I have a C# class called MyCustomRuleTemplate which is inherited from Ektron.Cms.Content.Targeting.Rules.RuleTemplate class. In that I have added a constructor such as below
public MyCustomRuleTemplate(): base("someKey")
{
//Some code here
}
Its working fine without any error. If I given it as
public MyCustomRuleTemplate()
{
//Some code here
}
Im getting error like 'Ektron.Cms.Content.Targeting.Rules.RuleTemplate' does not contain a constructor that takes 0 arguments.
Can anybody help me to know why it is?
The reason you are seeing "does not contain a constructor that takes 0 arguments" when instantiating your class object using the second constructor is because when you call your constructor, c# tries to call the constructor on the base class as well, which in this case takes a parameter.
See this post on msdn:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms173115%28v=vs.80%29.aspx
Key parts:
"In this example, the constructor for the base class is called before the block for the constructor is executed. The base keyword can be used with or without parameters. Any parameters to the constructor can be used as parameters to base, or as part of an expression. For more information, see base.
In a derived class, if a base-class constructor is not called explicitly using the base keyword, then the default constructor, if there is one, is called implicitly."
And: "If a base class does not offer a default constructor, the derived class must make an explicit call to a base constructor using base."
Related
what is the correct way to write a meaningful test for extending a class with the super keyword?
class FooBase<T> {
final T data;
const FooBase(this.data);
}
class Foo<T> extends FooBase<T> {
const Foo(T data)
: super(data);
}
I suppose super(data) ist passing the constructor parameter to the constructor of the base class (I do not know a lot about dart).
You can only test if super was called by observing its behavior. You have to check the base classes constructor for what it is doing with the parameter and then see if you can observe if that happened (if possible). Example: If the base class constructor is assigning the parameter to a field that you can access from the outside, you can assert on that parameter being set. This only works if
You can access the field from your test code. Access in this context does not mean to access it directly or via a getter. Any means of observing that the field has been set should be sufficient.
The class under test is not setting the field itself (there is probably no way to decide which constructor set the field).
How does a main method gets called in scala ? Why does a main method gets called in when it is written only in object but not in class ?
Because the specification says so:
A program is a top-level object that has a member method main of type (Array[String])Unit. Programs can be executed from a command shell. The program's command arguments are passed to the main method as a parameter of type Array[String].
The main method of a program can be directly defined in the object, or it can be inherited.
It speaks only about top-level objects, not classes. If you define a main method in a class, then it will be just an ordinary method that you can invoke on the instances of this class. Unless you define a top-level object that inherits the main from this class / trait, this method called main will not be treated as an entry point of the application.
The main method must be a static method. In Scala to create a static method you put it in an object. Methods in a class are not static.
In the scala language they decided to separate class, which hold only instance behavior and state, and object which hold static behavior and state. This is different from java where classes hold both instance and static members where something is made static using the static keyword.
It is because in scala the only way to define a method static is object class. And also it is necessary only one instance of main class is created , not multiple instances. That's why it is object class
Is there a compiler meta for Class declaration, that prevents creating Class instance before extending it? In other words - some sort of opposite of #:final meta.
Like so (last line of code):
class A {
// ...
}
class B extends A {
// ...
}
// ...
var b = new B(); // OK
var a = new A(); // induce compiler-error
Simply don't declare a constructor at all for class A
Both the other answers are correct (no constructor or private constructor), but there are a few more details that you may interest you:
Here's an example of no constructor. Of note is that A simply doesn't have a constructor, and B simply doesn't call super(). Other than that, everything else works as you'd expect.
Here's an example of a private constructor. You still can't instantiate a new A(), but you do still need to call super() from B's constructor.
Technicalities:
Use of some features (like a default value on a member variable) will cause A to get an implicit constructor, automatically. Don't worry, this doesn't affect constructability or whether you need to call super(). But know that it is there, and if necessary an implicit super() call is prepended to B's constructor. See the JS output to verify this.
In any case, know that you can still instantiate an A at runtime with var a = Type.createInstance(A,[]); as compile-time type checks do not limit RTTI.
Related discussion:
Aside from private/no constructor, Haxe doesn't have a formal notion of abstract classes1 (base classes not expected to be instantiated) or abstract methods2 (functions on abstract base classes with no implementation that must be implemented by a derived class.) However, Andy Li wrote a macro for enforcing some of those concepts if you use them. Such a macro can detect violations of these rules and throw compile-time errors.
1. Not to be confused with Haxe abstracts types, which are an entirely different topic.
2. Not to be confused with virtual functions, which wikipedia describes as a function which can be overridden (though various docs for various languages describe this highly loaded term differently.)
One way of achieving this is to create private Class constructor:
class A {
private function new() {
// ...
}
}
// ...
var a = new A(); // Error: Cannot access private constructor
I am trying to call the super constructor from a class using a method. The whole setup looks like this:
class Straight(hand: Hand) extends Combination(Straight.makeHandAceLowIfNeeded(hand), 5)
object Straight {
private def makeHandAceLowIfNeeded(hand: Hand): Hand = {
...
}
}
While this does compile, it has some rather odd runtime behaviour. While debugging, I noticed that the Straight instances have the "hand" property defined twice. Can somebody tell me what is going on, and what the proper way is to call the super constructor with different arguments?
In my use case, I want to call the super constructor with a modified hand in which I replaced a card compared to the original constructor argument.
Debugger screenshot with duplicate field:
.
It's a perfectly fine way to call the superclass constructor. These are two private fields and they don't conflict, though you can rename one of them to avoid confusion during debugging (or if you want to access the superclass' value from the subclass). However, the field should only be generated for a class parameter if it's used outside a constructor, and in your case it doesn't appear to be. Did you simplify the definition of Straight?
I am experiencing a weird behavior by Scala handling of superclass constructors.
I have a really simple class defined in the following way
package server
class Content(identifier:String,content:String){
def getIdentifier() : String = {identifier}
def getContent() : String = {content}
}
and a simple subclass
package server
class SubContent(identifier:String, content:String) extends Content(identifier, content+"XXX")){
override def getContent():String = {
println(content)
super.getContent
}
}
What's really strange is that in the subclass there are duplicates of the superclass attributes, so if i create a new object
var c = new SubContent("x","x")
the execution of
c.getContent
first prints out "x" (The valued provided to the subclass constructor), but returns "xXXX" (The value provided to the superclass constructor).
Is there any way to avoid this behavior? Basically what I'd like to have is that the subclass does not create its own attributes but rather just passes the parameters to the superclass.
It's doing exactly what you told it to do. You augmented the 2nd constructor parameter when passing it on to the superclass constructor and then you used the superclass' getContent to provide the value returned from the subclass' getContent.
The thing you need to be aware of is that constructor parameters (those not tied to properties because they're part of a case class or because they were declared with the val keyword) are in scope throughout the class body. The class' constructor is that part of its body that is outside any method. So references to constructor parameters in method bodies forces the constructor parameter to be stored in a field so it can have the necessary extent. Note that your println call in getContent is causing such a hidden constructor parameter field in this case.
Replying to comment "Is there an alternative way to define it in order to avoid this? Or at least, if I never refer to the parameters of the subclass constructors their fields will be allocated (Wasting memory)?":
If the only references to plain constructor parameters (*) is in the constructor proper (i.e., outside any method body, and val and var initializers don't qualify as method bodies) then no invisible field will be created to hold the constructor parameter.
However, If there's more you're trying to "avoid" than these invisible fields, I don't understand what you're asking.
(*) By "plain constructor parameters" I mean those not part of a case class and not bearing the val keyword.