extend

As you can see below I have a super class (Article) and two sub classes. I want each of the sub classes to have a static array that shall hold all it's objects. abstract class Article { public static $articles = array(); // Variable for storing all the objects of each sub-class. public function add_Object_To_Array() { array_push(self::$articles, $this); } } class Report extends Article{} class Interview extends Article{} -Making two Report objects and adding them to their array: $tmp = new Report(); $tmp->add_Object_To_Array(); $tmp = new Report(); $tmp->add_Object_To_Array(); -Making two

So I'm trying to get a grasp of using custom controls in Android. But my app crashes on trying to create the activity. Here's the code: package com.myApp; import android.content.Context; import android.widget.EditText; import android.view.View; import android.view.View.OnClickListener; public class MyEditText extends EditText implements OnClickListener { public MyEditText(Context context) { super(context); // TODO Auto-generated constructor stub } public void FlashBorder() { //do some custom action } @Override public void onClick(View v) { // TODO Auto-generated method stub EditText txt =

Can I call a function from lisp from a library written in c or c++? How can I extend lisp? This is useful when you want to do some system calls or stuff like that. It is unusual to call non-lisp code from lisp, and rarely necessary. CLX (the X11 client implementation for CL) doesn't link to the Xlib implementation but "speaks" X11 directly. On any system, your CL implementation is likely to already have excellent operating system hooks rendering this unnecessary. That said, the answer depends on the lisp implementation: In ECL you can actually host a CL environment under C and simply call cl

Haskell newbie here. I wrote an evaluator for a minimal assembly-like language. Now, I want to extend that language to support some syntactic sugar which, I will then compile back to use only the primitive operators. The ideia is that I do not want to touch the evaluator module again. In the OO way of doing things, I think, one could extend the original module so to support the syntactic sugar operators, providing here the translation rules. Other than that, I can only think of rewriting the datatype constructors in both modules so that they would not name-collide, and proceed from there, as

Assuming you have the following code inside a ES6 class (documentation): /** * @typedef Test~options * @type {object.<string>} * @property {array} elements - An array containing elements * @property {number} length - The array length */ /** * @param {Test~options} opt - Option object */ test(opt){ } Now I would like to document another function, let's name it test2 . This function takes exactly the same options object, but needs another property parent . How to document this without documenting redundant options? Redundant means: /** * @typedef Test~options * @type {object.<string>} *