Class inheritance constructor questino ...

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jamie Risk
  • Start date Start date
J

Jamie Risk

Two classes:

public class _A {
public int Value1;
public int Value2;

public _A(int v1, int v2) {
this.Value1 = v1;
this.Value2 = v2;
}
}

public class _B : _A {
public int Value3;

public _B(_A a, v3) : base(a.Value1, a.Value2) {
this.Value3 = v3;
}
}



Is there a way I can create a constructor for _B without have to
break apart the elements of the _A typed argument when calling
the base constructor?
 
Jamie Risk said:
Two classes:

public class _A {
public int Value1;
public int Value2;

public _A(int v1, int v2) {
this.Value1 = v1;
this.Value2 = v2;
}
}

public class _B : _A {
public int Value3;

public _B(_A a, v3) : base(a.Value1, a.Value2) {
this.Value3 = v3;
}
}

Is there a way I can create a constructor for _B without have to
break apart the elements of the _A typed argument when calling
the base constructor?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean - could you elaborate?
 
Two classes:

public class _A {
public int Value1;
public int Value2;

public _A(int v1, int v2) {
this.Value1 = v1;
this.Value2 = v2;
}

}

public class _B : _A {
public int Value3;

public _B(_A a, v3) : base(a.Value1, a.Value2) {
this.Value3 = v3;
}

}

Is there a way I can create a constructor for _B without have to
break apart the elements of the _A typed argument when calling
the base constructor?
Click to expand...

Add a constructor to your A class that takes an instance of A:

public class _A {
public int Value1;
public int Value2;

public _A(int v1, int v2) {
this.Value1 = v1;
this.Value2 = v2;
}
Click to expand...

//second constructor
public _A(_A a) {
}
}
Click to expand...

Then you can change your _B constructor like this:
public class _B : _A {
public int Value3;

public _B(_A a, v3) : base(a) {
this.Value3 = v3;
}

}
Click to expand...


I hope I've understood your question correctly.

Chris
 
I'm not sure what you mean - could you elaborate?
Click to expand...

I assume he means he'd like to do "public _B(_A a, v3) : base(a)..." or
something similar even when _A doesn't define a constructor that takes an
instance of an _A.

As far as I know, it's not possible. But I've been wrong before. :)

Pete
 
Peter Duniho said:
I assume he means he'd like to do "public _B(_A a, v3) : base(a)..." or
something similar even when _A doesn't define a constructor that takes an
instance of an _A.

As far as I know, it's not possible. But I've been wrong before. :)
Click to expand...

Correct. On the other hand, it's perfectly possible for a constructor
to take an instance of the same type and copy field values over etc.

What you also can't do is try to create a new object which still uses
the old object for its base fields, permanently linking the two
together. Of course, you can keep a reference to the old object and
keep referring to it that way, using composition instead of (or as well
as) inheritance.
 
What you also can't do is try to create a new object which still uses
the old object for its base fields, permanently linking the two
together.
Click to expand...

This exactly what I was trying to ask.
 
This exactly what I was trying to ask.
Click to expand...

Really? That wasn't clear _at all_, for what it's worth. Your example
appeared to be asking simply about copying the values from the old object,
not tying the old object permanently to the new one.
 
Back
Top