setter

问题 We have lambda expression for getter as below: Function<Student, String> studentNameGetter = Student::getName; How about lambda expression for the setter? 回答1: I'm not sure what you mean by creating a lambda expression for the setter. What it looks like you are trying to do is to assign the method reference to a suitable Functional Interface. In that case, the best match is to a BiConsumer: BiConsumer<Student, String> studentNameSetter = Student::setName; 来源： https://stackoverflow.com

问题 We have lambda expression for getter as below: Function<Student, String> studentNameGetter = Student::getName; How about lambda expression for the setter? 回答1: I'm not sure what you mean by creating a lambda expression for the setter. What it looks like you are trying to do is to assign the method reference to a suitable Functional Interface. In that case, the best match is to a BiConsumer: BiConsumer<Student, String> studentNameSetter = Student::setName; 来源： https://stackoverflow.com

问题 I'm trying to make an API as user friendly as possible. Let's have: class B extends A {} class A { A setX(){ ...; return this; } } Now this B b = new B().setX(); is invalid, has to be casted: B b = (B) new B().setX(); Is there a way using generics in A to make compiler aware of "this" type and accept the first way - without casting and without passing type parameter at the place where used? (I.e. not new B<B>().setX() , that's ugly.) I KNOW why Java needs retyping in this case. Please no

问题 When using @Autowired (not xml configuration), could someone compare the set/constructor binding advantages and disadvantages? See the following examples: public class Example{ private Logger log; // constructor wiring @Autowired public Example(Logger log){ this.log = log; } } public class Example{ // setter wiring @Autowired private Logger log; } 回答1: It is entirely a matter of preference. Spring frowns upon constructor injection, or at least used to, because thus circular dependencies

问题 My current project has the coding convention that instance variables are never referred to with the this. prefix and that parameters should never hide instance variables. This results in setters that look like: public void setFoo(final Foo aFoo) { foo = aFoo; } Unfortunately eclipse won't generate that for me by default. I've found in code style I can get close to it by adding a to the parameter prefix list, however I only want it to apply to set methods and I'd like to add the final tag

问题 My current project has the coding convention that instance variables are never referred to with the this. prefix and that parameters should never hide instance variables. This results in setters that look like: public void setFoo(final Foo aFoo) { foo = aFoo; } Unfortunately eclipse won't generate that for me by default. I've found in code style I can get close to it by adding a to the parameter prefix list, however I only want it to apply to set methods and I'd like to add the final tag

问题 I have the following wrapper class: public class Wrapper { public int Member; } In a separate class, I have the following: public class ContainerClass { private Wrapper data; public Wrapper Property { get { return data; } set { data = value; } } public void Foo() { Property.Member = 42; } } When Property.Member is modified in Foo() , nothing happens (the setter is skipped). However, I can still do the following, for example: public void Foo() { Property = Property; } and enter the desired

问题 The following code runs for both var = putVar; & this.var = putVar; I understand: "this" is used to identify that - "put this value for just 'my' object". When both work, why do people usually use "this" in setters? code: public class PlayingWithObjects { public static void main(String[] args) { SomeClass classObj = new SomeClass(10); System.out.println("classObj.getVar: " + classObj.getVar() ); classObj.setVar(20); System.out.println("classObj.getVar: " + classObj.getVar() ); classObj = new

问题 I have a function, that should read array and dynamically set object properties. class A { public $a; public $b; function set($array){ foreach ($array as $key => $value){ if ( property_exists ( $this , $key ) ){ $this->{$key} = $value; } } } } $a = new A(); $val = Array( "a" => "this should be set to property", "b" => "and this also"); $a->set($val); Well, obviously it doesn't work, is there a way to do this? EDIT It seems that nothing is wrong with this code, the question should be closed

问题 I am trying to create a custom setter method for my property. Below is my code. I am getting a waring Attempting to access 'myProperty' within its own getter var myProperty:String{ get { if CONDITION1 { return CONDITION1_STRING }else if CONDITION2 { return CONDITION2_STRING }else{ return myProperty } } set{ } } What is wrong in my code. can any body help to fix this. 回答1: Create a backing ivar and add a custom setter: private _myProperty: String var myProperty: String { get { if CONDITION1 {