I'm trying to solve this issue (psdeudo code):
let myObject : T option = None
onEvent (fun t -> if myObject.IsSome then myObject.Value(t))
some logic (
while forever do
myObject <- Some T()
// do something
myObject <- None
// do something
I have an object that gets created and destroyed depending on some external parameters. There is an even that is always firing that brings data to either be processed by the object, if it exists, or to just be ignored.
The issue here is that between:
if myObject.IsSome
and
myObject.Value
the state could change. Is there a mechanism to handle this?
like something that could be like Option.TryGet that will either return an object, or not, in an atomic fashion?
or is there any other mechanism I can use with that?
I guess I could try to get the object value directly in a try / with section, but I was hoping for something cleaner.
Take the value out of the mutable cell and save it in a local variable, then you can interact with the local variable in a thread-safe way:
onEvent (fun t ->
let v = myObject
if v.IsSome then v.Value(t)
)
This works because the Option value itself is immutable. Each mutation of myObject creates a new Option value and makes myObject reference it. Reading the reference is an atomic operation.
Related
I'm currently using RIBs and ReactorKit to bind networking data.
The problem here is that the network results come out as Observables, which I have a hard time binding to ReactorKit.
Please let me know if there is a way to strip the Observable or turn it into a value.
Just like when BehaviorRelay is .value, the value comes out...
dependency.loadData.getData().flatMap { $0.detailData.flatMap { $0.result }}
====>> Obervable
now what do i do? TT
Please let me know if there is a way to strip the Observable or turn it into a value.
This is called "leaving" or "breaking" the monad and is a code smell.
In production code, it is rarely advised to 'break the monad', especially moving from an observable sequence to blocking methods. Switching between asynchronous and synchronous paradigms should be done with caution, as this is a common root cause for concurrency problems such as deadlock and scalability issues.
-- Intro to Rx
If you absolutely have to do it, then here is a way:
class MyClass {
private (set) var value: Int = 0
private let disposeBag = DisposeBag()
init(observable: Observable<Int>) {
observable
.subscribe(onNext: { [weak self] new in
self?.value = new
}
.disposed(by: disposeBag)
}
}
With the above, when you query value it will have the last value emitted from the observable. You risk race conditions doing this and that's up to you to deal with.
That's the direct answer to your question but it isn't the whole story. In ReactorKit, the API call should be made in your reactor's mutate() function. That function returns an Observable<Mutation> so instead of breaking the monad, you should be just mapping the API response into a Mutation which is likely a specific enum case that is then passed into your reduce() function.
Problem
mergeMap has a static counterpart as merge
concatMap has a static counterpart as concat
So is there something like a static switch?
Motivation
It might be useful if I want to have a Subject-like behavior with an async-ly loaded initial value (like a network request). If the user manually set its value before the async results arrives, then we cancel the initialization process.
So there is no data race (if we use merge or source.pipe(take(1)).subscribe(val => subj.next(val))) or blocking (if we use concat).
let setValue$ = new Subject();
let getValue$ = switchStatic(
getInitialValue().pipe(take(1)),
setValue
)
If none, how do we implement this behavior?
Consider this code to extend the Object type:
interface Object
{
doSomething() : void;
}
Object.prototype.doSomething = function ()
{
//do something
}
With this in place, the following both compile:
(this as Object).doSomething();
this.doSomething();
BUT: when I'm typing the first line, Intellisense knows about the doSomething method and shows it in the auto-completion list. When I'm typing the second line, it does not.
I'm puzzled about this, because doesn't every variable derive from Object, and therefore why doesn't Visual Studio show the extra method in the method list?
Update:
Even though the Intellisense doesn't offer the method, it does seem to recognize it when I've typed it manually:
What could explain that?!
...because doesn't every variable derive from Object
No, for two reasons:
1. JavaScript (and TypeScript) has both objects and primitives. this can hold any value (in strict mode), and consequently can be a primitive:
"use strict";
foo();
foo.call(42);
function foo() {
console.log(typeof this);
}
Here's that same code in the TypeScript playground. In both cases (here and there), the above outputs:
undefined
number
...neither of which is derived from Object.
2. Not all objects inherit from Object.prototype:
var obj = Object.create(null);
console.log(typeof obj.toString); // undefined
console.log("toString" in obj); // false
If an object's prototype chain is rooted in an object that doesn't have a prototype at all (like obj above), it won't have the features of Object.prototype.
From your comment below:
I thought even primitives like number inherit from Object. If number doesn't, how does number.ToString() work?
Primitives are primitives, which don't inherit from Object. But you're right that most of them seem to, because number, string, boolean, and symbol have object counterparts (Number, String, Boolean, and Symbol) which do derive from Object. But not all primitives do: undefined and null throw a TypeError if you try to treat them like objects. (Yes, null is a primitive even though typeof null is "object".)
For the four of them that have object counterparts, when you use a primitive like an object like this:
var a = 42;
console.log(a.toString());
...an appropriate type of object is created and initialized from the primitive via the abstract ToObject operation in the spec, and the resulting object's method is called; then unless that method returns that object reference (I don't think any built-in method does, but you can add one that does), the temporary object is immediately eligible for garbage collection. (Naturally, JavaScript engines optimize this process in common cases like toString and valueOf.)
You can tell the object is temporary by doing something like this:
var a = 42;
console.log(a); // 42
console.log(typeof a); // "number"
a.foo = "bar"; // temp object created and released
console.log(a.foo); // undefined, the object wasn't assigned back to `a`
var b = new Number(42);
console.log(b); // (See below)
console.log(typeof b); // "object"
b.foo = "bar"; // since `b` refers to an object, the property...
console.log(b.foo); // ... is retained: "bar"
(Re "see below": In the Stack Snippets console, you see {} there; in Chrome's real console, what you see depends on whether you have the console open: If you don't, opening it later will show you 42; if you do, you'll see ▶ Number {[[PrimitiveValue]]: 42} which you can expand with the ▶.)
Does number implement its own toString method, having nothing to do with Object?
Yes, but that doesn't really matter re your point about primitives and their odd relationship with Object.
So to round up:
this may contain a primitive, and while some primitives can be treated like objects, not all can.
this may contain an object reference for an object that doesn't derive from Object (which is to say, doesn't have Object.prototype in its prototype chain).
JavaScript is a hard language for IntelliSense. :-)
I implemented a Collector for a java 8 stream that will store Entities to a Repository when a given threshold is hit.
public BiConsumer<Tuple2<Integer,List<T>>, T> accumulator() {
return (tuple, e) -> {
List<T> list = tuple._2;
list.add(e);
if (list.size() >= this.threshold) {
this.repository.save(list);
this.repository.flush();
list = new LinkedList<>();
}
tuple = new Tuple2<>(tuple._1 + 1, list);
};
}
This does not work as intended. The the Element e is added to the list but is not reset after the threshold is reached. Also Integer stays at 0 which is to be expected since its a final member.
As it seems my only option is to make my Tuple2 mutable and empty the List :-(
Any suggestions how to solve this using immutable tuples?
A lambda expression can be thought of as a function (or method) that simply doesn't have a name. In this example it would be like a method that has two formal parameters tuple and e and also some local variables within its body, including list.
When you make an assignment to a formal parameter or to a local variable, that assignment is local to the current method (or lambda body). No mutation or side effects will be visible to the outside after the accumulator returns, so these assignments won't affect the data structure you're collecting into.
I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to do, but instead of using a tuple (which presumably is immutable and must be replaced instead of mutated) you might try writing an ordinary, mutable class that contains an integer counter (or whatever) and a list. The accumulator would add to the list, conditionally flush and replace the list, and increment the counter. These mutative operations are allowed in collectors because the collector framework carefully thread-confines these operations, so the object you're mutating doesn't need to be thread-safe.
Sorry if this is basic but I was trying to pick up on .Net 3.5.
Question: Is there anything great about Func<> and it's 5 overloads? From the looks of it, I can still create a similar delgate on my own say, MyFunc<> with the exact 5 overloads and even more.
eg: public delegate TResult MyFunc<TResult>() and a combo of various overloads...
The thought came up as I was trying to understand Func<> delegates and hit upon the following scenario:
Func<int,int> myDelegate = (y) => IsComposite(10);
This implies a delegate with one parameter of type int and a return type of type int. There are five variations (if you look at the overloads through intellisense). So I am guessing that we can have a delegate with no return type?
So am I justified in saying that Func<> is nothing great and just an example in the .Net framework that we can use and if needed, create custom "func<>" delegates to suit our own needs?
Thanks,
The greatness lies in establishing shared language for better communication.
Instead of defining your own delegate types for the same thing (delegate explosion), use the ones provided by the framework. Anyone reading your code instantly grasps what you are trying to accomplish.. minimizes the time to 'what is this piece of code actually doing?'
So as soon as I see a
Action = some method that just does something and returns no output
Comparison = some method that compares two objects of the same type and returns an int to indicate order
Converter = transforms Obj A into equivalent Obj B
EventHandler = response/handler to an event raised by some object given some input in the form of an event argument
Func = some method that takes some parameters, computes something and returns a result
Predicate = evaluate input object against some criteria and return pass/fail status as bool
I don't have to dig deeper than that unless it is my immediate area of concern. So if you feel the delegate you need fits one of these needs, use them before rolling your own.
Disclaimer: Personally I like this move by the language designers.
Counter-argument : Sometimes defining your delegate may help communicate intent better. e.g. System.Threading.ThreadStart over System.Action. So it’s a judgment call in the end.
The Func family of delegates (and their return-type-less cousins, Action) are not any greater than anything else you'd find in the .NET framework. They're just there for re-use so you don't have to redefine them. They have type parameters to keep things generic. E.g., a Func<T0,bool> is the same as a System.Predicate<T> delegate. They were originally designed for LINQ.
You should be able to just use the built-in Func delegate for any value-returning method that accepts up to 4 arguments instead of defining your own delegate for such a purpose unless you want the name to reflect your intention, which is cool.
Cases where you would absolutely need to define your delegate types include methods that accept more than 4 arguments, methods with out, ref, or params parameters, or recursive method signatures (e.g., delegate Foo Foo(Foo f)).
In addition to Marxidad's correct answer:
It's worth being aware of Func's related family, the Action delegates. Again, these are types overloaded by the number of type parameters, but declared to return void.
If you want to use Func/Action in a .NET 2.0 project but with a simple route to upgrading later on, you can cut and paste the declarations from my version comparison page. If you declare them in the System namespace then you'll be able to upgrade just by removing the declarations later - but then you won't be able to (easily) build the same code in .NET 3.5 without removing the declarations.
Decoupling dependencies and unholy tie-ups is one singular thing that makes it great. Everything else one can debate and claim to be doable in some home-grown way.
I've been refactoring slightly more complex system with an old and heavy lib and got blocked on not being able to break compile time dependency - because of the named delegate lurking on "the other side". All assembly loading and reflection didn't help - compiler would refuse to just cast a delegate() {...} to object and whatever you do to pacify it would fail on the other side.
Delegate type comparison which is structural at compile time turns nominal after that (loading, invoking). That may seem OK while you are thinking in terms of "my darling lib is going to be used forever and by everyone" but it doesn't scale to even slightly more complex systems. Fun<> templates bring a degree of structural equivalence back into the world of nominal typing . That's the aspect you can't achieve by rolling out your own.
Example - converting:
class Session (
public delegate string CleanBody(); // tying you up and you don't see it :-)
public static void Execute(string name, string q, CleanBody body) ...
to:
public static void Execute(string name, string q, Func<string> body)
Allows completely independent code to do reflection invocation like:
Type type = Type.GetType("Bla.Session, FooSessionDll", true);
MethodInfo methodInfo = type.GetMethod("Execute");
Func<string> d = delegate() { .....} // see Ma - no tie-ups :-)
Object [] params = { "foo", "bar", d};
methodInfo.Invoke("Trial Execution :-)", params);
Existing code doesn't notice the difference, new code doesn't get dependence - peace on Earth :-)
One thing I like about delegates is that they let me declare methods within methods like so, this is handy when you want to reuse a piece of code but you only need it within that method. Since the purpose here is to limit the scope as much as possible Func<> comes in handy.
For example:
string FormatName(string pFirstName, string pLastName) {
Func<string, string> MakeFirstUpper = (pText) => {
return pText.Substring(0,1).ToUpper() + pText.Substring(1);
};
return MakeFirstUpper(pFirstName) + " " + MakeFirstUpper(pLastName);
}
It's even easier and more handy when you can use inference, which you can if you create a helper function like so:
Func<T, TReturn> Lambda<T, TReturn>(Func<T, TReturn> pFunc) {
return pFunc;
}
Now I can rewrite my function without the Func<>:
string FormatName(string pFirstName, string pLastName) {
var MakeFirstUpper = Lambda((string pText) => {
return pText.Substring(0,1).ToUpper() + pText.Substring(1);
});
return MakeFirstUpper(pFirstName) + " " + MakeFirstUpper(pLastName);
}
Here's the code to test the method:
Console.WriteLine(FormatName("luis", "perez"));
Though it is an old thread I had to add that func<> and action<> also help us use covariance and contra variance.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd465122.aspx