Let's say I have the following hierarchy for my project:
fragment/fragment.go
main.go
And in the fragment.go I have the following code, with one getter and no setter:
package fragment
type Fragment struct {
number int64 // private variable - lower case
}
func (f *Fragment) GetNumber() *int64 {
return &f.number
}
And in the main.go I create a Fragment and try to change Fragment.number without a setter:
package main
import (
"fmt"
"myproject/fragment"
)
func main() {
f := new(fragment.Fragment)
fmt.Println(*f.GetNumber()) // prints 0
//f.number = 8 // error - number is private
p := f.GetNumber()
*p = 4 // works. Now f.number is 4
fmt.Println(*f.GetNumber()) // prints 4
}
So by using the pointer, I changed the private variable outside of the fragment package. I understand that in for example C, pointers help to avoid copying large struct/arrays and they are supposed to enable you to change whatever they're pointing to. But I don't quite understand how they are supposed to work with private variables.
So my questions are:
Shouldn't the private variables stay private, no matter how they are accessed?
How is this compared to other languages such as C++/Java? Is it the case there too, that private variables can be changed using pointers outside of the class?
My Background: I know a bit C/C++, rather fluent in Python and new to Go. I learn programming as a hobby so don't know much about technical things happening behind the scenes.
You're not bypassing any access privilegies. If you acquire a *T from any imported package then you can always mutate *T, ie. the pointee at whole, as in an assignment. The imported package designer controls what you can get from the package, so the access control is not yours.
The restriction to what's said above is for structured types (structs), where the previous still holds, but the finer granularity of access control to a particular field is controlled by the field's name case even when referred to by a pointer to the whole structure. The field name must be uppercase to be visible outside its package.
Wrt C++: I believe you can achieve the same with one of the dozens C++ pointer types. Not sure which one, though.
Wrt Java: No, Java has no pointers. Not really comparable to pointers in Go (C, C++, ...).
Related
Is it possible to declare a tuple struct where the members are hidden for all intents and purposes, except for declaring?
// usize isn't public since I don't want users to manipulate it directly
struct MyStruct(usize);
// But now I can't initialize the struct using an argument to it.
let my_var = MyStruct(0xff)
// ^^^^
// How to make this work?
Is there a way to keep the member private but still allow new structs to be initialized with an argument as shown above?
As an alternative, a method such as MyStruct::new can be implemented, but I'm still interested to know if its possible to avoid having to use a method on the type since it's shorter, and nice for types that wrap a single variable.
Background
Without going into too many details, the only purpose of this type is to wrap a single type (a helper which hides some details, adds some functionality and is optimized away completely when compiled), in this context it's not exactly exposing hidden internals to use the Struct(value) style initializing.
Further, since the wrapper is zero overhead, its a little misleading to use the new method which is often associated with allocation/creation instead of casting.
Just as it's convenient type (int)v or int(v), instead of int::new(v), I'd like to do this for my own type.
It's used often, so the ability to use short expression is very convenient. Currently I'm using a macro which calls a new method, its OK but a little awkward/indirect, hence this question.
Strictly speaking this isn't possible in Rust.
However the desired outcome can be achieved using a normal struct with a like-named function (yes, this works!)
pub struct MyStruct {
value: usize,
}
#[allow(non_snake_case)]
pub fn MyStruct(value: usize) -> MyStruct {
MyStruct { value }
}
Now, you can write MyStruct(5) but not access the internals of MyStruct.
I'm afraid that such a concept is not possible, but for a good reason. Each member of a struct, unless marked with pub, is admitted as an implementation detail that should not raise to the surface of the public API, regardless of when and how the object is currently being used. Under this point of view, the question's goal reaches a conundrum: wishing to keep members private while letting the API user define them arbitrarily is not only uncommon but also not very sensible.
As you mentioned, having a method named new is the recommended approach of doing that. It's not like you're compromising code readability with the extra characters you have to type. Alternatively, for the case where the struct is known to wrap around an item, making the member public can be a possible solution. That, on the other hand, would allow any kind of mutations through a mutable borrow (thus possibly breaking the struct's invariants, as mentioned by #MatthieuM). This decision depends on the intended API.
The title is obvious, I need to know if methods are serialized along with object instances in C#, I know that they don't in Java but I'm a little new to C#. If they don't, do I have to put the original class with the byte stream(serialized object) in one package when sending it to another PC? Can the original class be like a DLL file?
No. The type information is serialized, along with state. In order to deserialize the data, your program will need to have access to the assemblies containing the types (including methods).
It may be easier to understand if you've learned C. A class like
class C
{
private int _m;
private int _n;
int Meth(int p)
{
return _m + _n + p;
}
}
is essentially syntactic sugar for
typedef struct
{
int _m;
int _n;
// NO function pointers necessary
} C;
void C_Meth(C* obj, int p)
{
return obj->_m + obj->_n + p;
}
This is essentially how non-virtual methods are implemented in object-oriented languages. The important thing here is that methods are not part of the instance data.
Methods aren't serialized.
I don't know about your scenario, but putting in a library (assembly / dll) and using that in the other end to deserialize gets you all.
Ps. you probably should create some ask some more questions with the factors involved in your scenario. If you are intending to dynamically send & run the code, you can create awful security consequences.
I was confused when .NET first came up with serialization. I think it came from the fact that most books and guides mention that it allows you to serialize your 'objects' as XML and move them around, the fact is that you are actually hydrating the values of your object so you can dehydrate them latter. at no point your are saving your whole object to disk since that would require the dll and is not contained in the XML file.
I'm a fairly new Ada programmer. I have read the book by Barnes (twice I might add) and even managed to write a fair terminal program in Ada. My main language is C++ though.
I am currently wondering if there is a way to "protect" subroutine calls in Ada, perhaps in Ada 2012 (of which I know basically nothing). Let me explain what I mean (although in C++ terms).
Suppose you have a class Secret like this:
class Secret
{
private:
int secret_int;
public:
Set_Secret_Value( int i );
}
Now this is the usual stuff, dont expose secret_int, manipulate it only through access functions. However, the problem is that anybody with access to an object of type Secret can manipulate the value, whether that particular code section is supposed to do it or not. So the danger of rogue altering of secret_int has been reduced to anybody altering secret_int through the permitted functions, even if it happens in a code section that's not supposed to manipulate it.
To remedy that I came up with the following construct
class Secret
{
friend class Secret_Interface;
private:
int secret_int;
Set_Secret_Value( int i );
Super_Secret_Function();
};
class Secret_Interface
{
friend class Client;
private:
static Set_Secret_Value( Secret &rc_secret_object, int i )
{
rc_secret_object.Set_Secret( i );
}
};
class Client
{
Some_Function()
{
...
Secret_Interface::Set_Secret_Value( c_object, some-value );
...
}
}
Now the class Secret_Interface can determine which other classes can use it's private functions and by doing so, indirectly, the functions of class Secret that are exposed to Secret_Interface. This way class Secret still has private functions that can not be called by anybody outside the class, for instance function Super_Secret_Function().
Well I was wondering if anything of this sort is possible in Ada. Basically my desire is to be able to say:
Code A may only be executed by code B but not by anybody else
Thanks for any help.
Edit:
I add a diagram here with a program structure like I have in mind that shows that what I mean here is a transport of a data structure across a wide area of the software, definition, creation and use of a record should happen in code sections that are otherwise unrleated
I think the key is to realize that, unlike C++ and other languages, Ada's primary top-level unit is the package, and visibility control (i.e. public vs. private) is on a per-package basis, not a per-type (or per-class) basis. I'm not sure I'm saying that correctly, but hopefully things will be explained below.
One of the main purposes of friend in C++ is so that you can write two (or more) closely related classes that both take part in implementing one concept. In that case, it makes sense that the code in one class would be able to have more direct access to the code in another class, since they're working together. I assume that in your C++ example, Secret and Client have that kind of close relationship. If I understand C++ correctly, they do all have to be defined in the same source file; if you say friend class Client, then the Client class has to be defined somewhere later in the same source file (and it can't be defined earlier, because at that point the methods in Secret or Secret_Interface haven't yet been declared).
In Ada, you can simply define the types in the same package.
package P is
type Secret is tagged private;
type Client is tagged private;
-- define public operations for both types
private
type Secret is tagged record ... end record;
type Client is tagged record ... end record;
-- define private operations for either or both types
end P;
Now, the body of P will contain the actual code for the public and private operations of both types. All code in the package body of P has access to those things defined in P's private part, regardless of which type they operate on. And, in fact, all code has access to the full definitions of both types. This means that a procedure that operates on a Client can call a private operation that operates on a Secret, and in fact it can read and write a Secret's record components directly. (And vice versa.) This may seem bizarre to programmers used to the class paradigm used by most other OOP languages, but it works fine in Ada. (In fact, if you don't need Secret to be accessible to anything else besides the implementation of Client, the type and its operations can be defined in the private part of P, or the package body.) This arrangement doesn't violate the principles behind OOP (encapsulation, information hiding), as long as the two types are truly two pieces of the implementation of one coherent concept.
If that isn't what you want, i.e. if Secret and Client aren't that closely related, then I would need to see a larger example to find out just what kind of use case you're trying to implement.
MORE THOUGHTS: After looking over your diagram, I think that the way you're trying to solve the problem is inferior design--an anti-pattern, if you will. When you write a "module" (whatever that means--a class or package, or in some cases two or more closely related classes or packages cooperating with each other), the module defines how other modules may use it--what public operations it provides on its objects, and what those operations do.
But the module (let's call it M1) should work the same way, according to its contract, regardless of what other module calls it, and how. M1 will get a sequence of "messages" instructing it to perform certain tasks or return certain information; M1 should not care where those messages are coming from. In particular, M1 should not be making decisions about the structure of the clients that use it. By having M1 decree that "procedure XYZ can only be called from package ABC", M1 is imposing structural requirements on the clients that use it. This, I believe, causes M1 to be too tightly coupled to the rest of the program. It is not good design.
However, it may make sense for the module that uses M1 to exercise some sort of control like that, internally. Suppose we have a "module" M2 that actually uses a number of packages as part of its implementation. The "main" package in M2 (the one that clients of M2 use to get M2 to perform its task) uses M1 to create a new object, and then passes that object to several other packages that do the work. It seems like a reasonable design goal to find a way that M2 could pass that object to some packages or subprograms without giving them the ability to, say, update the object, but pass it to other packages or subprograms that would have that ability.
There are some solutions that would protect against most accidents. For example:
package M1 is
type Secret is tagged private;
procedure Harmless_Operation (X : in out Secret);
type Secret_With_Updater is new Secret with null record;
procedure Dangerous_Operation (X : in out Secret_With_Updater);
end M1;
Now, the packages that could take a "Secret" object but should not have the ability to update it would have procedures defined with Secret'Class parameters. M2 would create a Secret_With_Updater object; since this object type is in Secret'Class, it could be passed as a parameter to procedures with Secret'Class parameters. However, those procedures would not be able to call Dangerous_Operation on their parameters; that would not compile.
A package with a Secret'Class parameter could still call the dangerous operation with a type conversion:
procedure P (X : in out Secret'Class) is
begin
-- ...
M1.Secret_With_Updater(X).Dangerous_Operation;
-- ...
end P;
The language can't prevent this, because it can't make Secret_With_Updater visible to some packages but not others (without using a child package hierarchy). But it would be harder to do this accidentally. If you really wish to go further and prevent even this (if you think there will be a programmer whose understanding of good design principles is so poor that they'd be willing to write code like this), then you could go a little further:
package M1 is
type Secret is tagged private;
procedure Harmless_Operation (X : in out Secret);
type Secret_Acc is access all Secret;
type Secret_With_Updater is tagged private;
function Get_Secret (X : Secret_With_Updater) return Secret_Acc;
-- this will be "return X.S"
procedure Dangerous_Operation (X : in out Secret_With_Updater);
private
-- ...
type Secret_With_Updater is tagged record
S : Secret_Acc;
end record;
-- ...
end M1;
Then, to create a Secret, M2 would call something that creates a Secret_With_Updater that returns a record with an access to a Secret. It would then pass X.Get_Secret to those procedures which would not be allowed to call Dangerous_Operation, but X itself to those that would be allowed. (You might also be able to declare S : aliased Secret, declare Get_Secret to return access Secret, and implement it with return X.S'access. This may avoid a potential memory leak, but it may also run into accessibility-check issues. I haven't tried this.)
Anyway, perhaps some of these ideas could help accomplish what you want to accomplish without introducing unnecessary coupling by forcing M1 to know about the structure of the application that uses it. It's hard to tell because your description of the problem, even with the diagram, is still at too abstract a level for me to see what you really want to do.
You could do this by using child packages:
package Hidden is
private
A : Integer;
B : Integer;
end Hidden;
and then
package Hidden.Client_A_View is
function Get_A return Integer;
procedure Set_A (To : Integer);
end Hidden.Client_A_View;
Then, Client_A can write
with Hidden.Client_A_View;
procedure Client_A is
Tmp : Integer;
begin
Tmp := Hidden.Client_A_View.Get_A;
Hidden.Client_A_View.Set_A (Tmp + 1);
end Client_A;
Your question is extremely unclear (and all the C++ code doesn't help explaining what you need), but if your point is that you want a type to have some publicly accessible operations, and some private operations, then it is easily done:
package Example is
type Instance is private;
procedure Public_Operation (Item : in out Instance);
private
procedure Private_Operation (Item : in out Instance);
type Instance is ... -- whatever you need it to be
end Example;
The procedure Example.Private_Operation is accessible to children of Example. If you want an operation to be purely internal, you declare it only in the package body:
package body Example is
procedure Internal_Operation (Item : in out Instance);
...
end Example;
Well I was wondering if anything of this sort is possible in Ada. Basically my desire is to be able to say:
Code A may only be executed by code B but not by anybody else
If limited to language features, no.
Programmatically, code execution can be protected if the provider must be provided an approved "key" to allow execution of its services, and only authorized clients are supplied with such keys.
Devising the nature, generation, and security of such keys is left as an exercise for the reader.
I’ve found that assigning blocks behaves differently with respect to Objective-C class parameters and C++ classes parameters.
Imagine I have this simple Objective-C class hierarchy:
#interface Fruit : NSObject
#end
#interface Apple : Fruit
#end
Then I can write stuff like this:
Fruit *(^getFruit)();
Apple *(^getApple)();
getFruit = getApple;
This means that, with respect to Objective-C classes, blocks are covariant in their return type: a block which returns something more specific can be seen as a “subclass” of a block returning something more general. Here, the getApple block, which delivers an apple, can be safely assigned to the getFruit block. Indeed, if used later, it's always save to receive an Apple * when you're expecting a Fruit *. And, logically, the converse does not work: getApple = getFruit; doesn't compile, because when we really want an apple, we're not happy getting just a fruit.
Similarly, I can write this:
void (^eatFruit)(Fruit *);
void (^eatApple)(Apple *);
eatApple = eatFruit;
This shows that blocks are covariant in their argument types: a block that can process an argument that is more general can be used where a block that processes an argument that is more specific is needed. If a block knows how to eat a fruit, it will know how to eat an apple as well. Again, the converse is not true, and this will not compile: eatFruit = eatApple;.
This is all good and well — in Objective-C. Now let's try that in C++ or Objective-C++, supposing we have these similar C++ classes:
class FruitCpp {};
class AppleCpp : public FruitCpp {};
class OrangeCpp : public FruitCpp {};
Sadly, these block assignments don't compile any more:
FruitCpp *(^getFruitCpp)();
AppleCpp *(^getAppleCpp)();
getFruitCpp = getAppleCpp; // error!
void (^eatFruitCpp)(FruitCpp *);
void (^eatAppleCpp)(AppleCpp *);
eatAppleCpp = eatFruitCpp; // error!
Clang complains with an “assigning from incompatible type” error. So, with respect to C++ classes, blocks appear to be invariant in the return type and parameter types.
Why is that? Doesn't the same argument I made with Objective-C classes also hold for C++ classes? What am I missing?
This distinction is intentional, due to the differences between the Objective-C and C++ object models. In particular, given a pointer to an Objective-C object, one can convert/cast that pointer to point at a base class or a derived class without actually changing the value of the pointer: the address of the object is the same regardless.
Because C++ allows multiple and virtual inheritance, this is not the case for C++ objects: if I have a pointer to a C++ class and I cast/convert that pointer to point at a base class or a derived class, I may have to adjust the value of the pointer. For example, consider:
class A { int x; }
class B { int y; }
class C : public A, public B { }
B *getC() {
C *c = new C;
return c;
}
Let's say that the new C object in getC() gets allocated at address 0x10. The value of the pointer 'c' is 0x10. In the return statement, that pointer to C needs to be adjusted to point at the B subobject within C. Because B comes after A in C's inheritance list, it will (generally) be laid out in memory after A, so this means adding an offset of 4 bytes (
== sizeof(A)) to the pointer, so the returned pointer will be 0x14. Similarly, casting a B* to a C* would subtract 4 bytes from the pointer, to account for B's offset within C. When dealing with virtual base classes, the idea is the same but the offsets are no longer known, compile-time constants: they're accessed through the vtable during execution.
Now, consider the effect this has on an assignment like:
C (^getC)();
B (^getB)();
getB = getC;
The getC block returns a pointer to a C. To turn it into a block that returns a pointer to a B, we would need to adjust the pointer returned from each invocation of the block by adding 4 bytes. This isn't an adjustment to the block; it's an adjustment to the pointer value returned by the block. One could implement this by synthesizing a new block that wraps the previous block and performs the adjustment, e.g.,
getB = ^B() { return getC() }
This is implementable in the compiler, which already introduces similar "thunks" when overriding a virtual function with one that has a covariant return type needing adjustment. However, with blocks it causes an additional problem: blocks allow equality comparison with ==, so to evaluate whether "getB == getC", we would have to be able to look through the thunk that would be generated by the assignment "getB = getC" to compare the underlying block pointers. Again, this is implementable, but would require a much more heavyweight blocks runtime that is able to create (uniqued) thunks able to perform these adjustments to the return value (and as well as for any contravariant parameters). While all of this is technically possible, the cost (in runtime size, complexity, and execution time) outweighs the benefits.
Getting back to Objective-C, the single-inheritance object model never needs any adjustments to the object pointer: there's only a single address to point at a given Objective-C object, regardless of the static type of the pointer, so covariance/contravariance never requires any thunks, and the block assignment is a simple pointer assignment (+ _Block_copy/_Block_release under ARC).
the feature was probably overlooked. There are commits that show Clang people caring about making covariance and contravariance work in Objective-C++ for Objective-C types but I couldn't find anything for C++ itself. The language specification for blocks doesn't mention covariance or contravariance for either C++ or Objective-C.
I'm learning Go, and I'm a little confused about when to use pointers. Specifically, when returning a struct from a function, when is it appropriate to return the struct instance itself, and when is it appropriate to return a pointer to the struct?
Example code:
type Car struct {
make string
model string
}
func Whatever() {
var car Car
car := Car{"honda", "civic"}
// ...
return car
}
What are the situations where I would want to return a pointer, and where I would not want to? Is there a good rule of thumb?
There are two things you want to keep in mind, performance and API.
How is a Car used? Is it an object which has state? Is it a large struct? Unfortunately, it is impossible to answer when I have no idea what a Car is. Truthfully, the best way is to see what others do and copy them. Eventually, you get a feeling for this sort of thing. I will now describe three examples from the standard library and explain why I think they used what they did.
hash/crc32: The crc32.NewIEEE() function returns a pointer type (actually, an interface, but the underlying type is a pointer). An instance of a hash function has state. As you write information to a hash, it sums up the data so when you call the Sum() method, it will give you the state of that one instance.
time: The time.Date function returns a Time struct. Why? A time is a time. It has no state. It is like an integer where you can compare them, preform maths on them, etc. The API designer decided that a modification to a time would not change the current one but make a new one. As a user of the library, if I want the time one month from now, I would want a new time object, not to change the current one I have. A time is also only 3 words in length. In other words, it is small and there would be no performance gain in using a pointer.
math/big: big.NewInt() is an interesting one. We can pretty much agree that when you modify a big.Int, you will often want a new one. A big.Int has no internal state, so why is it a pointer? The answer is simply performance. The programmers realized that big ints are … big. Constantly allocating each time you do a mathematical operation may not be practical. So, they decided to use pointers and allow the programmer to decide when to allocate new space.
Have I answered your question? Probably not. It is a design decision and you need to figure it out on a case by case basis. I use the standard library as a guide when I am designing my own libraries. It really all comes down to judgement and how you expect client code to use your types.
Very losely, exceptions are likely to show up in specific circumstances:
Return a value when it is really small (no more than few words).
Return a pointer when the copying overhead would substantially hurt performance (size is a lot of words).
Often, when you want to mimic an object-oriented style, where you have an "object" that stores state and "methods" that can alter the object, then you would have a "constructor" function that returns a pointer to a struct (think of it as the "object reference" as in other OO languages). Mutator methods would have to be methods of the pointer-to-the-struct type instead of the struct type itself, in order to change the fields of the "object", so it's convenient to have a pointer to the struct instead of a struct value itself, so that all "methods" will be in its method set.
For example, to mimic something like this in Java:
class Car {
String make;
String model;
public Car(String myMake) { make = myMake; }
public setMake(String newMake) { make = newMake; }
}
You would often see something like this in Go:
type Car struct {
make string
model string
}
func NewCar(myMake string) *Car {
return &Car{myMake, ""}
}
func (self *Car) setMake(newMake string) {
self.make = newMake
}