myobj1.myval = 1
Set myobj2 = myobj1
It has become apparent that this doesn't create two objects but rather two references to the same object, which isn't what I am after. Is there any way to create a second object in this sort of way, or do I have to copy the object one member at a time...
Set myobj2 = new Class1
myobj2.mem1 = myobj1.mem1
...
?
Edit 2 Scott Whitlock has updated his excellent answer and I have incorporated his changes into this now-working code snippet.
Private Type MyMemento
Value1 As Integer
Value2 As String
End Type
Private Memento As MyMemento
Public Property Let myval(ByVal newval As Integer)
Memento.Value1 = newval
End Property
Public Property Get myval() As Integer
myval = Memento.Value1
End Property
Friend Property Let SetMemento(new_memento As MyMemento)
Memento = new_memento
End Property
Public Function Copy() As Class1
Dim Result As Class1
Set Result = New Class1
Result.SetMemento = Memento
Set Copy = Result
End Function
One then performs the assignment in the code thus...
Set mysecondobj = myfirstobj.Copy
Like many modern languages, VB6 has value types and reference types. Classes define reference types. On the other hand, your basic types like Integer are value types.
The basic difference is in assignment:
Dim a as Integer
Dim b as Integer
a = 2
b = a
a = 1
The result is that a is 1 and b is 2. That's because assignment in value types makes a copy. That's because each variable has space allocated for the value on the stack (in the case of VB6, an Integer takes up 2 bytes on the stack).
For classes, it works differently:
Dim a as MyClass
Dim b as MyClass
Set a = New MyClass
a.Value1 = 2
Set b = a
a.Value1 = 1
The result is that both a.Value1 and b.Value1 are 1. That's because the state of the object is stored in the heap, not on the stack. Only the reference to the object is stored on the stack, so Set b = a overwrites the reference. Interestingly, VB6 is explicit about this by forcing you to use the Set keyword. Most other modern languages don't require this.
Now, you can create your own value types (in VB6 they're called User Defined Types, but in most other languages they're called structs or structures). Here's a tutorial.
The differences between a class and a user defined type (aside from a class being a reference type and a UDT being a value type) is that a class can contain behaviors (methods and properties) where a UDT cannot. If you're just looking for a record-type class, then a UDT may be your solution.
You can use a mix of these techniques. Let's say you need a Class because you have certain behaviors and calculations that you want to include along with the data. You can use the memento pattern to hold the state of an object inside of a UDT:
Type MyMemento
Value1 As Integer
Value2 As String
End Type
In your class, make sure that all your internal state is stored inside a private member of type MyMemento. Write your properties and methods so they only use data in that one private member variable.
Now making a copy of your object is simple. Just write a new method on your class called Copy() that returns a new instance of your class and initialize it with a copy of its own memento:
Private Memento As MyMemento
Friend Sub SetMemento(NewMemento As MyMemento)
Memento = NewMemento
End Sub
Public Function Copy() as MyClass
Dim Result as MyClass
Set Result = new MyClass
Call Result.SetMemento(Memento)
Set Copy = Result
End Function
The Friend only hides it from stuff outside your project, so it doesn't do much to hide the SetMemento sub, but it's all you can do with VB6.
HTH
#Scott Whitlock, I was not able to make your code work but if it works it would be great.
I've created a regular module where I put the memento type
Type MyMemento
Value1 As Integer
Value2 As String
End Type
Then I create a class module called MyClass with the code
Private Memento As MyMemento
Friend Sub SetMemento(NewMemento As MyMemento)
Memento = NewMemento
End Sub
Public Function Copy() as MyClass
Dim Result as MyClass
Set Result = new MyClass
Result.SetMemento(Memento)
Set Copy = Result
End Function
Finally I try to call the copy function in another regular module like this
Sub Pruebas()
Dim Primero As MyClass, segundo As MyClass
Set Primero = New MyClass
Set segundo = New MyClass
Set segundo = Primero.Copy
End Sub
I get the message (below the picture): Error de compilacion: El tipo de agumento de ByRef no coincide
Here is an image (short of 10 points so here is the link): http://i.stack.imgur.com/KPdBR.gif
I was not able to get the message in English, I live in Spain.
Would you be so kind to provide with an example in VBA Excel?, I have been really trying to make this work.
Thanks for your work
===============================================
EDIT: Problem Solved:
The problem was on line "Result.SetMemento(Memento)", in VBA it needed to be called with "Call"
Public Function Copy() As MyClass
Dim Result As MyClass
Set Result = New MyClass
Call Result.SetMemento(Memento)
Set Copy = Result
End Function
It works great, thanks Scott Whitlock, you are a genius
or do I have to copy the object one member at a time...
Unfortunately yes.
It is possible (but technically very very difficult) to write a COM server in C++ that - using the IDispatch interface - will copy the value of each property, but really this is High Temple programming, if I had to do it, I don't I know if I could do it, but I'd be looking at something like 10 days work ( and I know how COM is implemented in C++, I'd also need to investigate to see if ATL framework has anything to help etc).
I worked with Vb3, 4,5 & 6 for something like 10 years (hands on, 5 days a week) and never found a good way to do this, beyond manually implementing serialisation patterns like Mementos and Save & Store, which really just boiled down to fancy ways of copying each member, one at a time.