The first observable fires, but the second does not. What gives? I switched the events in the block i.e print($0) in the second bloack and vice-versa, then the first does not work, but the second works. What is it about $0 versus a regular string that makes the observable observe?
let someObservable = self.inputButton!.rx.tap.subscribe(){
print($0)
}
let someObservable1 = self.inputButton!.rx.tap.subscribe(){
print("Hello")
}
In the first one, you are using the $0, which is the first argument that is passed to the closure that you've provided.
let someObservable = self.inputButton!.rx.tap.subscribe(){
print($0)
}
In this case the compiler decides that you are actually calling the following function, because it matches that what you are using, i.e. it expects one nameless argument, which in turn is a closure with one argument, the event:
func subscribe(_ on: #escaping (Event<E>) -> Void)
You can rewrite your first code like this:
let someObservable = self.inputButton!.rx.tap.subscribe() { event in
print(event)
}
Now, in the second one you are providing a closure, that doesn't use any passed arguments. So the compiler has to find another function that would be syntactically valid at this point. As a matter of fact it will use this one for you:
func subscribe(file: String = #file, line: UInt = #line, function: String = #function, onNext: ((E) -> Void)? = nil, onError: ((Swift.Error) -> Void)? = nil, onCompleted: (() -> Void)? = nil, onDisposed: (() -> Void)? = nil)
All of this function's arguments have default values and you can ignore all of them. The last argument onDispose is of closure type and can be written with the trailing closure notation. That means that the closure that you pass here:
let someObservable1 = self.inputButton!.rx.tap.subscribe(){
print("Hello")
}
will be used as your dispose block.
Rule of thumb when using RxSwift:
Be explicit, name your arguments, provide the types of your arguments, in the long run you will spare a lot more time!
Related
In the chapter 15.1 of The Book an example of Box<> usage for recursive type (cons list) implementation is shown. I tried to implement a method for this cons list to pop the outermost value out of the list, leaving the list with whatever left or Nil if nothing left. But it doesn't work, I can't figure out how to return the value while mutating the self after its deconstruction (and so borrowing?). Really none of the references in method make sense to me....
Is there no way to do this without creating a function that consumes the list and spits out both the value and new list?
Here is my code:
use crate::List::{Cons, Nil};
fn main() {
let mut list = Cons(1, Box::new(Cons(2, Box::new(Cons(3, Box::new(Nil))))));
println!("The first value is: {}.", list.pop().unwrap());
println!("The second value is: {}.", list.pop().unwrap());
}
#[derive(Debug)]
enum List {
Cons(i32, Box<List>),
Nil,
}
impl List {
// It seems to me I need to mutably borrow the list to change it
// but the way reference types behave later confuses me
fn pop(&mut self) -> Option<i32> {
if let Cons(value, list) = &self {
self = **list; // <- how to do this bit? self is borrowed...
Some(*value)
} else {
None
}
}
}
You can make your approach work by first moving the current list out of self, and replacing it with Nil. This way, you can match on the old list and still be able to assign to self:
fn pop(&mut self) -> Option<i32> {
let old_list = std::mem::replace(self, Nil);
match old_list {
Cons(value, tail) => {
*self = *tail;
Some(value)
}
Nil => None,
}
}
(Playground)
I have the following enum:
pub enum Game {
Match(GameWorker),
#[cfg(feature = "cups")]
Cup(CupWorker),
}
So, this enum consists of one item if cups feature is disabled. The code below with match compiles okay but in place where I use if lets on matching this enum there is a error:
Working match:
fn clear(&mut self, silent: bool) {
match *self {
Game::Match(ref mut gm) => gm.clear(silent),
#[cfg(feature = "cups")]
Game::Cup(ref mut c) => c.clear(silent),
}
}
if let which leads to a compile error:
let m: &mut Game = Game::Match(...);
if let Game::Match(ref mut gamematch) = *m {
// ...
}
Error:
error[E0162]: irrefutable if-let pattern
--> src/game.rs:436:32
|
436 | if let Game::Match(ref mut gamematch) = *m {
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ irrefutable pattern
Minimal example
Is there a way to allow such if lets ? I like this construction but somewhy it is not allowed to use it, I don't understand why. As shown above, match construction works okay in the same case. In my personal opinion here should be a silenceable warning instead of error.
if let expects a refutable pattern, similar to how if expects a bool. You can't write if () { something }, even though () is "valid" in some sense. If you had if () {} else { something_else } it would be statically known that the else cannot occur.
Arguably if true { something } is also statically known, but there's a difference: The condition is a bool, which has two values, so even if you statically know the value, the type still offers multiple variants.
With if let it's the same, but you can use user defined types instead of just bool. If your enum has multiple variants, you can't statically decide that the if let is always taken. If the enum has a single variant, you know for a fact that the if condition is always true, so even if you had an else branch, it would not make any sense at all to exist.
In learning Swift, I came across this code: -
enum ServerResponse {
case Result(String, String)
case Error(String)
}
for i in 1...10{
let mySuccess: ServerResponse = {
let zeroOrOne = rand() % 2
if zeroOrOne == 0 {
return ServerResponse.Result("7:00 am", "8.09 pm")
} else {
return ServerResponse.Error("Out of cheese.")
}
}()
var serverResponse: String
switch mySuccess {
case let .Result(sunrise, sunset):
serverResponse = "Sunrise is at \(sunrise) and sunset as \(sunset)"
case let .Error(error):
serverResponse = "Failure... \(error)"
}
println(serverResponse)
}
As can be seen here, there are parentheses () after the closing end brace of the declaration for:
let mySuccess: ServerResponse = {
...
}()
Without the parenthesis, playground produces the error:-
Function produces expected type 'ServerResponse'; did you mean to call it with ()?
Considering a function has the signature: -
func name(param) -> returnType
Can someone please explain why the parenthesis are required here? Is it a form of minimised closure, or something else?
It's an anonymous function/lambda/closure (however you want to call it exactly), taking no argument, and whose return type is inferred by the compiler, which is then called immediately. It's similar to (function() {…})() in JavaScript.
It has the big advantage of allowing you to define mySuccess as a constant instead of a variable. Additionally, it creates a scope, such that intermediary variables (like zeroOrOne) are not visible outside.
What I'm wondering is just why the author of this code didn't use the same style to define and assign serverResponse…
Your ServerResponse is not a function, it is an enum, but without the parentheses the block you would be trying to assign to mySuccess IS a function (that returns a ServerResponse), and therefore cannot be assigned to a ServerResponse. The result of calling the function (adding the parentheses) can be.
I'm writing a parser generator as a project to learn rust, and I'm running into something I can't figure out with lifetimes and closures. Here's my simplified case (sorry it's as complex as it is, but I need to have the custom iterator in the real version and it seems to make a difference in the compiler's behavior):
Playpen link: http://is.gd/rRm2aa
struct MyIter<'stat, T:Iterator<&'stat str>>{
source: T
}
impl<'stat, T:Iterator<&'stat str>> Iterator<&'stat str> for MyIter<'stat, T>{
fn next(&mut self) -> Option<&'stat str>{
self.source.next()
}
}
struct Scanner<'stat,T:Iterator<&'stat str>>{
input: T
}
impl<'main> Scanner<'main, MyIter<'main,::std::str::Graphemes<'main>>>{
fn scan_literal(&'main mut self) -> Option<String>{
let mut token = String::from_str("");
fn get_chunk<'scan_literal,'main>(result:&'scan_literal mut String,
input: &'main mut MyIter<'main,::std::str::Graphemes<'main>>)
-> Option<&'scan_literal mut String>{
Some(input.take_while(|&chr| chr != "\"")
.fold(result, |&mut acc, chr|{
acc.push_str(chr);
&mut acc
}))
}
get_chunk(&mut token,&mut self.input);
println!("token is {}", token);
Some(token)
}
}
fn main(){
let mut scanner = Scanner{input:MyIter{source:"\"foo\"".graphemes(true)}};
scanner.scan_literal();
}
There are two problems I know of here. First, I have to shadow the 'main lifetime in the get_chunk function (I tried using the one in the impl, but the compiler complains that 'main is undefined inside get_chunk). I think it will still work out because the call to get_chunk later will match the 'main from the impl with the 'main from get_chunk, but I'm not sure that's right.
The second problem is that the &mut acc inside the closure needs to have a lifetime of 'scan_literal in order to work like I want it to (accumulating characters until the first " is encountered for this example). I can't add an explicit lifetime to &mut acc though, and the compiler says its lifetime is limited to the closure itself, and thus I can't return the reference to use in the next iteration of fold. I've gotten the function to compile and run in various other ways, but I don't understand what the problem is here.
My main question is: Is there any way to explicitly specify the lifetime of an argument to a closure? If not, is there a better way to accumulate the string using fold without doing multiple copies?
First, about lifetimes. Functions defined inside other functions are static, they are not connected with their outside code in any way. Consequently, their lifetime parameters are completely independent. You don't want to use 'main as a lifetime parameter for get_chunk() because it will shadow the outer 'main lifetime and give nothing but confusion.
Next, about closures. This expression:
|&mut acc, chr| ...
very likely does not what you really think it does. Closure/function arguments allow irrefutable patterns in them, and & have special meaning in patterns. Namely, it dereferences the value it is matched against, and assigns its identifier to this dereferenced value:
let x: int = 10i;
let p: &int = &x;
match p {
&y => println!("{}", y) // prints 10
}
You can think of & in a pattern as an opposite to & in an expression: in an expression it means "take a reference", in a pattern it means "remove the reference".
mut, however, does not belong to & in patterns; it belongs to the identifier and means that the variable with this identifier is mutable, i.e. you should write not
|&mut acc, chr| ...
but
|& mut acc, chr| ...
You may be interested in this RFC which is exactly about this quirk in the language syntax.
It looks like that you want to do a very strange thing, I'm not sure I understand where you're getting at. It is very likely that you are confusing different string kinds. First of all, you should read the official guide which explains ownership and borrowing and when to use them (you may also want to read the unfinished ownership guide; it will soon get into the main documentation tree), and then you should read strings guide.
Anyway, your problem can be solved in much simpler and generic way:
#[deriving(Clone)]
struct MyIter<'s, T: Iterator<&'s str>> {
source: T
}
impl<'s, T: Iterator<&'s str>> Iterator<&'s str> for MyIter<'s, T>{
fn next(&mut self) -> Option<&'s str>{ // '
self.source.next()
}
}
#[deriving(Clone)]
struct Scanner<'s, T: Iterator<&'s str>> {
input: T
}
impl<'m, T: Iterator<&'m str>> Scanner<'m, T> { // '
fn scan_literal(&mut self) -> Option<String>{
fn get_chunk<'a, T: Iterator<&'a str>>(input: T) -> Option<String> {
Some(
input.take_while(|&chr| chr != "\"")
.fold(String::new(), |mut acc, chr| {
acc.push_str(chr);
acc
})
)
}
let token = get_chunk(self.input.by_ref());
println!("token is {}", token);
token
}
}
fn main(){
let mut scanner = Scanner{
input: MyIter {
source: "\"foo\"".graphemes(true)
}
};
scanner.scan_literal();
}
You don't need to pass external references into the closure; you can generate a String directly in fold() operation. I also generified your code and made it more idiomatic.
Note that now impl for Scanner also works with arbitrary iterators returning &str. It is very likely that you want to write this instead of specializing Scanner to work only with MyIter with Graphemes inside it. by_ref() operation turns &mut I where I is an Iterator<T> into J, where J is an Iterator<T>. It allows further chaining of iterators even if you only have a mutable reference to the original iterator.
By the way, your code is also incomplete; it will only return Some("") because the take_while() will stop at the first quote and won't scan further. You should rewrite it to take initial quote into account.
In Apple's "A swift Tour" they have this code snippet:
enum OptionalValue<T> {
case None
case Some(T)
}
var possibleInteger: OptionalValue<Int> = .None
possibleInteger = .Some(100)
How would you get the 100? You can't do possibleInteger == 100 to test if possibleInteger has the value 100 inside. I know you can put functions inside enumerations, but you can't have variables. Maybe I'm understanding enumerations wrong…
If I command click Optional when declaring an optional (var x:Optional<Int>), I can find
enum Optional<T> : Reflectable, NilLiteralConvertible {
case None
case Some(T)
init()
init(_ some: T)
/// Haskell's fmap, which was mis-named
func map<U>(f: (T) -> U) -> U?
func getMirror() -> MirrorType
static func convertFromNilLiteral() -> T?
}
But I do not understand what any of that means. Help?
You can use a switch statement to get the value, as described here. Relevant bit:
... the associated values can be extracted as part of the switch
statement. You extract each associated value as a constant (with the
let prefix) or a variable (with the var prefix) for use within the
switch case’s body:
For your case, you'd want something like:
switch possibleInteger {
case .Some(let value):
println(value)
case .None:
println("<None>")
}