I used to think that a delegate behaves like a method reference in Vala. However, I don't understand why the following code doesn't work:
class Bar {
public signal void bar_signal();
}
class Foo : Object {
public Foo( int i, Bar bar ) {
bar.bar_signal.connect( bar_handler( i + 1 ) );
}
public delegate void Handler();
private static Handler bar_handler( int j ) {
return () =>
{
stdout.printf( "handler: %d\n", j );
};
}
}
public static void main( string[] args ) {
Bar bar = new Bar();
new Foo( 1, bar ); // will be finalized immediately
bar.bar_signal();
}
The idiom of this code is actually quite typical in JavaScript, which makes heavy use of closures. Sadly, valac says:
Test.vala:8.33-8.45: error: Argument 1: Cannot convert from Foo.Handler to Bar.bar_signal
At first, I thought that this might be due to the following incompatibility of delegate types:
Instance and static delegate instances are not interchangeable.
However, the error doesn't change if I put a static into the declaration of the delegate.
I searched the web but only came across an old mailing list entry from 2009, which says that this is a bug in Vala. Is that right? And if so: How can it be that this bug still isn't fixed, 7 years later?
It is indeed a known bug: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=604781
A workaround is to invoke it using a closure:
bar.bar_signal.connect( () => { bar_handler( i + 1 ); } );
Related
I have a struct A that inherits from other classes (which I'm not allowed to change). Inside A and it's methods I can call inherited methods (lets say A_method(int i), for example) without problem but when I tried to write a nested struct (lets say In) and call A_method(int i) and there is were I'm stuck.
The initial code looks like this, and I can't change it, is some kind of college assigment.
#include "Player.hh"
struct A : public Player {
static Player* factory () {
return new A;
}
virtual void play () {
}
};
RegisterPlayer(PLAYER_NAME);
Then I tried this:
#include "Player.hh"
struct A : public Player {
static Player* factory () {
return new A;
}
//My code
struct In {
int x;
void do_smthing() {
A_method(x);
}
}
virtual void play () {
}
};
RegisterPlayer(PLAYER_NAME);
Ok, from a beginning I knew I could't do this, for In to see it's parent class it should have a pointer to it but In is a often instantiated object in my code and I wanted to avoid passing this constantly to a constructor so I tried this aproach:
#include "Player.hh"
struct A : public Player {
static Player* factory () {
return new A;
}
//My code
static struct Aux
A* ptr;
Aux(A* _p) { ptr = _p; }
} aux;
struct In {
int x;
void do_smthing() {
aux.ptr->A_method(x);
}
}
virtual void play () {
//the idea is to call do_smthing() here.
}
};
RegisterPlayer(PLAYER_NAME);
What I want to avoid (if possible) is something like this:
struct In {
int x;
A* ptr;
In (A* _p) : ptr(_p) {}
void do_smthing() {
ptr->A_method(x);
}
}
The main reason for this: I have more struct definitions and they they are instantiated multiple times through the rest of the (omitted) code, and I don't like the idea of seeing In(this) so many times.
I don't know if I'm completly missing something or what I want to do it's just not possible... Please ask for clarifications if necessary.
(Also, performance is kind of critical, my code will be tested with limited CPU time so I kinda have to avoid expensive approachs if possible. Using C++11)
There is no way you can skip passing the this pointer. Instead, you could create a helper function in A:
template <typename InnerType, typename ...Params>
InnerType makeInner(Params&&... params)
{
return InnerType(this, std::forward<Params>(params)...);
}
Then you can use
auto * a = A::factory();
auto inner = a->makeInner<A::In>();
I have some suggestions which are not directly related to you question but may help:
A::facotry() returns a std::unique_ptr<A> instead of raw pointer
Try to describe what problem you are trying to solve. I have a strong feeling that there can be a better design other than creating many nested structs.
I don't see passing a this pointer could have any impact on the performance. The more important thing is to identify the path that is latency-sensitive and move expensive operations out of those paths.
I am facing problem while running gtest for the following code sample.
ignore header includes as its compilable and running fine.
Error:
GMOCK WARNING:
Uninteresting mock function call - returning default value.
Function call: receive(0x7ffcee4fc990, 0x7ffcee4fc900)
Returns: 0
NOTE: You can safely ignore the above warning unless this call should not happen. Do not suppress it by blindly adding an EXPECT_CALL() if you don't mean to enforce the call. See https://github.com/google/googletest/blob/master/googlemock/docs/CookBook.md#knowing-when-to-expect for details.
/data/home/sipadhy/unit_test_research/gTest/ImplClassTest.cpp:174: Failure
Actual function call count doesn't match EXPECT_CALL(mockImplClass, receive(_, _))...
Expected: to be called at least once
Actual: never called - unsatisfied and active
Sample Code:
// Main Class where function to be mocked
class ImplClass
{
public:
virtual int receive(structX* x, structY* y){ // some logic }
};
// An intermidiate class which calls the main class
class IntermidiateClass
{
std::shared_ptr<ImplClass> implClassPtr = nullptr;
public:
setImplClassptr(std::shared_ptr<ImplClass> ptr)
{
implClassPtr = ptr;
}
int getValue()
{
structX x;
structY y;
return(implClassPtr->receive(x, y));
}
};
// Mock Class
class MockImplClass: public ImplClass
{
public:
MOCK_METHOD2(receive, int(structX, structY));
}
// Test case
TEST(MyTest, TEST1)
{
MockImplClass mockImplClass;
IntermidiateClass intermidiateObj;
intermidiateObj.setImplClassptr(std::make_shared<MockImplClass>());
EXPECT_CALL(mockImplClass, receive(_, _))
.Times(AtLeast(1))
.WillRepeatedly(Return(1));
int retVal = intermidiateObj.getValue();
}
Thanks,
Siva
You create a brand new object of the MockImplClass class here:
std::make_shared<MockImplClass>()
Thus your first created object
MockImplClass mockImplClass;
never gets used to call receive()
I'm trying to understand Vala delegates with Gtk3.
I tested callback and lambda with no problem.
I wanna test a delegate callback, here my code :
using Gtk;
delegate void typeDelegate(Button button);
int main (string[] args) {
Gtk.init (ref args);
typeDelegate cb = cbLabelf;
var window = new Window ();
window.title = "First GTK+ Program";
window.border_width = 10;
window.window_position = WindowPosition.CENTER;
window.set_default_size (350, 70);
window.destroy.connect (Gtk.main_quit);
var button = new Button.with_label ("Click me!");
//button.clicked.connect (cb);
//button.clicked+= cb;
button.clicked.connect+=cb;
window.add (button);
window.show_all ();
Gtk.main ();
return 0;
}
void cbLabelf(Button button)
{
button.label = "tank yu";
}
I also red generated C code ( when i use lambda) to understand.
Here the compil error :
GTKsampleDelegate.vala:20.5-20.30: error: Arithmetic operation not supported for types Gtk.Button.clicked.connect' andtypeDelegate'
button.clicked.connect+=cb;
Well,
Seems that you want to get the intrinsic variable that holds the instance that emitted the signal, I find strange that vala doesn't let you use a delegate variable to obtain it via parameter, yet, you can use one of the forms below: using no delegation variable (A) or bypassing the error with a closure (B).
public class FooSignalClass : Object {
/* Gtk Button.clicked signal has the void f(void) signature */
public signal void on_foo ();
public void foo() {
on_foo();
}
}
public delegate void FooSignalFunc (FooSignalClass fooer);
void on_foo_handler (FooSignalClass fooer) {
long fooer_memory_address = (long)fooer;
GLib.message(#"fooer exists? $(fooer!=null).");
GLib.message(#"address=$fooer_memory_address.");
}
int main () {
var foo_signal = new FooSignalClass();
long fooer_memory_address = (long)foo_signal;
GLib.message(#"foo_signal address=$fooer_memory_address.");
/* Option A: Connect directly without the delegate variable */
foo_signal.on_foo.connect(on_foo_handler);
/* Option B: You cant use a delegate directly, bypass it with a closure */
FooSignalFunc func = on_foo_handler;
foo_signal.on_foo.connect((instance) => {
func(instance);
});
foo_signal.foo();
return 0;
}
I'm writing a simple, lightweight engine in D. For the input calls I use GLFW3. The library in question uses callbacks to send input events to the program.
What I would like is to use a method from a class as the callback function, rather than a function. This is proving difficult (just as it is in C++). I believe there is an elegant way to do it, but this is how I got it right now.
public void initialise(string logPath) {
[...]
m_Window = new RenderWindow();
m_Window.create();
// Lets set up the input loop.
GLFWkeyfun keyCB = function(GLFWwindow* win, int key, int scancode, int action, int mods) {
printf("Got key event: %d:%d:%d:%d\n");
RenderWindow rw = Root().getRenderWindow();
switch (key) {
case KeyboardKeyID.Q:
glfwSetWindowShouldClose(win, true);
break;
case KeyboardKeyID.H:
if (rw.hidden) {
rw.show();
} else {
rw.hide();
}
break;
default:
break;
}
};
glfwSetKeyCallback(m_Window.window, keyCB);
}
Here is the definition of the callback setting function and type:
extern (C) {
alias GLFWkeyfun = void function(GLFWwindow*, int, int, int, int);
GLFWkeyfun glfwSetKeyCallback(GLFWwindow*, GLFWkeyfun);
}
What I would like to do instead, is create a method that is part of the class. Is there any way to do this?
A solution I tried was a static method wrapped around in extern (C), this worked for calling it, but then I could (obviously) not access this or any other methods, which defeats the point of the exercise.
Thanks in advance.
The way I'd do it is to have a static map of the pointers to the class, so like:
static YourWindowClass[GLFWwindow*] mappings;
Then, in the constructor, once you get a GLFWwindow pointer, add it right in:
mappings[m_Window.window] = this;
Now, make the static extern(C) function to use as the callback. When it gets a pointer from C, look up your class reference in that mappings array and then go ahead and call the member function through that, forwarding the arguments.
So a bit of an extra step, but since it doesn't look like the callback lets you pass user-defined data to it (BTW, attention all lib writers: user-defined void* to the callbacks is sooooo useful, you should do it whenever possible!), but since it doesn't do that the associative array is the next best thing.
Well, I have figured it out my own. The solution I went with was a Singleton class InputManager. Instances of RenderWindow attach themselves to it with the following function. The InputManager then creates an anonymous function() for the RenderWindow that receives events, which then calls a function that handles the actual event.
The idea is then that listeners attach themselves to the InputManager and receive keyboard events for the RenderWindow they requested.
class InputManager {
private static InputManager m_Instance;
private RenderWindow[] m_Watched;
private KeyboardListener[][RenderWindow] m_KeyListeners;
public void recvKeyEvent(GLFWwindow* w, int k, int c, int a, int m) {
writeln("Received key: ", k);
}
public void watch(RenderWindow win) {
if (!isWatched(win)) {
// Relay the key callbacks onto the InputManager.
GLFWkeyfun keyCB = function(GLFWwindow* w, int k, int c, int a, int m) {
InputManager().recvKeyEvent(w, k, c, a, m);
};
glfwSetKeyCallback(win.window, keyCB);
}
}
private bool isWatched(RenderWindow win) {
foreach(RenderWindow w; m_Watched) {
if (win == w) {
return true;
}
}
return false;
}
public static InputManager opCall() {
if (m_Instance is null) {
m_Instance = new InputManager();
}
return m_Instance;
}
private this() {
// nothing
}
}
Works like a charm, now to figure out how to properly attach listeners elegantly.
For those curious, the full source code with how this is set up can be found at https://github.com/Adel92/Mage2D. I hope it helps someone else in a similar position with callbacks.
Is there a way to implement an extension method to a generic type that takes in arguments a Func of another type?
For exemple, a usage something similar to this:
myFirstObject.Extension<myOtherObject>( other => other.Prop );
Or with a more complicated Func:
myFirstObject.Extension<myOtherObject>( other => other.Prop > 2 && other.Prop < 15 );
I found some related question like this one, but in my case, I need generic types inside the extension method too.
Here's what I came up with:
public static bool Extension<TSource, TIn, TKey>(this TSource p_Value, Expression<Func<TIn, TKey>> p_OutExpression)
{ return true; }
However, when I try to use it, it does not take into consideration the second type.
Am I missing something?
Look at this:
s => s.Length;
How's the compiler suppose to know whether or not s is a string or s is an array or some other type that has a Length property? It can't, unless you give it some information:
(string s) => s.Length;
Oh, there we go. So now, try this:
myFirstObject.Extension((myOtherObject o) => o.Prop > 2 && o.Prop < 15);
That will work, because you've told the compiler what it should use for TIn, and it can figure out what to use for TKey based on the expression.
I found that another solution would be to create another method that takes in argument a type.
For instance:
Void Extension(Type p_Type, [THE TYPE] p_Params)
{
MethodInfo realExtensionMethod = typeof([CLASS CONTAINING THE METHOD]).GetMethod("RealExtension");
realExtensionMethod = realExtensionMethod.MakeGenericMethod(p_Type);
realExtensionMethod.Invoke(null, new object[] {p_Type, p_Params });
}
Void RealExtension<TYPE>(params)
{
}
Then at usage time:
Type objectType = typeof(myOtherObject);
myFirstObject.Extension(objectType, other => other.Prop );
When you call a generic method in C# you can explicitly declare all of the generic type parameters or you can have them all inferred, but you cannot have some explicitly declared and some inferred.
So, if I had this method:
public void Foo<X, Y>(X x, Y y)
{
/* Do somethhing */
}
Then here's what works and what doesn't:
int a = 42;
string b = "Hello, World!";
// Legal
Foo(a, b);
Foo<int, string>(a, b);
//Illegal
Foo<int>(a, b);
The best you can do is move the first generic parameter up to the class level, but not it won't work as an extension method. Nevertheless you may like this approach.
public static class Class<TSource>
{
public static bool Method<TIn, TKey>(
TSource p_Value,
Expression<Func<TIn, TKey>> p_OutExpression)
{
return true;
}
}
Now you can call it like this:
Expression<Func<long, decimal>> f =
l => (decimal)l;
var result = Class<int>.Method(a, f);
But as I say, it won't work as an extension method now.