I have the following Namespace with 2 functions in it that I want to use, but I'm not sure how I access them?
I tried importing ("using" for C#) but those 2 functions arent in the namespace.
Do I have to create a class and create those functions myself?
The weird thing is, those 2 functions are found within a different namespace:
Regardless of where it is, how would I turn these into functions I can call from my code?
When I try to access those functions in my code, they don't know up :
I think you're getting a bit confused. It's understandable with namespaces.
Gds.GoogleMap.UltimatePlus.Math.Mathservice is not a namespace name. The namespace name is Gds.GoogleMap.UltimatePlus.Math . MathService is the class name.
If you put the statement
using Gds.GoogleMap.UltimatePlus.Math;
at the top of your file then all you need to do to declare a new object is to say:
MathService myService = new MathService();
assuming it has a default constructor.
Give it a try.
Related
I want to use a class generated with TypeSpec.classBuilder as a property in another class that I am generating. But for this I need to get a TypeName and I cannot find a way to access it. Only from the superclass. Anyone knows a way to do this?
You should be perfectly fine with using ClassName there.
And the easiest way of obtaining the ClassName is to pass the package and the name of the generated type:
ClassName("your.package.here", "NameOfType")
You can see here how I'm specifying a receiver of an extension function ("similar" use-case):
We are currently switching our project to Kotlin, and ran across following question:
We need a certain extension function only inside a given class. Thus, we have two possibilities: (1) Declaring the extension function private on the file top-level or (2) declaring the extension function private inside the class.
Following a MCVE:
Top-level example (file C1.kt):
private fun String.double() = this.repeat(2)
class C1 {
init {
println("init".double())
}
}
Inside class example (file C2.kt):
class C2 {
private fun String.double() = this.repeat(2)
init {
println("init".double())
}
}
Questions:
Is there any difference to those two approaches, except that in C1.kt the extension function String.double() would also be visible to other possible file members (such as further classes in the same file)?
Since we want to achieve code "as kotlinic as possible", we would like to know which of the two approaches is the suggested one. Is there an official suggestion / style guide on the example above? I think it is considered good practice to declare extension functions as close as possible to its intended use, thus in the above example the structure of C2 would be suggested?
Is there any difference to those two approaches, except that in C1.kt the extension function String.double() would also be visible to other possible file members (such as further classes in the same file)?
There is one difference: When specifying an extension function inside the class (in your example C2), then you additionally have access to the instance of this class with the qualified this syntax (in your example this#C2).
Since we want to achieve code "as kotlinic as possible", we would like to know which of the two approaches is the suggested one. Is there an official suggestion / style guide on the example above? I think it is considered good practice to declare extension functions as close as possible to its intended use, thus in the above example the structure of C2 would be suggested?
That's a good question. Personally, I would put the extension functions outside the class, since they (normally) specify behavior that is related to the extended type and not to the type of the class where they are used. However, if you do need class-related information within the extension function, I would then specify them inside the class.
I need to limit the scope of a variable to the function it resides with however I need to declare it within an if statement as it's type will change depending. I'm working within VB.NET
Public Function CourseDataTable()
If RadioCourses.Checked Then
Dim SearchBy As New classSearchCourses
ElseIf RadioAttendees.Checked Then
Dim SearchBy As New classSearchAttendees
End If
The obvious problem is that the variable doesn't persist outside of the if statement. I want to limit the scope of this variable because a, it's used else where and b, memory leakage, the class could very well end up holding whole SQL tables and I don't want that persisting when it's not needed.
I can't use inheritance or polymorph here because I'm working a legacy system.
This is probably a rework (I'm struggling think of a different way of approaching it evidently) as I can't find anything in MSDN that allows procedure scope but ignores any other blocks at declaration.
It is still possible to use polymorphism in a legacy system. What you can do is find the common functionality that must exist between the two in order for you to even want to reuse the same variable. Then you can create wrapper classes for each of these legacy classes. The wrapper class would implement the common interface and simply call the underlying legacy implementation. Then you simply declare a variable to that common Interface and create the appropriate wrapper class instance inside of the if statements.
Edit: If you have the ability to modify the legacy classes at all, a simpler solution would be to simply create a common Interface that both of the legacy classes can implement. This will give you the polymorphic functionality that you desire without the need of wrapper classes. VB.Net even provides the ability to implement an interface in a way to where the interface methods are only exposed by a Interface reference. To do this, you simply mark the interface implementation methods as Private.
You could just declare SearchBy as Object and then do something like this
Dim searchBy As Object
If RadioCourses.Checked Then
searchBy = New classSearchCourses
ElseIf RadioAttendees.Checked Then
searchBy = New classSearchAttendees
End If
If searchBy.GetType() Is GetType(classSearchCourses) Then
'Do something
ElseIf searchBy.GetType() Is GetType(classSearchAttendees) Then
'Do something else
End If
This is still inheritance though since most everything inherits from System.Object but it will save you declaring your own new base class if for some reason you can't do that
I have a class that has been pre-defined by an XSD but the name is long and confusing. I can't rename the class directly. Is there a way to create a new class with a better name and inherit the poorly named one without having to write a bunch of setters and getters since the XSD could potentially change over time?
I tried just creating an empty class like this:
Public Class TaskDetails : Inherits ExternalResponseTaskDetailTaskDetail
End Class
And that would work fine, except I get a casting error when I try to
Dim td as TaskDetails = ertdtd
This seems like I'm asking a very stupid question, but try as I might, I can't get my Google-Fu working for me on it. The long class name does make sense inside the library I'm working in, but outside the library, it really doesn't. Especially since the library contains an ExternalRequestTaskDetails class and ExternalRequestTaskDetailsTaskDetails is an element contained within it.
I'm probably over-thinking this/wasting time trying to avoid a bit of conditional code - so I thought I would ask. I've seen some other questions # this sort of thing but they were using php or some other language.
At the most basic, can I do something like this (I know the syntax is wrong):
Class * var = #"Playback_Up";
// call Class method to get default settings
NSMutableDictionary * dict = [var getPlaybackDefaults];
Why do I want to do this? To avoid a bunch of conditionals. I have an app where a using can select from a range of playback "types" - each type is handled by a subclass of a "Playback" class. It would be convenient to store the class names in an array and then when a selection is made (from a tableView) call the selected class, create an instance of it, etc.
Is this possible or am I digging myself into a hole here?
The correct syntax for your first line is:
Class var = NSClassFromString(#"Playback_Up");
The rest is fine, and I use this kind of technique more frequently than you might imagine.
(Except that "Playback_Up" should never be the name of a class of course.)
EDIT: Do note Paul.s's comment below. Using +class is preferred if you can hard-code the class at compile time.