In Power Query (M) I've found 2 ways to declare types: myVar as type or type text
Each seems to apply to different contexts. For example:
Table.AddColumn(myTable, "NewName", each [aColumn], type text)
or
MyFunc = (aParam as any) as date => Date.From(aParam)
However, this doesn't work as I expect for more complex types, like {text} or {number}, which would be a list of only text values or only numbers. I can use these types with the type syntax, but not the as type syntax.
Why/not?
Also, does declaring types in M have any performance impact, or is it just to raise an error if an incorrect type is passed/returned?
Declaring types in "M" should normally have very little performance impact, and will make your functions more "self-documenting".
When a function is invoked, the function arguments type "kind" is checked, and not the custom, full type definition. So passing a list of numbers to a function that expects list-of-text doesn't cause any errors. You can see that with some "M":
let
FunctionType = type function (l as { text }) as any,
UntypedFunction = (l) => l{0},
TypedFunction = Value.ReplaceType(UntypedFunction, FunctionType),
Invoked = TypedFunction({0, 1, 2})
in
Invoked
Not checking the recursive type is good for performance because checking each element of a list would require looping through the whole list.
When you write a function value like (l) => l{0} you can only use primitive types like as list and not as { text }. I think this limitation is intended to guide the function author into not putting type restrictions that won't be honored by the function.
You can read more about what the syntax allows in the Language Specification. (If that link dies you should be able to follow the PDF link from MDSN.)
Related
I have several implementation of the same method SetRateForMeasure:
package repartition
type Repartition interface {
Name() string
Compute(meters []models.Meter, totalsProd, totalsConso map[string]float64) []models.Meter
SetRateForMeasure(meter models.Meter, measure models.Measure, total float64) float64
}
Then, in my code (in repartition.go), I call it:
rate := repartition.SetRateForMeasure(meter, measure, total)
where repartition is the interface defined before.
Thing is, when I add a new implementation of this method, the arguments of my functions might differ.
For example, the static repartition use a static percentage that is only used in this case.
I end up adding parameters so that I have a common interface to all methods, but it results that there is a lot of unused parameters depending on the implementation.
If I add it to common interface, it will be unused for the other definitions.
I tried to remove this method from my interface definition, but now
rate := repartition.SetRateForMeasure()
is no more defined.
How should I organize my code ?
There is no function overloading in Go, so you cannot declare the same function with different arguments. There's a few ways you can implement this though:
You can add multiple functions with different names and signatures
You can change the function to accept a struct instead of arguments
SetRateForMeasure(args SetRateOptions) float64
type SetRateOptions struct {
Meter models.Meter
Measure models.Measure
Total float64
Percentage *float64 // If nil, use default percentage
... // more parameters as needed
}
Go doesn't support method overriding. You either define methods with different names that take different parameters
or you can declare the method to accept a parameter struct.
type SetRateParams struct {
Meter models.Meter
Measure models.Measure
Total float64
}
type Repartition interface {
SetRateForMeasure(params SetRateParams) float64
}
Optionally, you can declare params in your structs as pointers, so you can represent "not-provided" semantics with nil instead of using the zero-value. This might be relevant in case of numerical params where 0 could be a valid value.
Using a struct param has also the advantage that you don't have to change all the call sites in case you decide to add an additional param 6 months from now (you just add it to the struct).
There are also worse solutions with interface{} varargs, for the sake of stating what is possible, but unless you loathe type safety, I wouldn't recommend that.
I'm coming from a Node.js background, and there a typical pattern is to have a function which takes an options object, i.e. an object where you set properties for optional parameters, such as:
foo({
bar: 23,
baz: 42
});
This is JavaScript's "equivalent" to optional and named parameters.
Now I have learnt that there are no optional parameters in Go, except variadic parameters, but they lack the readability of named parameters. So the usual pattern seems to be to hand over a struct.
OTOH a struct can not be defined with default values, so I need a function to set up the struct.
So I end up with:
Call a function that creates the struct and then fills it with default values.
Overwrite the values I would like to change.
Call the function I actually want to call and hand over the struct.
That's quite complicated and lengthy compared to JavaScript's solution.
Is this actually the idiomatic way of dealing with optional and named parameters in Go, or is there a simpler version?
Is there any way that you can take advantage of zero values? All data types get initialized to a zero value, so that is a form of default logic.
An options object is a pretty common idiom. The etcd client library has some examples (SetOptions,GetOptions,DeleteOptions) similar to the following.
type MyOptions struct {
Field1 int // zero value (default) of int is 0
Field2 string // zero value (default) of string is ""
}
func DoAction(arg1, arg2 string, options *MyOptions){
var defaultValue1 int = 30 // some reasonable default
var defaultValue2 string = "west" // some reasonable default
if options != nil {
defaultValue1 = options.Field1 // override with our values
defaultValue2 = options.Field2
}
doStuffWithValues
An relevant question (and very much in the mindset of Go) would be, do you need this kind of complexity? The flexibility is nice, but most things in the standard library try to only deal with 1 default piece of info/logic at a time to avoid this.
Is there a way to make a Liftable for a functional literal (with 2.11)? If I have
case class Validator[T](predicate: T => Boolean)
val predicate = (s: String) => s.startsWith("Hi")
then I want to be able to quasiquote predicate too:
q"new Validator($predicate)"
I hoped to magically create a Liftable with an underscore. But that was a little too optimistic:
implicit def liftPredicate[T: Liftable](f: T => Boolean) =
Liftable[T => Boolean]{ f => q"$f(_)" }
I couldn't figure out from looking at StandardLiftables how I could solve this one.
Another way of looking at it:
Say I want to create instances from the following class at compile time with a macro:
abstract class ClassWithValidation {
val predicate: String => Boolean
def validate(s: String) = predicate(s)
}
and I retrieve a functional literal from somewhere else as a variable value:
val predicate = (s: String) => s.startsWith("Hi")
Then I want to simply quasiquote that variable into the construction:
q"""new ClassWithValidation {
val predicate = $predicate
// other stuff...
}"""
But it gives me this error:
Error:(46, 28) Can't unquote String => Boolean, consider providing an
implicit instance of Liftable[String => Boolean]
Normally I can just make such implicit Liftable for a custom type. But I haven't found a way doing the same for a functional literal. Is there a way to do this or do I need to look at it another way?
From what I understand, you're trying to go from a function to an abstract syntax tree that represents its source code (so that it can be spliced into a macro expansion). This is a frequent thing that people request (e.g. it comes up often in DSLs), but there's no straightforward way of achieving that in our current macro system.
What you can do about this at the moment is to save the AST explicitly when declaring a function and then load and use it in your macro. The most convenient way of doing this is via another macro: https://gist.github.com/xeno-by/4542402. One could also imagine writing a macro annotation that would work along the same lines.
In Project Palladium, there is a plan to save typechecked trees for every program being compiled. This means that there will most likely be a straightforward API, e.g. treeOf(predicate) that would automatically return abstract syntax tree comprising the source of the predicate. But that's definitely not something set in stone - we'll see how it goes, and I'll report back on the progress during this year's ScalaDays.
I'm using Dapper to return dynamic objects and sometimes mapping them manually. Everything's working fine, but I was wondering what the laws of casting were and why the following examples hold true.
(for these examples I used 'StringBuilder' as my known type, though it is usually something like 'Product')
Example1: Why does this return an IEnumerable<dynamic> even though 'makeStringBuilder' clearly returns a StringBuilder object?
Example2: Why does this build, but 'Example1' wouldn't if it was IEnumerable<StringBuilder>?
Example3: Same question as Example2?
private void test()
{
List<dynamic> dynamicObjects = {Some list of dynamic objects};
IEnumerable<dynamic> example1 = dynamicObjects.Select(s => makeStringBuilder(s));
IEnumerable<StringBuilder> example2 = dynamicObjects.Select(s => (StringBuilder)makeStringBuilder(s));
IEnumerable<StringBuilder> example3 = dynamicObjects.Select(s => makeStringBuilder(s)).Cast<StringBuilder>();
}
private StringBuilder makeStringBuilder(dynamic s)
{
return new StringBuilder(s);
}
With the above examples, is there a recommended way of handling this? and does casting like this hurt performance? Thanks!
When you use dynamic, even as a parameter, the entire expression is handled via dynamic binding and will result in being "dynamic" at compile time (since it's based on its run-time type). This is covered in 7.2.2 of the C# spec:
However, if an expression is a dynamic expression (i.e. has the type dynamic) this indicates that any binding that it participates in should be based on its run-time type (i.e. the actual type of the object it denotes at run-time) rather than the type it has at compile-time. The binding of such an operation is therefore deferred until the time where the operation is to be executed during the running of the program. This is referred to as dynamic binding.
In your case, using the cast will safely convert this to an IEnumerable<StringBuilder>, and should have very little impact on performance. The example2 version is very slightly more efficient than the example3 version, but both have very little overhead when used in this way.
While I can't speak very well to the "why", I think you should be able to write example1 as:
IEnumerable<StringBuilder> example1 = dynamicObjects.Select<dynamic, StringBuilder>(s => makeStringBuilder(s));
You need to tell the compiler what type the projection should take, though I'm sure someone else can clarify why it can't infer the correct type. But I believe by specifying the projection type, you can avoid having to actually cast, which should yield some performance benefit.
My code is simply:
public override C Calculator<C>(Team[] teams, Func<Team, C> calculatorFunc)
{
return teams.Average(calculatorFunc);
}
I get this error:
Error 2 The type arguments for method 'System.Linq.Enumerable.Average(System.Collections.Generic.IEnumerable, System.Func)' cannot be inferred from the usage. Try specifying the type arguments explicitly.
How can I fix this?
You can't - at least in the current form. There is no Average overload available that works on completely generic values (i.e. for all types C as you specified).
Average needs lists of numbers (int, double, float ...) or a conversion function that produces numbers. In the current form, you could call Calculator<string> and it would make absolutely no sense to compute the average of strings.
You'll just have to restrict the method to a specific numeric type (or provide overloads), but generics simply won't work.
The Enumerable.Average method does not have an overload which works on a generic type. You're trying to call Average<TSource>(IEnumerable<TSource>, Func<TSource, C>), which does not exist.
In order to use average, you'll need to specify one of the types (for C) that actually exists, such as double, decimal, etc.
Instead of writing:
Calculate(team, calcFunc);
You will have to write:
Calculate<MyClass>(team, calcFunc);
However, you really should know what calculatorFunc is returning --- I'm going to assume that all of the ones you use return the same value type (whether it be decimal or int of float). In which case, you could define it as:
public override int Calculator(Team[] teams, Func<Team, int> calculatorFunc)
{
return teams.Average(calculatorFunc);
}
Then you have no generics in the declaration at all to worry about.