I need insert one object in the linked list when i clicked a button
but when i make instantiate the class List this shows me one error
public ref class Boletos : public System::Windows::Forms::Form
{
public:
Boletos(void)
{
Lista *List=new Lista;
InitializeComponent();
//
//TODO: Add the constructor code here
//
}
//*****************Click_event**********************//
...
if (count==4){
Capacidad=Convert::ToInt32(line);
capc=Capacidad;
//sala->set_capacidad(Capacidad);
Sala *sala=new Sala();
List->insertAlFinal(newSala(numSala,HPeli,capc,"",2000,nombrePelicula));//Here the error List undefined
count=0;
}
u are placing your code at the wrong position, its so to say out of scope. Btw. this is not really c++, looks like c# ...
Try something like
Boletos(void)
{
Lista* list = new Lista();
InitializeComponent();
}
What u need is a class member.
public ref class Boletos ...
{
public:
....
void InitializeComponent()
{
m_lista = new Lista();
}
private:
Lista* m_lista;
}
now u can use m_lista in all the classes member functions. What u need to understand is the concept of scope. If u declare and intialize a variable only in the scope of one function this variable is so to say lost after the program leaves the scope of this function. In the case of c++ the dynamich alloaction new Lista() without a matching call to delete would even be a memory leak.
Related
I am trying to propagate Q_GADGET as a Q_PROPERTY into QML, change it there and pass it back into C++.
I have class that derives from Q_OBJECT, which has the Q_GADGET class as a member.
class Foo : public QObject
{
Q_OBJECT
Q_PROPERTY(QGadgetClass bar READ bar WRITE setBar NOTIFY barChanged)
public:
...
QGadgetClass bar() const { return bar_; }
void setBar(const QGadgetClass &bar) { bar_ = bar; emit barChanged(); }
...
signals:
void barChanged();
private:
QGadgetClass bar_;
}
The Q_GADGET class looks like this:
class QGadgetClass
{
Q_GADGET
Q_PROPERTY(AnotherQGadgetClass test READ test WRITE setTest)
... // there are also properties ID & name
public:
...
// QGadgetClass getMyself() const { return *this; } // function explained later
AnotherQGadgetClass test() const { return test; }
void setTest(const AnotherQGadgetClass &test) { test_ = test; }
...
private:
AnotherQGadgetClass test_;
}
Q_DECLARE_METATYPE(QGadgetClass)
I am trying to access Q_GADGET from QML classic way like accessing a Q_OBJECT, but the setters are not called. If I get AnotherQGadgetClass via getter and change it's properties, the setters are called and everything works, but for some reason I cannot manipulate the QGadgetClass. My code in QML looks like this:
Item {
property var bar: foo.bar
function changeBar()
{
console.log(bar.name) // works
console.log(bar.id) // works
bar.name = "New name" // the WRITE function of Q_PROPERTY(name ...) is not called
console.log(bar.name) // shows old name
console.log(bar.test) // prints out AnotherQGadgetClass correctly
var temp = bar.test // copies AnotherQGadgetClass correctly
console.log(temp.name) // prints AnotherQGadgetClass's name
temp.name = "New temp name" // setter is called
console.log(temp.name) // prints new name
bar.test = temp // constructor is NOT called
console.log(bar.test) // prints out old AnotherQGadgetClass
// following code works and will be explained bellow this code
var aa = bar.getMyself() // calls the "hackish" method
console.log(aa.name) // prints out name of QGadgetClass
aa.name = "New name" // calls the setter
console.log(aa.name) // prints out new name
}
}
I have done some research already, but found nothing but this page. I have also found some very unpretty solution here and it worked, but I find it very hacky.
Note that every Q_GADGET is declared as metatype via Q_DECLARE_METATYPE(...) & is registered before usage via qRegisterMetaType<...>("...").
Is there any prettier solution to access QGadgetClass directly from QML, without need to call getMyself() method? Why are the Q_GADGET class setters not called?
A Q_GADGET is always treated as a value type in QML: it must be passed by copying. So the object that you manipulate in QML is not the same instance that you created in C++, and property changes aren't visible in the original. Many related issues are linked from https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-82443
I'm sorry if I don't know the right word for what I'm trying to accomplish.
Basically I have an event handler object which only has a single member. The member is a Stage object.
When the event handler receives an event, I want it to simply use the stage object to call the relevant method. For example:
Event event; //this event is not part of my code, but rather the library I'm using.
Stage s; // my custom class object
EventHandler event_handler; //also my custom class object
event_handler.stage = &s;
if(event == SHUTDOWN) {
event_handler.stage->handle_shutdown();
}
So what I'm trying to accomplish is that, there will be seperate scopes that my program goes into over time, and I want each scope to have access to the event_handler such that they can do something like:
void some_other_scope(EventHandler* eh) {
Stage* some_new_stage = new Stage(...);
eh->stage = some_new_stage;
}
This way, the original event code stays the same, and the event handler will be calling handle_shutdown on a different object than it was originally going to.
So what I want to do is to overload the handle_shutdown method so that there can be different implementations of it. I know how basic overloading works, it can be done by specifying different parameters, but is there any way to have different definitions of the same class method based on the file that the object was created in?
I was hoping to have several files, each with their own some_other_scope() function, and each file can redefine the handle_shutdown method to do different things based on what that file needs.
I'm sure there's a way to do what I want, I just don't know the right words to use.
It seems you want to use polymorphism:
class IStage
{
public:
virtual ~IStage() = default;
virtual void handle_shutdown() = 0;
// ...
};
class Stage1 : public IStage
{
public:
void handle_shutdown() override { /*Implementation1*/ }
// ...
};
class Stage2 : public IStage
{
public:
void handle_shutdown() override { /*Implementation1*/ }
// ...
};
And then
struct EventHandler
{
std::unique_ptr<IStage> stage;
// ...
};
EventHandler event_handler;
event_handler.stage = std::make_unique<Stage1>();
if (event == SHUTDOWN) {
event_handler.stage->handle_shutdown();
}
// Later
event_handler.stage = std::make_unique<Stage2>();
if (event == SHUTDOWN) {
event_handler.stage->handle_shutdown();
}
In below code snippet I do require to instantiate the object through factory method in order to call the selected adapter (i.e. adapterTwovalue)but while calling through factory method i am not able to get the desire results. When we assign static declared object's address (i.e adapter = &at) it works but with factory i usually get the blank output.
I tried as well with (adapter = new adapterTwo()) to instantiate the object but output string is giving blank results. As per my requirement i need to populate the all the getters in connect function which is pure virtual function to frame the response.Anybody can suggest how to achieve this using factory method.
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
class IAdapter
{
public:
enum FactoryList { AdapterOnevalue = 0, AdapterTwovalue };
virtual void connect() = 0;
static IAdapter* CreateList(FactoryList);
virtual ~IAdapter() {}
};
class LibraryOne
{
string property;
public:
void SetConnection(string property)
{
this->property = property;
}
string getConnection()const
{
return property;
}
};
//LibraryTwo
class LibraryTwo
{
string broker;
public:
void SetBroker(string broker1)
{
this->broker = broker1;
}
string getBroker() const
{
return broker;
}
};
//adapterOne
class AdapterOne : public IAdapter
{
LibraryOne one;
string constring;
public:
void SetClientconnection(string constring)
{
one.SetConnection(constring);
}
string GetClientconnection()
{
return one.getConnection();
}
void connect()
{
constring = GetClientconnection();
}
};
//Adapter to use library two
class AdapterTwo : public IAdapter
{
LibraryTwo two;
string brokerstring;
public:
void SetClientbroker(string constring)
{
two.SetBroker(constring);
}
string GetClientbroker()
{
return two.getBroker();
}
void connect()
{
string constring = GetClientbroker();
cout << "final value=" << constring;
}
};
IAdapter* IAdapter::CreateList(FactoryList SelectList)
{
IAdapter *ListObject;
switch (SelectList)
{
case AdapterOnevalue:
ListObject = new AdapterOne();
break;
case AdapterTwovalue:
ListObject = new AdapterTwo();
break;
default:
ListObject = NULL;
}
return ListObject;
}
int main()
{
IAdapter *adapter = 0;
//LibraryTwo obj;
AdapterTwo at;
at.SetClientbroker("amqp");
//cout << at.GetClientbroker();
//adapter = &at; it works
adapter = IAdapter::CreateList(IAdapter::AdapterTwovalue);//it doesn't work
//Just do the operation now
adapter->connect();
return 0;
}
You can see the complete solution in below share link.
http://coliru.stacked-crooked.com/a/d8b9d32a1fa989c9
Here is the explanation.
(1) setClientBroker() or all other adapters related setter functionality needs to be implement as a virtual function in Interface with default parameter value " " (blank string).
(2) you need to always use override keyword (c++11) feature in derive class for setters so that compiler will cross check during compilation whether proper virtual method is being overridden or not.
(3) instead of using local raw pointer , always use smart pointer . below is the
implementation link for the same.
http://coliru.stacked-crooked.com/a/2feea991ee90d4a2
With your code I expect the output: final value=.
It will not print final value=amqp cause you need to call SetClientbroker("amqp") on the right adapter object (adapter in your example).
Anyway, I would think about putting a virtual method SetString in the base class, so you could simply do:
int main()
{
IAdapter *adapter = 0;
//LibraryTwo obj;
//AdapterTwo at;
//at.SetClientbroker("amqp");
//cout << at.GetClientbroker();
//adapter = &at; it works
adapter = IAdapter::CreateList(IAdapter::AdapterTwovalue);//it doesn't work
//Just do the operation now
adapter->SetString("amqp");//<---------
adapter->connect();
return 0;
}
EDIT after the comment:
You need to cast the object, at this point (as suggested by #Aconcagua).
But IMHO it's not elegant at all. I think you are going to loose the benefits gained with the factory method.
IAdapter* adapter = nullptr;
AdapterTwo at;
adapter = IAdapter::CreateList(IAdapter::AdapterTwovalue);
You have created two independent objects here (as calling new within createList): at and the one adapter points to.
AdapterTwo at;
at.SetClientbroker("amqp");
Now sure you get the expected output if you let adapter point to at, but how could the other object be aware of the string you set in the first one?
adapter = IAdapter::CreateList(IAdapter::AdapterTwovalue);
adapter->SetClientbroker("amqp"); // (*) !!!
You need to set the broker at the other object, too. As being different objects, you even can set the brokers independently:
AdapterTwo at;
at.SetClientbroker("amqp");
IAdapter* adapter = IAdapter::CreateList(IAdapter::AdapterTwovalue);
adapter->SetClientbroker("aconcagua"); // (*) !!!
Output now would be (if you called connect on both objects):
final value=amqp
final value=aconcagua
Only: The marked lines ((*)) won't compile as your base class does not provide the appropriate setter!
There are now different solutions for this problem. You could, for instance, just cast the object:
// if you are REALLY 100% sure the object is of appropriate type:
static_cast<AdapterTwo*>(adapter)->setClientBroker("...");
// if NOT:
AdapterTwo* a2 = dynamic_cast<AdapterTwo*>(adapter);
if(a2)
a2->setClientBroker("...");
else
// appropriate error handling
You could find a more generic name for the set/get Broker/ClientConnection functions, have them already pure virtual within IAdapter and override them in the two implementing adapter classes, so you could then just call adapter->setXYZ("ampq");. [Edit: according to your comment to the question, not an option in the given case]
My personal favourite is providing an additional parameter to your createList function such that the setter would already be called within the factory - possibly with appropriate default: empty string, if you opt for a std::string parameter, or nullptr in case of char const*. You'd only call the setter if the parameter is not matching the default, of course... Alternatively, you could have two overloads.
I have a problem with saving some variables from State abstract method into the File in Memento Pattern. The error is 'Non accessible in scope'.
Here are the pieces of code:
State class.
public abstract class State
{
protected int W;
public int getW()
{
return W;
}
public void setW(int w)
{
W = w;
}
}
Memento class.
public class Memento {
private int w, h;
private double health;
private FileWriterUtil fileWriter = new FileWriterUtil("data.txt");
private FileWriterCaretaker caretaker = new FileWriterCaretaker();
public void Save() {
//here is the error in two lines under.
w = state.State.this.getW();
h = state.State.this.getH();
String strI = Integer.toString(w);
String strII = Integer.toString(h);
String str = strI+strII;
fileWriter.write(str);
caretaker.save(fileWriter);
}
}
I know it shouldn't work, but how to solve it?
You have at least three problems.
First, you need to construct an instance of the State class someplace in your Momento class, maybe as a member in the constructor? I don't know what you are trying to accomplish.
Second, State is abstract so you are going to have to define a subclass that you can instantiate. something like this:
class MyState extends State...
And instantiate MyState.
Thirdly, State doesn't declare a getH() method. How do you expect to call that?
Oh, one more thing:
state.State.this
Your use of "this" doesn't seem right.
Which approach is better: I tried to find it on web, but I couldn't get a better answer.
1.
public class OtherClass
{
public int Add(int x, int y)
{
return x + y;
}
}
public class TestClass
{
OtherClass oClass = new OtherClass();
public int Fun1()
{
return oClass.Add(1,2);
}
public int Fun2()
{
return oClass.Add(1, 2);
}
}
2.
public class TestClass
{
public int Fun1()
{
OtherClass oClass = new OtherClass();
return oClass.Add(1, 2);
}
public int Fun2()
{
OtherClass oClass = new OtherClass();
return oClass.Add(1, 2);
}
}
I think it depends on what you are trying to test.
If you're testing the effects of a sequence of functions being executed on the same class instance then you might want to create a single instance (such as stress testing)
But otherwise I'd say it's always better to create a new instance of the class in each test function to ensure that the context of each test is predictable. If your test methods shared an instance of a class, and one test method fails and corrupts the state of the object under test, your subsequent test may fail for no other reason than the state of the object under test was corrupted by the previous failed test (it might appear the multiple tests are failing when in fact only one of the early ones is a true failure).
Depends on the scenario, if the class is gonna be shared on multiple functions and there are no specific arguments needed to create an instance of that class then it's better of being at the class level.
Let's say you're using the Fun1 and Fun2 often, having the instance creation on the method will have instance creation overhead rather than it being at the class level having a single instance, or better yet, make it static or make it singleton if you're sure that it's going to be a single instance throughout the whole app.
One benefit of having it in the class level is if you're doing unit testing, you can make an interface like IOtherClass and Inject it in the constructor of TestClass.
It would look something like this.
public class OtherClass : IOtherClass
{
public int Add(int x, int y)
{
return x + y;
}
}
public class TestClass
{
IOtherClass oClass;
public TestClass(IOtherClass _oClass)
{
oClass = _oClass;
}
public int Fun1()
{
return oClass.Add(1,2);
}
public int Fun2()
{
return oClass.Add(1, 2);
}
}
You're better off having it as a field in the class rather than declaring a new one in each method. The reason for this is simple, there won't be a line of code in each method declaring the variable meaning that if your declaration statement changes you will only have to change it in one place, not every method. Also it will make your code easier to read and add to because this line won't be duplicated everywhere.
Just remember if that field needs to be disposed your class should implement the IDisposable interface.