I just tried to do something and realized I'm not sure of the proper (if
there *IS* a proper) way to do it. I'm designing a class with a lot a
methods/properties. I would like to group some of them so you access them
like MyObject.Commands.blah1, MyObject.Commands.blah2, etc... So some of
the methods are grouped under "Commands".
My first thought was a nested class, but how would the methods in the nested
Commands object (easily) access the data members of MyObject? I realy don't
want to have to create an instance of Commands and pass it a bunch of data
to initialize it. All I want to do is group methods/properties of MyObject
so the user of the class doesn't have to deal with tons of methods off the
root of the object.
Am I thinking along the wrong lines? Is there another/better/more proper
way to do this? Or am I crazy for even wanting to do such a strange thing?
:)
10  1450 
In VB.NET:
Public Class MyClass
Private m_InnerClass As New MyInnerClass
Public Readonly Property InnerClass() As MyInnerClass
Get
Return m_InnerClass
End Get
End Property
End Class
When you create an instance of MyClass, e.g.
Dim mc as New MyClass
you can get at the inner class by
mc.InnerClass.SomeMethod
HTH
Charles
"nobody" <no****@no.server> wrote in message
news:uF**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl... I just tried to do something and realized I'm not sure of the proper (if
there *IS* a proper) way to do it. I'm designing a class with a lot a
methods/properties. I would like to group some of them so you access them
like MyObject.Commands.blah1, MyObject.Commands.blah2, etc... So some of
the methods are grouped under "Commands".
My first thought was a nested class, but how would the methods in the
nested Commands object (easily) access the data members of MyObject? I realy
don't want to have to create an instance of Commands and pass it a bunch of data
to initialize it. All I want to do is group methods/properties of
MyObject so the user of the class doesn't have to deal with tons of methods off the
root of the object.
Am I thinking along the wrong lines? Is there another/better/more proper
way to do this? Or am I crazy for even wanting to do such a strange
thing? :)
In VB.NET:
Public Class MyClass
Private m_InnerClass As New MyInnerClass
Public Readonly Property InnerClass() As MyInnerClass
Get
Return m_InnerClass
End Get
End Property
End Class
When you create an instance of MyClass, e.g.
Dim mc as New MyClass
you can get at the inner class by
mc.InnerClass.SomeMethod
HTH
Charles
"nobody" <no****@no.server> wrote in message
news:uF**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl... I just tried to do something and realized I'm not sure of the proper (if
there *IS* a proper) way to do it. I'm designing a class with a lot a
methods/properties. I would like to group some of them so you access them
like MyObject.Commands.blah1, MyObject.Commands.blah2, etc... So some of
the methods are grouped under "Commands".
My first thought was a nested class, but how would the methods in the
nested Commands object (easily) access the data members of MyObject? I realy
don't want to have to create an instance of Commands and pass it a bunch of data
to initialize it. All I want to do is group methods/properties of
MyObject so the user of the class doesn't have to deal with tons of methods off the
root of the object.
Am I thinking along the wrong lines? Is there another/better/more proper
way to do this? Or am I crazy for even wanting to do such a strange
thing? :)
Right, but how would the methods and properties of m_InnerClass access the
data in MyClass? The methods and proprties I want to put in MyInnerClass
are all methods and properties that need to work with the data in MyClass.
I realy don't want to have MyClass pass it's data into m_InnerClass when it
instantiates it. That just sounds so kludgy, not to mention having two
copies of the data for what is really (to the user to MyClass) just one
object. I don't want the methods and properties to be "separate" from
MyClass, just "grouped" somehow so there aren't so many of them off the root
of the MyClass object. But I don't think there is a way I can do that
without separating the methods and properties from MyClass. :(
"Charles Law" <bl***@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:eb**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... In VB.NET:
Public Class MyClass
Private m_InnerClass As New MyInnerClass
Public Readonly Property InnerClass() As MyInnerClass
Get
Return m_InnerClass
End Get
End Property
End Class
When you create an instance of MyClass, e.g.
Dim mc as New MyClass
you can get at the inner class by
mc.InnerClass.SomeMethod
HTH
Charles
"nobody" <no****@no.server> wrote in message
news:uF**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl... I just tried to do something and realized I'm not sure of the proper (if
there *IS* a proper) way to do it. I'm designing a class with a lot a
methods/properties. I would like to group some of them so you access
them like MyObject.Commands.blah1, MyObject.Commands.blah2, etc... So some
of the methods are grouped under "Commands".
My first thought was a nested class, but how would the methods in the
nested Commands object (easily) access the data members of MyObject? I realy
don't want to have to create an instance of Commands and pass it a bunch of
data to initialize it. All I want to do is group methods/properties of
MyObject so the user of the class doesn't have to deal with tons of methods off
the root of the object.
Am I thinking along the wrong lines? Is there another/better/more
proper way to do this? Or am I crazy for even wanting to do such a strange
thing? :)
Right, but how would the methods and properties of m_InnerClass access the
data in MyClass? The methods and proprties I want to put in MyInnerClass
are all methods and properties that need to work with the data in MyClass.
I realy don't want to have MyClass pass it's data into m_InnerClass when it
instantiates it. That just sounds so kludgy, not to mention having two
copies of the data for what is really (to the user to MyClass) just one
object. I don't want the methods and properties to be "separate" from
MyClass, just "grouped" somehow so there aren't so many of them off the root
of the MyClass object. But I don't think there is a way I can do that
without separating the methods and properties from MyClass. :(
"Charles Law" <bl***@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:eb**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... In VB.NET:
Public Class MyClass
Private m_InnerClass As New MyInnerClass
Public Readonly Property InnerClass() As MyInnerClass
Get
Return m_InnerClass
End Get
End Property
End Class
When you create an instance of MyClass, e.g.
Dim mc as New MyClass
you can get at the inner class by
mc.InnerClass.SomeMethod
HTH
Charles
"nobody" <no****@no.server> wrote in message
news:uF**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl... I just tried to do something and realized I'm not sure of the proper (if
there *IS* a proper) way to do it. I'm designing a class with a lot a
methods/properties. I would like to group some of them so you access
them like MyObject.Commands.blah1, MyObject.Commands.blah2, etc... So some
of the methods are grouped under "Commands".
My first thought was a nested class, but how would the methods in the
nested Commands object (easily) access the data members of MyObject? I realy
don't want to have to create an instance of Commands and pass it a bunch of
data to initialize it. All I want to do is group methods/properties of
MyObject so the user of the class doesn't have to deal with tons of methods off
the root of the object.
Am I thinking along the wrong lines? Is there another/better/more
proper way to do this? Or am I crazy for even wanting to do such a strange
thing? :)
"nobody" <no****@no.server> schrieb Right, but how would the methods and properties of m_InnerClass
access the data in MyClass? The methods and proprties I want to put
in MyInnerClass are all methods and properties that need to work with
the data in MyClass. I realy don't want to have MyClass pass it's
data into m_InnerClass when it instantiates it. That just sounds so
kludgy, not to mention having two copies of the data for what is
really (to the user to MyClass) just one object. I don't want the
methods and properties to be "separate" from MyClass, just "grouped"
somehow so there aren't so many of them off the root of the MyClass
object. But I don't think there is a way I can do that without
separating the methods and properties from MyClass. :(
To access an object you need to pass a reference. In this case, pass a
reference to a MyClass object to the InnerClass object.
Object references have nothing to do with the project structure (assemblies,
(nested) namespaces/classes), so the InnerClass object does not "know" that
there is an outer class (MyClass) at design time. There might be none or
multiple instances of MyClass at run time.
--
Armin
How to quote and why: http://www.plig.net/nnq/nquote.html http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
"nobody" <no****@no.server> schrieb Right, but how would the methods and properties of m_InnerClass
access the data in MyClass? The methods and proprties I want to put
in MyInnerClass are all methods and properties that need to work with
the data in MyClass. I realy don't want to have MyClass pass it's
data into m_InnerClass when it instantiates it. That just sounds so
kludgy, not to mention having two copies of the data for what is
really (to the user to MyClass) just one object. I don't want the
methods and properties to be "separate" from MyClass, just "grouped"
somehow so there aren't so many of them off the root of the MyClass
object. But I don't think there is a way I can do that without
separating the methods and properties from MyClass. :(
To access an object you need to pass a reference. In this case, pass a
reference to a MyClass object to the InnerClass object.
Object references have nothing to do with the project structure (assemblies,
(nested) namespaces/classes), so the InnerClass object does not "know" that
there is an outer class (MyClass) at design time. There might be none or
multiple instances of MyClass at run time.
--
Armin
How to quote and why: http://www.plig.net/nnq/nquote.html http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
The usual way would be to pass a reference when m_InnerClass is
instantiated.
Public Class MyClass
Private m_InnerClass As New MyInnerClass(Me)
Public Readonly Property InnerClass() As MyInnerClass
Get
Return m_InnerClass
End Get
End Property
End Class
Public Class MyInnerClass
Private m_Parent As MyClass
Public Sub New(Parent As MyClass)
m_Parent = Parent
End Sub
Public Sub DoStuffInvolvingMyClass()
m_Parent.SomeMethod()
...
End Sub
End Class
This doesn't create two copies of your data as you are only passing a
reference. The user of your class will see the effect you want without
knowing anything about how it is implemented internally.
HTH
Charles
"nobody" <no****@no.server> wrote in message
news:uD*************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... Right, but how would the methods and properties of m_InnerClass access the
data in MyClass? The methods and proprties I want to put in MyInnerClass
are all methods and properties that need to work with the data in MyClass.
I realy don't want to have MyClass pass it's data into m_InnerClass when
it instantiates it. That just sounds so kludgy, not to mention having two
copies of the data for what is really (to the user to MyClass) just one
object. I don't want the methods and properties to be "separate" from
MyClass, just "grouped" somehow so there aren't so many of them off the
root of the MyClass object. But I don't think there is a way I can do that
without separating the methods and properties from MyClass. :(
"Charles Law" <bl***@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:eb**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... In VB.NET:
Public Class MyClass
Private m_InnerClass As New MyInnerClass
Public Readonly Property InnerClass() As MyInnerClass
Get
Return m_InnerClass
End Get
End Property
End Class
When you create an instance of MyClass, e.g.
Dim mc as New MyClass
you can get at the inner class by
mc.InnerClass.SomeMethod
HTH
Charles
"nobody" <no****@no.server> wrote in message
news:uF**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl... I just tried to do something and realized I'm not sure of the proper
(if there *IS* a proper) way to do it. I'm designing a class with a lot a
methods/properties. I would like to group some of them so you access them like MyObject.Commands.blah1, MyObject.Commands.blah2, etc... So some of the methods are grouped under "Commands".
My first thought was a nested class, but how would the methods in the
nested Commands object (easily) access the data members of MyObject? I realy
don't want to have to create an instance of Commands and pass it a bunch of data to initialize it. All I want to do is group methods/properties of
MyObject so the user of the class doesn't have to deal with tons of methods off the root of the object.
Am I thinking along the wrong lines? Is there another/better/more proper way to do this? Or am I crazy for even wanting to do such a strange
thing? :)
The usual way would be to pass a reference when m_InnerClass is
instantiated.
Public Class MyClass
Private m_InnerClass As New MyInnerClass(Me)
Public Readonly Property InnerClass() As MyInnerClass
Get
Return m_InnerClass
End Get
End Property
End Class
Public Class MyInnerClass
Private m_Parent As MyClass
Public Sub New(Parent As MyClass)
m_Parent = Parent
End Sub
Public Sub DoStuffInvolvingMyClass()
m_Parent.SomeMethod()
...
End Sub
End Class
This doesn't create two copies of your data as you are only passing a
reference. The user of your class will see the effect you want without
knowing anything about how it is implemented internally.
HTH
Charles
"nobody" <no****@no.server> wrote in message
news:uD*************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... Right, but how would the methods and properties of m_InnerClass access the
data in MyClass? The methods and proprties I want to put in MyInnerClass
are all methods and properties that need to work with the data in MyClass.
I realy don't want to have MyClass pass it's data into m_InnerClass when
it instantiates it. That just sounds so kludgy, not to mention having two
copies of the data for what is really (to the user to MyClass) just one
object. I don't want the methods and properties to be "separate" from
MyClass, just "grouped" somehow so there aren't so many of them off the
root of the MyClass object. But I don't think there is a way I can do that
without separating the methods and properties from MyClass. :(
"Charles Law" <bl***@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:eb**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... In VB.NET:
Public Class MyClass
Private m_InnerClass As New MyInnerClass
Public Readonly Property InnerClass() As MyInnerClass
Get
Return m_InnerClass
End Get
End Property
End Class
When you create an instance of MyClass, e.g.
Dim mc as New MyClass
you can get at the inner class by
mc.InnerClass.SomeMethod
HTH
Charles
"nobody" <no****@no.server> wrote in message
news:uF**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl... I just tried to do something and realized I'm not sure of the proper
(if there *IS* a proper) way to do it. I'm designing a class with a lot a
methods/properties. I would like to group some of them so you access them like MyObject.Commands.blah1, MyObject.Commands.blah2, etc... So some of the methods are grouped under "Commands".
My first thought was a nested class, but how would the methods in the
nested Commands object (easily) access the data members of MyObject? I realy
don't want to have to create an instance of Commands and pass it a bunch of data to initialize it. All I want to do is group methods/properties of
MyObject so the user of the class doesn't have to deal with tons of methods off the root of the object.
Am I thinking along the wrong lines? Is there another/better/more proper way to do this? Or am I crazy for even wanting to do such a strange
thing? :)
Now that's one I didn't think of... It would require that all of MyClass's
data that needs to be accessible to MyInnerClass would have to be exposed
publicly (or friendly)... Maybe I could have a class to hold all of
MyClass's private data, and pass a reference to that into MyInnerClass....
I'll play that idea around in my mind for awhile (it might get lonely in
there though...) :)
Thanks all!
"Charles Law" <bl***@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:er**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... The usual way would be to pass a reference when m_InnerClass is
instantiated.
Public Class MyClass
Private m_InnerClass As New MyInnerClass(Me)
Public Readonly Property InnerClass() As MyInnerClass
Get
Return m_InnerClass
End Get
End Property
End Class
Public Class MyInnerClass
Private m_Parent As MyClass
Public Sub New(Parent As MyClass)
m_Parent = Parent
End Sub
Public Sub DoStuffInvolvingMyClass()
m_Parent.SomeMethod()
...
End Sub
End Class
This doesn't create two copies of your data as you are only passing a
reference. The user of your class will see the effect you want without
knowing anything about how it is implemented internally.
HTH
Charles
"nobody" <no****@no.server> wrote in message
news:uD*************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... Right, but how would the methods and properties of m_InnerClass access
the data in MyClass? The methods and proprties I want to put in
MyInnerClass are all methods and properties that need to work with the data in
MyClass. I realy don't want to have MyClass pass it's data into m_InnerClass when
it instantiates it. That just sounds so kludgy, not to mention having two
copies of the data for what is really (to the user to MyClass) just one
object. I don't want the methods and properties to be "separate" from
MyClass, just "grouped" somehow so there aren't so many of them off the
root of the MyClass object. But I don't think there is a way I can do that
without separating the methods and properties from MyClass. :(
"Charles Law" <bl***@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:eb**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... In VB.NET:
Public Class MyClass
Private m_InnerClass As New MyInnerClass
Public Readonly Property InnerClass() As MyInnerClass
Get
Return m_InnerClass
End Get
End Property
End Class
When you create an instance of MyClass, e.g.
Dim mc as New MyClass
you can get at the inner class by
mc.InnerClass.SomeMethod
HTH
Charles
"nobody" <no****@no.server> wrote in message
news:uF**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> I just tried to do something and realized I'm not sure of the proper (if > there *IS* a proper) way to do it. I'm designing a class with a lot
a > methods/properties. I would like to group some of them so you
access them > like MyObject.Commands.blah1, MyObject.Commands.blah2, etc... So
some of > the methods are grouped under "Commands".
>
> My first thought was a nested class, but how would the methods in
the nested
> Commands object (easily) access the data members of MyObject? I
realy don't
> want to have to create an instance of Commands and pass it a bunch
of data > to initialize it. All I want to do is group methods/properties of
MyObject
> so the user of the class doesn't have to deal with tons of methods
off the > root of the object.
>
> Am I thinking along the wrong lines? Is there another/better/more
proper > way to do this? Or am I crazy for even wanting to do such a strange
thing?
> :)
>
>
Now that's one I didn't think of... It would require that all of MyClass's
data that needs to be accessible to MyInnerClass would have to be exposed
publicly (or friendly)... Maybe I could have a class to hold all of
MyClass's private data, and pass a reference to that into MyInnerClass....
I'll play that idea around in my mind for awhile (it might get lonely in
there though...) :)
Thanks all!
"Charles Law" <bl***@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:er**************@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... The usual way would be to pass a reference when m_InnerClass is
instantiated.
Public Class MyClass
Private m_InnerClass As New MyInnerClass(Me)
Public Readonly Property InnerClass() As MyInnerClass
Get
Return m_InnerClass
End Get
End Property
End Class
Public Class MyInnerClass
Private m_Parent As MyClass
Public Sub New(Parent As MyClass)
m_Parent = Parent
End Sub
Public Sub DoStuffInvolvingMyClass()
m_Parent.SomeMethod()
...
End Sub
End Class
This doesn't create two copies of your data as you are only passing a
reference. The user of your class will see the effect you want without
knowing anything about how it is implemented internally.
HTH
Charles
"nobody" <no****@no.server> wrote in message
news:uD*************@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... Right, but how would the methods and properties of m_InnerClass access
the data in MyClass? The methods and proprties I want to put in
MyInnerClass are all methods and properties that need to work with the data in
MyClass. I realy don't want to have MyClass pass it's data into m_InnerClass when
it instantiates it. That just sounds so kludgy, not to mention having two
copies of the data for what is really (to the user to MyClass) just one
object. I don't want the methods and properties to be "separate" from
MyClass, just "grouped" somehow so there aren't so many of them off the
root of the MyClass object. But I don't think there is a way I can do that
without separating the methods and properties from MyClass. :(
"Charles Law" <bl***@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:eb**************@TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl... In VB.NET:
Public Class MyClass
Private m_InnerClass As New MyInnerClass
Public Readonly Property InnerClass() As MyInnerClass
Get
Return m_InnerClass
End Get
End Property
End Class
When you create an instance of MyClass, e.g.
Dim mc as New MyClass
you can get at the inner class by
mc.InnerClass.SomeMethod
HTH
Charles
"nobody" <no****@no.server> wrote in message
news:uF**************@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> I just tried to do something and realized I'm not sure of the proper (if > there *IS* a proper) way to do it. I'm designing a class with a lot
a > methods/properties. I would like to group some of them so you
access them > like MyObject.Commands.blah1, MyObject.Commands.blah2, etc... So
some of > the methods are grouped under "Commands".
>
> My first thought was a nested class, but how would the methods in
the nested
> Commands object (easily) access the data members of MyObject? I
realy don't
> want to have to create an instance of Commands and pass it a bunch
of data > to initialize it. All I want to do is group methods/properties of
MyObject
> so the user of the class doesn't have to deal with tons of methods
off the > root of the object.
>
> Am I thinking along the wrong lines? Is there another/better/more
proper > way to do this? Or am I crazy for even wanting to do such a strange
thing?
> :)
>
>
This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. Similar topics
by: OKB (not okblacke) |
last post by:
For a variety of reasons, I'm interested in putting together some
code that will allow me to created structures out of nested classes,
something like:
class class1:
def methA(self):
print...
|
by: theo |
last post by:
if I have nested div combinations, can I call
for styles only to specific nested combos?
It's 3 lists <li>, on one page, needing different styles.
<div id=list1><li> <a id="t1"...
|
by: Rubén Campos |
last post by:
Organizing classes, types, structures, enums and whatever other entities
into nested namespaces requires to include into every header and
implementation file the complete path of namespaces. Let me...
|
by: C# Learner |
last post by:
Is it not possible to declare a nested class in a seperate file from
its "parent" class -- i.e. in a similar way to the idea of spreading
namespaces over more than one file?
|
by: B0nj |
last post by:
I've got a class in which I want to implement a property
that operates like an indexer, for the various colors
associated with the class.
For instance, I want to be able to do 'set' operations...
|
by: Robert W. |
last post by:
I've almost completed building a Model-View-Controller but have run into a
snag. When an event is fired on a form control I want to automatically
updated the "connnected" property in the Model. ...
|
by: miked |
last post by:
I am architecting in a read only class for use in mapping data to a business
object. The object makes strong use of nested classes and their ability to
access protected fields. The downside is...
|
by: ZikO |
last post by:
Hi there.
I have a problem. I have created nested classes but don't know how to access to
inner classes. I know I can create objects:
Hen Object;
Hen::Nest ObjectNest;
Hen::Nest::Egg...
|
by: Jake K |
last post by:
What purpose does nesting a class inside another class typically server?
Are there conditions where this would be beneficial? Thanks a lot.
|
by: Calvin Spealman |
last post by:
On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 11:32 AM, Cousson, Benoit <b-cousson@ti.comwrote:
There is no point of nested classes because nested classes _are not_
supported by python. They are simply an artifact of...
|
by: taylorcarr |
last post by:
A Canon printer is a smart device known for being advanced, efficient, and reliable. It is designed for home, office, and hybrid workspace use and can also be used for a variety of purposes. However,...
|
by: Charles Arthur |
last post by:
How do i turn on java script on a villaon, callus and itel keypad mobile phone
|
by: aa123db |
last post by:
Variable and constants
Use var or let for variables and const fror constants.
Var foo ='bar';
Let foo ='bar';const baz ='bar';
Functions
function $name$ ($parameters$) {
}
...
|
by: emmanuelkatto |
last post by:
Hi All, I am Emmanuel katto from Uganda. I want to ask what challenges you've faced while migrating a website to cloud.
Please let me know.
Thanks!
Emmanuel
|
by: nemocccc |
last post by:
hello, everyone, I want to develop a software for my android phone for daily needs, any suggestions?
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
There are some requirements for setting up RAID:
1. The motherboard and BIOS support RAID configuration.
2. The motherboard has 2 or more available SATA protocol SSD/HDD slots (including MSATA, M.2...
|
by: marktang |
last post by:
ONU (Optical Network Unit) is one of the key components for providing high-speed Internet services. Its primary function is to act as an endpoint device located at the user's premises. However,...
|
by: Oralloy |
last post by:
Hello folks,
I am unable to find appropriate documentation on the type promotion of bit-fields when using the generalised comparison operator "<=>".
The problem is that using the GNU compilers,...
|
by: jinu1996 |
last post by:
In today's digital age, having a compelling online presence is paramount for businesses aiming to thrive in a competitive landscape. At the heart of this digital strategy lies an intricately woven...
| |
