I have a class which holds the string I want to display and an id for that item.
ref class ListBoxItem {
private:
int id;
String ^ name;
public:
ListBoxItem(int id, const char * name) { this->id = id; this->name = gcnew System::String(name); }
virtual String ^ ToString() new { return name; }
};
And I add each item to the ListBox like this:
for(list<string>::iterator i = listItems.begin(); i != listItems.end(); i++)
listBoxItems->Items->Add(gcnew ListBoxItem(2, (*i).c_str()));
This will produce a ListBox with the correct number of items, but all the items are called "ListBoxItem".
Instead, I want the ListBox to display the string which is produced when the ToString method is invoked on ListBoxItem.
You didn't say whether you were using WinForms or WPF, but I believe this answer is valid for either.
(Note: There is a class named ListBoxItem in the framework. You might want to pick a different class name.)
I believe the issue is here:
virtual String ^ ToString() new { return name; }
^^^
This means you're creating a brand new ToString method, which doesn't have anything to do with the Object.ToString method. When the ListBox calls ToString, it doesn't have your class definition, so it just calls Object.ToString(), which you haven't changed.
Switch it to this, and you should be good:
virtual String ^ ToString() override { return name; }
^^^^^^^^
Related
I have the following model:
Public Class MyModel
Public Property MyModelId As Integer
Public Property Description As String
Public Property AnotherProperty As String
End Class
Is there a method to get a property name of the Model as a string representation like the following code?
Dim propertyName as String = GetPropertyNameAsStringMethod(MyModel.Description)
So the propertyName variable has "Description" as value.
Check the Darin Dimitrov' answer on this SO thread - Reflection - get property name.
class Foo
{
public string Bar { get; set; }
}
class Program
{
static void Main()
{
var result = Get<Foo, string>(x => x.Bar);
Console.WriteLine(result);
}
static string Get<T, TResult>(Expression<Func<T, TResult>> expression)
{
var me = expression.Body as MemberExpression;
if (me != null)
{
return me.Member.Name;
}
return null;
}
}
Hope this help..
Here is a helper extension method you can use for any property:
public static class ReflectionExtensions
{
public static string PropertyName<T>(this T owner,
Expression<Func<T, object>> expression) where T : class
{
if (owner == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("owner");
var memberExpression = (MemberExpression)expression.Body;
return memberExpression.Member.Name;
}
}
However, this will only work on instances of a class. You can write a similar extension method that will operate directly on the type instead.
You need to do it using reflection.
There are already loads of posts on stack overflow like this:
How to get current property name via reflection?
Reflection - get property name
Get string name of property using reflection
Reflection - get property name
I believe that the answer will be along the lines of:
string prop = "name";
PropertyInfo pi = myObject.GetType().GetProperty(prop);
Create an extension method and then use it where needed.
Private Shared Function GetPropertyName(Of T)(exp As Expression(Of Func(Of T))) As String
Return (DirectCast(exp.Body, MemberExpression).Member).Name
End Function
have a look at this post as well.
I have solved this issue editing a bit #NiranjanKala's source example,
converting the code in vb.Net like this
<System.Runtime.CompilerServices.Extension()> _
Public Function GetPropertyName(Of T, TResult)(expression As Expression(Of Func(Of T, TResult))) As String
Dim [me] = TryCast(expression.Body, MemberExpression)
If [me] IsNot Nothing Then
Return [me].Member.Name
End If
Return Nothing
End Function
Then I am able to call the extension like this
Dim propertyName as String = GetPropertyName(Of MyModel, String)(Function(x) x.Description)
Then propertyName variable has "Description" as string value.
I need to be able to call a method and pass in an object of an unknown type
but then have the correct overload called. I also need a default implementation that accepts
object as its parameter type. What I'm seeing is that the default overload is the only one that ever gets used.
Here's the gist of what I'm trying to do:
class Formatter
{
private object Value;
public Formatter(object val){
Value = val;
}
public override string ToString()
{
return Format(Value);
}
private string Format(object value)
{
return value.ToString();
}
private string Format(DateTime value)
{
return value.ToString("yyyyMMdd");
}
}
Ok, so far so good. Now I want to be able to do this:
public static class FancyStringBuilder()
{
public static string BuildTheString()
{
var stringFormatter = new Formatter("hello world");
var dateFormatter = new Formatter(DateTime.Now);
return String.Format("{0} {1}", stringFormatter, dateFormatter);
}
}
The result of FancyStringBuilder.BuildTheString() is "hello world 2012-12-21 00:00:00.000", when I expected "hello world 20121221"
The problem is that the overload that accepts a DateTime is not being called, instead defaulting to the overload which accepts an object. How can I call the proper method without resorting to a messy switch statement?
In Formatter.ToString(), the override Formatter.Format(object) is always called. This is because the overload resolution happens at compile-time, not run-time. At compile-time, the only thing known about Value is that it's an object.
If you really want to distinguish incoming types, you'll need to do so in Formatter's constructor. In this case, rather than hanging on to the object, you could just call ToString() immediately and only store the formatted result:
class Formatter
{
string formattedValue;
public Formatter(object value)
{
formattedValue = value.ToString();
}
public Formatter(DateTime value)
{
formattedValue = value.ToString("yyyyMMdd");
}
public string ToString()
{
return formattedValue;
}
}
Note that this does assume that your object isn't changing between the time you create the Formatter object and the time Formatter.ToString() is called, or at the very least that it's okay to take a snapshot of the string representation at the time the Formatter is created.
This also assumes that you know the incoming types at compile-time. If you want a truly run-time-only solution, you'll have to use the "is" operator or a typeof() comparison.
If your goal is just to provide custom ToString() formatting based on the incoming type, I'd probably do it using a list that maps from types to format strings:
static class Formatter
{
private static List<Tuple<Type, string>> Formats;
static Formatter()
{
Formats = new List<Tuple<Type, string>>();
// Add formats from most-specific to least-specific type.
// The format string from the first type found that matches
// the incoming object (see Format()) will be used.
AddMapping(typeof(DateTime), "yyyyMMdd");
// AddMapping(typeof(...), "...");
}
private static void AddMapping(Type type, string format)
{
Formats.Add(new Tuple<Type, string>(type, format));
}
public static string Format(object value)
{
foreach (var t in Formats)
{
// If we find a type that 'value' can be assigned to
// (either the same type, a base type, or an interface),
// consider it a match, and use the format string.
if (t.Item1.IsAssignableFrom(value.GetType()))
{
return string.Format(t.Item2, value);
}
}
// If we didn't find anything, use the default ToString()...
return value.ToString();
}
}
With that, calling code then looks like:
Console.WriteLine(
"{0} {1}",
Formatter.Format(DateTime.Now),
Formatter.Format("banana"));
I think this is because the class constructor takes an object as parameter, and then assign that object to variable Value which is also an object. There for calling Format(object) since Value is of type object
Try this
public override string ToString()
{
if(Value is DateTime)
return Format(Convert.ToDateTime(Value)); //this should call the right method
return Format(Value); //works for other non-custom-format types e.g. String
}
Is there a way to store an identifier of a model object or the model object itself in a JavaFX 2 TreeItem<String>? There is just Value to store the text...
I'm populating a TreeView from a list of model objects, and need to find it when the user clicks a node. I'm used to work with Value and Text in .NET Windows Forms or HTML and I am afraid I cannot adapt this way of thinking to JavaFX...
You can use any objects with TreeView, they just have to override toString() for presenting or extend javafx.scene.Node
E.g. for next class:
private static class MyObject {
private final String value;
public MyObject(String st) { value = st; }
public String toString() { return "MyObject{" + "value=" + value + '}'; }
}
TreeView should be created next way:
TreeView<MyObject> treeView = new TreeView<MyObject>();
TreeItem<MyObject> treeRoot = new TreeItem<MyObject>(new MyObject("Root node"));
treeView.setRoot(treeRoot);
I have the same issue as the OP. In addition I want to bind the value displayed in the TreeItem to a property of the object. This isn't complete, but I'm experimenting with the following helper class, where I'm passing in the "user object" (or item) to be referenced in the TreeItem, and a valueProperty (which, in my case, is a property of the item) to be bound to the TreeItem.value.
final class BoundTreeItem<B, T> extends TreeItem<T> {
public BoundTreeItem(B item, Property<T> valueProperty) {
this(item, valueProperty, null);
}
public BoundTreeItem(B item, Property<T> valueProperty, Node graphic) {
super(null, graphic);
itemProperty.set(item);
this.valueProperty().bindBidirectional(valueProperty);
}
public ObjectProperty<B> itemProperty() {
return itemProperty;
}
public B getItem() {
return itemProperty.get();
}
private ObjectProperty<B> itemProperty = new SimpleObjectProperty<>();
}
Is it possible to create an object with a constructor parameter which returns a property value when referenced, without using dot notation? Here's a few examples:
public class myObject
{
public string myObject {get; private set;}
public myObject( string tempstring)
{
this.myObject = tempstring.ToUpper();
}
}
var a = new myObject("somevalue");
Console.WriteLine( myObject ); // outputs the string "SOMEVALUE"
Here's another attempt:
public class myInt
{
public int myInt {get; private set;}
public myInt(string tempInt)
{ this.myInt = Convert.ToInt32(tempInt);
}
}
var a = new myInt("3");
var b = a + a; // ends up being an int datatype value of 6
I know I could always do var b = a.myInt + a.myInt. I guess I could create a static class with a static function that converts a parameter each time to a result, but it wouldn't maintain state.
Just curious. It would make what I am actually trying to do much less difficult.
In the first case, yes. Override the ToString method.
public class myObject
{
public string myValue {get; private set;}
public myObject( string tempstring)
{
this.myValue = tempstring.ToUpper();
}
public override string ToString()
{
return myValue;
}
}
In the second case, sort of. You shouldn't try to overload operators to offer unexpected behavior. Create a method to perform behavior that wouldn't make sense when reading the code. What you are suggesting (returning an int) would definitely not be expected by me to return an int (mostly because of the var rather than a strictly defined type). Using the + operator to return a new myInt object would make sense. Using the + operator return an int would not.
You could overload the + operator to return a new myInt object, and then also add an implicit cast to int. Just make sure it makes sense, and that it is readable.
Within the class, you could use:
public static implicit operator int(myInt m)
{
return myValue;
}
public static myInt operator +(myInt left, myInt right)
{
// requires constructor that takes int
return new myInt(left.myValue + right.myValue);
}
Of course, you could go the direct route, but again only use it when it makes it more readable and not less (note, just like methods operators cannot be overloaded simply by return type, so you'd have to pick between the two).
public static int operator +(myInt left, myInt right)
{
return left.myValue + right.myValue;
}
How about implicit conversions. See http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/z5z9kes2(VS.71).aspx
I was just trying to code the following extension method:
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;
using System.Text;
namespace _4Testing
{
static class ExtensionMethods
{
public static void AssignMe(this int me, int value)
{
me = value;
}
}
}
But it is not working, i mean, can I use an extension method to alter values from extended classes? I don't want to change void return type to int, just changing extended class value. Thanks in advance
Your example uses int, which is a value type. Classes are reference types and behaves a bit differently in this case.
While you could make a method that takes another reference like AssignMe(this MyClass me, MyClass other), the method would work on a copy of the reference, so if you assign other to me it would only affect the local copy of the reference.
Also, keep in mind that extension methods are just static methods in disguise. I.e. they can only access public members of the extended types.
public sealed class Foo {
public int PublicValue;
private int PrivateValue;
}
public static class FooExtensions {
public static void Bar(this Foo f) {
f.PublicValue = 42;
// Doesn't compile as the extension method doesn't have access to Foo's internals
f.PrivateValue = 42;
}
}
// a work around for extension to a wrapping reference type is following ....
using System;
static class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var me = new Integer { value = 5 };
int y = 2;
me.AssignMe(y);
Console.WriteLine(me); // prints 2
Console.ReadLine();
}
public static void AssignMe(this Integer me, int value)
{
me.value = value;
}
}
class Integer
{
public int value { get; set; }
public Integer()
{
value = 0;
}
public override string ToString()
{
return value.ToString();
}
}
Ramon what you really need is a ref modifier on the first (i.e. int me ) parameter of the extension method, but C# does not allow ref modifier on parameters having 'this' modifiers.
[Update]
No workaround should be possible for your particular case of an extension method for a value type. Here is the "reductio ad absurdum" that you are asking for if you are allowed to do what you want to do; consider the C# statement:
5.AssignMe(10);
... now what on earth do you think its suppose to do ? Are you trying to assign 10 to 5 ??
Operator overloading cannot help you either.
This is an old post but I ran into a similar problem trying to implement an extender for the String class.
My original code was this:
public static void Revert(this string s)
{
char[] xc = s.ToCharArray();
s = new string(xc.Reverse());
}
By using the new keyword I am creating a new object and since s is not passed by reference it will not be modified.
I changed it to the following which provides a solution to Ramon's problem:
public static string Reverse(this string s)
{
char[] xc = s.ToCharArray();
Array.Reverse(xc);
return new string(xc);
}
In which case the calling code will be:
s = s.Reverse();
To manipulate integers you can do something like:
public static int Increment(this int i)
{
return i++;
}
i = i.Increment();