Here is the definition of my Package class:
type Package ([<ParamArray>] info : Object[]) =
do
info |> Array.iter (Console.WriteLine)
member this.Count = info.Length
and here is the IL, I'm trying:
let ilGen = methodbuild.GetILGenerator()
ilGen.Emit(OpCodes.Ldstr, "This is 1")
ilGen.Emit(OpCodes.Ldstr, "Two")
ilGen.Emit(OpCodes.Ldstr, "Three")
ilGen.Emit(OpCodes.Newobj, typeof<Package>.GetConstructor([|typeof<Object[]>|]))
ilGen.Emit(OpCodes.Ret)
but this doesn't seem to work. I tried:
ilGen.Emit(OpCodes.Newobj, typeof<Package>.GetConstructor([|typeof<String>; typeof<String>; typeof<String>|]))
a well as:
ilGen.Emit(OpCodes.Newobj, typeof<Package>.GetConstructor([|typeof<Object>; typeof<Object>; typeof<Object>|]))
but it just laughs at me. What am I doing wrong?
The [<ParamArray>] attribute indicates to a compiler that a method accepts a variable number of arguments. However, the CLR doesn't really support varargs methods -- it's just syntactic sugar provided by the C#/VB.NET/F# compilers.
Now, if you take away the [<ParamArray>], what are you left with?
(info : Object[])
That is the signature of the constructor you're trying to call.
So, you'll need to use the newarr and stelem opcodes to create an array, store the values into it, then call the constructor using the array as the argument. This should do what you want (though I haven't tested it):
let ilGen = methodbuild.GetILGenerator()
// Create the array
ilGen.Emit(OpCodes.Ldc_I4_3)
ilGen.Emit(OpCodes.Newarr, typeof<obj>)
// Store the first array element
ilGen.Emit(OpCodes.Dup)
ilGen.Emit(OpCodes.Ldc_I4_0)
ilGen.Emit(OpCodes.Ldstr, "This is 1")
ilGen.Emit(OpCodes.Stelem_Ref)
// Store the second array element
ilGen.Emit(OpCodes.Dup)
ilGen.Emit(OpCodes.Ldc_I4_1)
ilGen.Emit(OpCodes.Ldstr, "Two")
ilGen.Emit(OpCodes.Stelem_Ref)
// Store the third array element
ilGen.Emit(OpCodes.Dup)
ilGen.Emit(OpCodes.Ldc_I4_2)
ilGen.Emit(OpCodes.Ldstr, "Three")
ilGen.Emit(OpCodes.Stelem_Ref)
// Call the constructor
ilGen.Emit(OpCodes.Newobj, typeof<Package>.GetConstructor([|typeof<Object[]>|]))
ilGen.Emit(OpCodes.Ret)
NOTE: In this code, I used the dup OpCode to avoid creating a local variable to hold the array reference while storing the element values. This is only feasible because this code is fairly straightforward -- I strongly suggest you create a local variable to hold the array reference if you want to build something more complicated.
Related
Suppose if I had the following Employee struct:
mutable struct Employee
_id::Int64
_first_name::String
_last_name::String
function Employee(_id::Int64,_first_name::String,_last_name::String)
# validation left out.
new(_id,_first_name,_last_name)
end
end
If I wanted to implement my own setproperty!() I can do:
function setproperty!(value::Employee,name::Symbol,x)
if name == :_id
if !isa(x,Int64)
throw(ErrorException("ID type is invalid"))
end
setfield!(value,:_id,x)
end
if name == :_first_name
if is_white_space(x)
throw(ErrorException("First Name cannot be blank!"))
end
setfield!(value,:_first_name,x)
end
if name == :_last_name
if is_white_space(x)
throw(ErrorException("Last Name cannot be blank!"))
end
setfield!(value,:_last_name,x)
end
end
Have I implemented setproperty!() correctly?
The reason why I use setfield!() for _first_name and _last_name, is because if I do:
if name == :_first_name
setproperty!(value,:_first_name,x) # or value._first_name = x
end
it causes a StackOverflowError because it's recursively using setproperty!().
I don't really like the use of setproperty!(), because as the number of parameters grows, so would setproperty!().
It also brings to mind using Enum and if statements (only we've switched Enum with Symbol).
One workaround I like, is to document that the fields are meant to be private and use the provided setter to set the field:
function set_first_name(obj::Employee,first_name::AbstractString)
# Validate first_name before assigning it.
obj._first_name = first_name
end
The function is smaller and has a single purpose.
Of course this doesn't prevent someone from using setproperty!(), setfield!() or value._field_name = x, but if you're going to circumvent the provided setter then you'll have the handle the consequences for doing it.
Of course this doesn't prevent someone from using setproperty!(), setfield!() or value._field_name = x, but if you're going to circumvent the provided setter then you'll have the handle the consequences for doing it.
I would recommend you to do this, defining getter,setter functions, instead of overloading getproperty/setproperty!. on the wild, the main use i saw on overloading getproperty/setproperty! is when fields can be calculated from the data. for a getter/setter pattern, i recommend you to use the ! convention:
getter:
function first_name(value::Employee)
return value._first_name
end
setter:
function first_name!(value::Employee,text::String)
#validate here
value._first_name = text
return value._first_name
end
if your struct is mutable, it could be that some fields are uninitialized. you could add a getter with default, by adding a method:
function first_name(value::Employee,default::String)
value_stored = value._first_name
if is_initialized(value_stored) #define is_initialized function
return value_stored
else
return default
end
end
with a setter/getter with default, the only difference between first_name(val,text) and first_name!(val,text) would be the mutability of val, but the result is the same. useful if you are doing mutable vs immutable functions. as you said it, the getproperty/setproperty! is cumbersome in comparison. If you want to disallow accessing the fields, you could do:
Base.getproperty(val::Employee,key::Symbol) = throw(error("use the getter functions instead!")
Base.setproperty!(val::Employee,key::Symbol,x) = throw(error("use the setter functions instead!")
Disallowing the syntax sugar of val.key and val.key = x. (if someone really want raw access, there is still getfield/setfield!, but they were warned.)
Finally, i found this recomendation in the julia docs, that recommends getter/setter methods over direct field access
https://docs.julialang.org/en/v1/manual/style-guide/#Prefer-exported-methods-over-direct-field-access
Julia throws an error when i try to have an array of structures inside another structure.
ERROR: LoadError: syntax: "grid = Cell[]" inside type definition is reserved
here is the test code i am trying to run.
struct Cell
color::Int64
location::Int64
Cell(color::Int64,location::Int64) = new(color,location)
Cell()=new(0,0)
end
struct Grid
dimensions::Int64
timestep::Int64
grid=Cell[]
courseGrain=Cell[]
Grid(dimensions::Int64,timestep::Int64,grid_cell::Cell,courseGrain_cell::Cell) =
new(dimensions,timestep,push!(grid,grid_cell),push!(courseGrain,courseGrain_cell))
end
Defining default field values within field declarations is currently not allowed. See https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/10146
To achieve what you want, define your grid and courseGrain as a 1D array of type Cell, i.e. Array{Cell, 1} or equivalently Vector{Cell}, and handle the default case in your constructors.
struct Grid
dimensions::Int64
timestep::Int64
grid::Vector{Cell}
courseGrain::Vector{Cell}
Grid(dimensions::Int64,timestep::Int64,grid_cell::Cell,courseGrain_cell::Cell) =
new(dimensions,timestep,[grid],[courseGrain_cell])
end
If you want one of your constructors to create an empty grid or courseGrain, you may write Cell[] or Vector{Cell}(undef, 0) in your call to new.
Let records be stream/collection and extract function which transforms data form an element of such collection.
Is there a way in Kotlin to write
records.map {extract(it)}
without explicitely applying(it) ?
E.g. records.map(extract) or records.map {extract}
If extract is a value (local variable, property, parameter) of a functional type (T) -> R or T.() -> R for some T and R, then you can pass it directly to map:
records.map(extract)
Example:
val upperCaseReverse: (String) -> String = { it.toUpperCase().reversed() }
listOf("abc", "xyz").map(upperCaseReverse) // [CBA, ZYX]
If extract is a top-level single argument function or a local single argument function, you can make a function reference as ::extract and pass it to map:
records.map(::extract)
Example:
fun rotate(s: String) = s.drop(1) + s.first()
listOf("abc", "xyz").map(::rotate) // [bca, yzx]
If it is a member or an extension function of a class SomeClass accepting no arguments or a property of SomeClass, you can use it as SomeClass::extract. In this case, records should contain items of SomeType, which will be used as a receiver for extract.
records.map(SomeClass::extract)
Example:
fun Int.rem2() = this % 2
listOf("abc", "defg").map(String::length).map(Int::rem2) // [1, 0]
Since Kotlin 1.1, if extract is a member or an extension function of a class SomeClass accepting one argument, you can make a bound callable reference with some receiver foo:
records.map(foo::extract)
records.map(this::extract) // to call on `this` receiver
Example:
listOf("abc", "xyz").map("prefix"::plus) // [prefixabc, prefixxyz]
(runnable demo with all the code samples above)
you could use method reference (similar to Java).
records.map {::extract}
take a look at the function references examples on kotlin docs
https://kotlinlang.org/docs/reference/reflection.html#function-references
I am using IDL 8.4. I want to use isa() function to determine input type read by read_csv(). I want to use /number, /integer, /float and /string as some field I want to make sure float, other to be integer and other I don't care. I can do like this, but it is not very readable to human eye.
str = read_csv(filename, header=inheader)
; TODO check header
if not isa(str.(0), /integer) then stop
if not isa(str.(1), /number) then stop
if not isa(str.(2), /float) then stop
I am hoping I can do something like
expected_header = ['id', 'x', 'val']
expected_type = ['/integer', '/number', '/float']
str = read_csv(filename, header=inheader)
if not array_equal(strlowcase(inheader), expected_header) then stop
for i=0l,n_elements(expected_type) do
if not isa(str.(i), expected_type[i]) then stop
endfor
the above doesn't work, as '/integer' is taken literally and I guess isa() is looking for named structure. How can you do something similar?
Ideally I want to pick expected type based on header read from file, so that script still works as long as header specifies expected field.
EDIT:
my tentative solution is to write a wrapper for ISA(). Not very pretty, but does what I wanted... if there is cleaner solution , please let me know.
Also, read_csv is defined to return only one of long, long64, double and string, so I could write function to test with this limitation. but I just wanted to make it to work in general so that I can reuse them for other similar cases.
function isa_generic,var,typ
; calls isa() http://www.exelisvis.com/docs/ISA.html with keyword
; if 'n', test /number
; if 'i', test /integer
; if 'f', test /float
; if 's', test /string
if typ eq 'n' then return, isa(var, /number)
if typ eq 'i' then then return, isa(var, /integer)
if typ eq 'f' then then return, isa(var, /float)
if typ eq 's' then then return, isa(var, /string)
print, 'unexpected typename: ', typ
stop
end
IDL has some limited reflection abilities, which will do exactly what you want:
expected_types = ['integer', 'number', 'float']
expected_header = ['id', 'x', 'val']
str = read_csv(filename, header=inheader)
if ~array_equal(strlowcase(inheader), expected_header) then stop
foreach type, expected_types, index do begin
if ~isa(str.(index), _extra=create_struct(type, 1)) then stop
endforeach
It's debatable if this is really "easier to read" in your case, since there are only three cases to test. If there were 500 cases, it would be a lot cleaner than writing 500 slightly different lines.
This snipped used some rather esoteric IDL features, so let me explain what's happening a bit:
expected_types is just a list of (string) keyword names in the order they should be used.
The foreach part iterates over expected_types, putting the keyword string into the type variable and the iteration count into index.
This is equivalent to using for index = 0, n_elements(expected_types) - 1 do and then using expected_types[index] instead of type, but the foreach loop is easier to read IMHO. Reference here.
_extra is a special keyword that can pass a structure as if it were a set of keywords. Each of the structure's tags is interpreted as a keyword. Reference here.
The create_struct function takes one or more pairs of (string) tag names and (any type) values, then returns a structure with those tag names and values. Reference here.
Finally, I replaced not (bitwise not) with ~ (logical not). This step, like foreach vs for, is not necessary in this instance, but can avoid headache when debugging some types of code, where the distinction matters.
--
Reflective abilities like these can do an awful lot, and come in super handy. They're work-horses in other languages, but IDL programmers don't seem to use them as much. Here's a quick list of common reflective features I use in IDL, with links to the documentation for each:
create_struct - Create a structure from (string) tag names and values.
n_tags - Get the number of tags in a structure.
_extra, _strict_extra, and _ref_extra - Pass keywords by structure or reference.
call_function - Call a function by its (string) name.
call_procedure - Call a procedure by its (string) name.
call_method - Call a method (of an object) by its (string) name.
execute - Run complete IDL commands stored in a string.
Note: Be very careful using the execute function. It will blindly execute any IDL statement you (or a user, file, web form, etc.) feed it. Never ever feed untrusted or web user input to the IDL execute function.
You can't access the keywords quite like that, but there is a typename parameter to ISA that might be useful. This is untested, but should work:
expected_header = ['id', 'x', 'val']
expected_type = ['int', 'long', 'float']
str = read_cv(filename, header=inheader)
if not array_equal(strlowcase(inheader), expected_header) then stop
for i = 0L, n_elemented(expected_type) - 1L do begin
if not isa(str.(i), expected_type[i]) then stop
endfor
I'm messing around a bit with F# and I'm not quite sure if I'm doing this correctly. In C# this could be done with an IDictionary or something similar.
type School() =
member val Roster = Map.empty with get, set
member this.add(grade: int, studentName: string) =
match this.Roster.ContainsKey(grade) with
| true -> // Can I do something like this.Roster.[grade].Insert([studentName])?
| false -> this.Roster <- this.Roster.Add(grade, [studentName])
Is there a way to insert into the map if it contains a specified key or am I just using the wrong collection in this case?
The F# Map type is a mapping from keys to values just like ordinary .NET Dictionary, except that it is immutable.
If I understand your aim correctly, you're trying to keep a list of students for each grade. The type in that case is a map from integers to lists of names, i.e. Map<int, string list>.
The Add operation on the map actually either adds or replaces an element, so I think that's the operation you want in the false case. In the true case, you need to get the current list, append the new student and then replace the existing record. One way to do this is to write something like:
type School() =
member val Roster = Map.empty with get, set
member this.Add(grade: int, studentName: string) =
// Try to get the current list of students for a given 'grade'
let studentsOpt = this.Roster.TryFind(grade)
// If the result was 'None', then use empty list as the default
let students = defaultArg studentsOpt []
// Create a new list with the new student at the front
let newStudents = studentName::students
// Create & save map with new/replaced mapping for 'grade'
this.Roster <- this.Roster.Add(grade, newStudents)
This is not thread-safe (because calling Add concurrently might not update the map properly). However, you can access school.Roster at any time, iterate over it (or share references to it) safely, because it is an immutable structure. However, if you do not care about that, then using standard Dictionary would be perfectly fine too - depends on your actual use case.