I've define a type:
type Foo is record
bar : Positive;
end record;
I want to create a function that returns an instance of the record:
function get_foo return Foo is
return (1);
end get_foo;
But Ada won't let me, saying "positional aggregate cannot have one argument".
Stupidly trying, I've added another dumb field to the record, and then return (1, DOESNT_MATTER); works!
How do I tell Ada that's not a positional aggregate, but an attempt to create a record?
The positional aggregate initialization cannot be used with record having only one component, but that does not mean you cannot have record with one component.
The values of a record type are specified by giving a list of named fields. The correct code for your get_foo function should be as following.
function get_foo return Foo is
return (bar => 1);
end get_foo;
You can also specify the type of the record using the Foo'(bar => 1) expression.
Using the list of named components is better in practice than positional initilization. You can forget the position of the component and it does not change if you add a new field into your record.
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
I am trying to create an empty map, that will be then populated within a for loop. Not sure how to proceed in Rascal. For testing purpose, I tried:
rascal>map[int, list[int]] x;
ok
Though, when I try to populate "x" using:
rascal>x += (1, [1,2,3])
>>>>>>>;
>>>>>>>;
^ Parse error here
I got a parse error.
To start, it would be best to assign it an initial value. You don't have to do this at the console, but this is required if you declare the variable inside a script. Also, if you are going to use +=, it has to already have an assigned value.
rascal>map[int,list[int]] x = ( );
map[int, list[int]]: ()
Then, when you are adding items into the map, the key and the value are separated by a :, not by a ,, so you want something like this instead:
rascal>x += ( 1 : [1,2,3]);
map[int, list[int]]: (1:[1,2,3])
rascal>x[1];
list[int]: [1,2,3]
An easier way to do this is to use similar notation to the lookup shown just above:
rascal>x[1] = [1,2,3];
map[int, list[int]]: (1:[1,2,3])
Generally, if you are just setting the value for one key, or are assigning keys inside a loop, x[key] = value is better, += is better if you are adding two existing maps together and saving the result into one of them.
I also like this solution sometimes, where you instead of joining maps just update the value of a certain key:
m = ();
for (...whatever...) {
m[key]?[] += [1,2,3];
}
In this code, when the key is not yet present in the map, then it starts with the [] empty list and then concatenates [1,2,3] to it, or if the key is present already, let's say it's already at [1,2,3], then this will create [1,2,3,1,2,3] at the specific key in the map.
I am new to Ada programming.This is my ADA CODE for a program which gives me a list of things when typed a Football legend name in execution time.But I am getting the following errors.Please help me out:
Some of the Errors found are:
1.Discriminants must have a discrete or Access type
2.components "FBClubs cannot be used before end of record declaration
3.discriminant in a variant part must be of discrete part
4."player" is undefined
5."pos" is undefined.
6.no candidate interpretations match the sctuals : = > in call to inherited operation "to_string" at line "type playernames..."
with Ada.Text_Io; use Ada.Text_Io;
with Ada.Integer_Text_Io; use Ada.Integer_Text_Io;
with Ada.Strings.Unbounded; use Ada.Strings.Unbounded;
Procedure football_record is
type Position is (Goalkeeper,Midfielder,Forward,Defender);
type playernames is new Unbounded_String;
type FBClubs is (ACMilan,Man_United,Aresnal,ParisSt.Germain,Real_Madrid,Liverpool,Chelsea,Man_City,Lille,
Tottenham,Ajax,Juventus,Dortmund,Roma,Santos,Roma,Bayern_Munich,Inter_Milan);
type countries is (England,Argentina,Brazil,France,Italy,Portugal,Spain,Germany,Iran,Japan);
type fbplayer(player:playernames) is
record
WCAppearances:Integer;
pos:Position;
country:countries;
fbclubs:FBClubs;
case player is
when "David Beckham" =>
country:countries:=England;
WCAppearances:Integer:=3;
pos:Position:=Midfielder;
fbclubs:FBClubs:=ACMilan &"+" & Man_United &"+" & Real_Madrid &"+"& ParisSt.Germain;
when "Lionel Messi" =>
country:countries:=Argentina;
WCAppearances:Integer:=1;
pos:Position:=Forward;
fbclubs:FBClubs:=Barcelona;
.....and some other 12 players(legends)..
when others =>
country:countries:=Nil;
WCAppearances:Integer:=Nil;
pos:Position:=Nil;
fbclubs:FBClubs:=Nil;
end case;
end record;
begin
Get(player);
Put_Line(To_String(Integer'Image(player)));
Put_Line(To_String(Integer'Image(FBClubs'Image(fbclubs)));
Put_Line(To_Unbounded_String(Position'Image(pos)));
end football_record;
The biggest problem is that you're mixing code in with a type declaration.
In Ada, putting a case within a record is only for variant records; these are records where some fields exist in certain cases but not others. For example:
type Employee_Type is (Regular, Manager);
type Employee (Emp_Type : Employee_Type) is record
Name : Unbounded_String;
case Emp_Type is
when Manager =>
Managerial_Level : Integer;
when Regular =>
null;
end case;
end record;
This is a variant record; we're assuming here that there are two kinds of employees, and the Managerial_Level field makes sense only for one of those kinds. Records whose type is Regular will not have a Managerial_Level field at all.
This syntax isn't what you would use to return different values of fields. Instead, you need to do this in statements, usually in a procedure or function (or package initialization, or some other places that allow statements).
And since you're not using the variant record syntax, you don't need to make player a discriminant. It doesn't work, anyway; in Ada, a "discriminant" (like Emp_Type in my example) has to be a discrete type like an integer or an enumeration type (Employee_Type is an enumeration type), or an access (access discriminants are an advanced concept). It can't be an Unbounded_String. So you'd want to make player a regular field:
type fbplayer is record
player : Unbounded_String;
pos : Position;
country : countries;
clubs : FBClubs; -- Note name change!
WCAppearances : Integer;
end record;
and create a procedure to fill in the fields:
procedure Fill_In_Player(P : in out fbplayer; Player : Playernames) is
begin
P.Player := Player;
if Player = "David Beckham" then
P.country := England;
P.WCAppearances := 3;
P.pos = Midfielder;
P.clubs := ??? -- see below
elsif Player = "Lionel Messi" then
------- etc.
elsif ------
end if;
end Fill_In_Player;
and then call Fill_In_Player when you have the Player and want to set up the record fields. You have to write statements to do this; you can't do it inside the declaration of a record.
Note that in Ada, case statements can only be used on integer or enumeration types. You can't use them to test for a string, as some other languages allow.
Ada does not treat lower-case and upper-case letters the same in identifiers or keywords. Therefore, fbclubs is the same name as FBClubs, and you can't declare the field
fbclubs : FBClubs;
because of the name conflict. I changed the name.
Finally, it looks like you want FBClubs to hold more than one club. But FBClubs is an enumeration type, and can therefore hold only one value at a time. If you want each player record to contain a list of clubs, you'll need to do something else, such as using one of Ada's container types (like Ada.Containers.Vectors.Vector) or something like
type Set_Of_Clubs is array(FBClubs) of Boolean;
where each array value is true if the player played for that club.
I'm not sure that will take care of all your errors, but it looks like you have a lot of work to do already.
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.
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.