Is there any way to 'dynamically'/reflectively/etc create a new instance of a class with arguments in Scala?
For example, something like:
class C(x: String)
manifest[C].erasure.newInstance("string")
But that compiles. (This is also, rest assured, being used in a context that makes much more sense than this simplified example!)
erasure is of type java.lang.Class, so you can use constructors (anyway you don't need manifest in this simple case - you can just use classOf[C]). Instead of calling newinstance directly, you can at first find correspondent constructor with getConstructor method (with correspondent argument types), and then just call newInstance on it:
classOf[C].getConstructor(classOf[String]).newInstance("string")
Related
I have a schema that has many complexType, some of which have subtypes (via xsi:type). I need to create an XQuery expression that checks that an element (MyPath) is a member of a parent type, but no others, I've tried an expression in the form below with no luck.
/MyPath[element(*,ParentClass) and not element(*,ChildClass)]
It appears element applies to all the children in the context it is called, but not itself (MyPath), which yields no results.
I also tried the instance of operator, but this appears to only work for simpleType.
You should use
. instance of element(*, ParentClass)
and not(. instance of element(*, ChildClass))
If this doesn't work please supply an MCVE
An alternative, using Saxon extension functions, is to test the type annotation directly: saxon:type-annotation(.) eq xs:QName('ParentClass')
Of course, there's a question about whether this is good practice. The whole point of defining a derived type is that it is supposed to be substitutable for the base type; everywhere you can use an instance of the parent type, you should be able to substitute an instance of the child type. You appear to be deliberately trying to contrive a query in which this is not the case.
In Meteor docs for matching pattern of check(value, pattern), it was mentioned:
Any constructor function (eg, Date)
Matches any element that is an instance of that type.
meaning that I can test if the value is actually an instance of my own class.
The pattern is correctly using my class constructor function as the pattern but the match failed although I am passing a class instance, something like:
check(new EventObject(param1, param2), EventObject);
where EventObject is my own class.
Did I do something wrong? Is there another way to use check() to check for class instance or should I just use my own check with instanceof?
As tested on Meteor 3.0 (3.1 was not out then), using checkon an object constructed using ES2015-style class constructor will not work as the type of the object is lost on calling Meteor.call('collection.insert', eventObject).
This can be tested by seeing that eventObject instanceof EventObject evaluates to false in Meteor.methods.
This is a simple questions. I have researched this questions in my notebooks and books and the internet but cant find an answer
Why would we override the default constructor by adding parameters to it?
You would create a constructor for a class to manipulate its member variables according to whatever other conditions as soon as it's created. I get the impression you don't actually know what a constructor is.
Many languages (like C++/C#/Java) automatically create default no-arguments constructor when none defined in the class explicitly.
When you create a constructor in a class with or without arguments usually compiler stop creating default auto-generated constructor (depending on language specification). This is done on assumption if you have some non default initialization than automatically generated one is likely to not create object in a state you would expect.
Since having constructor with arguments is natural way to create objects it is essentially lead to "removing" default auto-generated constructor which probably can be called "overriding default constructor".
Can anyone tell me what is the main advantage of using tuple? In what scenarios do I need to use these?
I assume that you're talking about the Tuple<> type and not anonymous tuple classes.
Like an anonymous type, Tuple<> allows you to avoid declaring a new class just to group a few objects. Unlike anonymous types, tuple types have known names and thus can be used as method return and parameter values, etc.
Personally, I try to avoid heavy use of Tuple<> because it can make for difficult to understand code, expecially when used with primitive types (e. g. if you see a Tuple it's not obvious what each field represents).
One place I have found tuples to be very useful is as dictionary keys. Because Tuples implement Equals() and GetHashCode() (not ==, though!), they are perfect for things like private dictionaries that cache information based on a compound key.
It's used mostly to avoid declaring a class / struct with a few properties only for the sake of passing a group of objects around, where only one object can be passed.
Lets say I have a list of urls to go through and if i get an error (4xx or 5xx) I want to build a list and then either later display it to the user or just look at it in my debugger.
I'd catch the web exception and have a Tuple<string, int> (url, http error code) instead of creating a struct for one or two functions to use. Heck it might even be a foreach loop with a breakpoint on if the list has more then 0 items. Thats when it is useful.
I would like to create a macro that takes a string as a parameter and evaluates that to an object. Something like:
#macro( valueTest $objRef)
#define( $obj )#evaluate("$${objRef}")#end
$obj.foo ## This would have to be translated to $obj.getFoo()
#end
Unfortunately the $obj variable does not point to object reference that could be used to call methods. $obj is a String and $obj.foo does not try to execute getFoo.
Somewhy I have a feeling that this is the nature of evaluate and it is not possible to do what I want to.
the reason why I want to do smth like this is because we have quite few macros that take both command bind path and command itself as a parameter and I am hoping the latter could be derived from first.
Unfortunately, Velocity does not have a mechanism to define functions which return object references. Macros are really intended to be a shortcut to display text.
In cases like this, the way to proceed is generally to create a "tool" in Java and put an instance in the context. A tool is just an ordinary class with a method that returns what you are looking for
e.g.
create an object with an "eval" method, then put it in the context as "referenceEvaluator".
#set($obj = $referenceEvaluator.eval($objRef))
You might find that your code is clearer if you avoid the double evaluation and just insert an object into the context named $obj that does what you want. (better performance, too).