Create additional D3.js symbols - d3.js

D3 already features a bunch of symbols, but I'd like to add a custom one. So that I could for example just call d3.svg.symbol().type('custom') in my code.

This cannot be done directly since the array of symbol definitions is not accessible from the API.
You can see in the source code HERE that the symbol definitions are stored in a d3.map called d3_svg_symbols. The only part of this map that gets exposed to the public API is the array of keys. This is done by calling the .keys() method of the map, HERE.
d3.svg.symbolTypes = d3_svg_symbols.keys();
The definitions themselves are never exposed, and so you cannot add definitions directly as you had hoped.
You can, however, construct a workaround without too much difficulty. One way would be to create a map of your custom symbols, and create a function based on the existing one for the built-in symbols. For example:
// DEFINE A COUPLE OF CUSTOM SYMBOLS
var customSymbolTypes = d3.map({
'custom-symbol-1': function(size) {
// returns a path-data string
},
'custom-symbol-2': function(size) {
// returns a path-data string
}
});
// CREATE A CUSTOM SYMBOL FUNCTION MIRRORING THE BUILT-IN FUNCTIONALITY
d3.svg.customSymbol = function() {
var type,
size = 64; // SET DEFAULT SIZE
function symbol(d,i) {
// GET THE SYMBOL FROM THE CUSTOM MAP
return customSymbolTypes.get(type.call(this,d,i))(size.call(this,d,i));
}
// DEFINE GETTER/SETTER FUNCTIONS FOR SIZE AND TYPE
symbol.type = function(_) {
if (!arguments.length) return type;
type = d3.functor(_);
return symbol;
};
symbol.size = function(_) {
if (!arguments.length) return size;
size = d3.functor(_);
return symbol;
};
return symbol;
};
Then, you could create a function to check if a symbol is in the list of built-in symbols, and if it's not, assume it is a custom symbol:
function getSymbol(type, size) {
// SIZE DEFAULTS TO 64 IF NOT GIVEN
size = size || 64;
// IF TYPE IS ONE OF THE BUILT-IN TYPES, CALL THE BUILT-IN FUNCTION
if (d3.svg.symbolTypes.indexOf(type) !== -1) {
return d3.svg.symbol().type(type).size(size)();
}
// OTHERWISE, CALL THE CUSTOM SYMBOL FUNCTION
else {
return d3.svg.customSymbol().type(type).size(size)();
}
}
HERE is a demo of this method in action.
I'll admit it seems kind of crazy to have to re-implement the whole symbol function like that. It might be worth a feature request on the github page asking to be able to provide a custom map of symbol definitions that could be read into the built-in method. Anyway, I hope that helps for now.

Related

How to get multiple properties from objects in JXA?

Is there a way in JXA to get multiple properties from multiple objects with a single call?
For example, I want to get name and enabled property from menu items which can be done for each individual property as follows:
Application("System Events").processes.byName('Finder').menuBars[0].menuBarItems.name()
Application("System Events").processes.byName('Finder').menuBars[0].menuBarItems.enabled()
but is it possible to get them with a single function call? Something like:
Application("System Events").processes.byName('Finder').menuBars[0].menuBarItems.select('name', 'enabled')
I know, that I can iterate through the menuBarItems and collect properties from .properties() method, but this approach is too slow, that's why I'm looking for other options.
UPDATE
I'm looking for better performance, not for nicer syntax, i.e. I want properties to be retrieved in a single call to System Events.
I'd probably do it like this:
sys = Application('com.apple.systemevents');
FinderProc = sys.processes['Finder'];
FinderMenuBarItems = FinderProc.menuBars[0].menuBarItems();
Array.from(FinderMenuBarItems,x=>[x.name(),x.enabled()]);
By first converting the object to an array, this allows one to map each element and retrieve the desired properties for all in one go. The code is split over several lines for ease of reading.
EDIT: added on 2019-07-27
Following on from your comment regarding Objective-C implementation, I had a bit of time today to write a JSObjc script. It does the same thing as the vanilla JXA version above, and, yes, it clearly makes multiple function calls, which is necessary. But it's performing these functions at a lower level than System Events (which isn't involved at all here), so hopefully you'll find it more performant.
ObjC.import('ApplicationServices');
ObjC.import('CoreFoundation');
ObjC.import('Foundation');
ObjC.import('AppKit');
var err = {
'-25211':'APIDisabled',
'-25206':'ActionUnsupported',
'-25205':'AttributeUnsupported',
'-25204':'CannotComplete',
'-25200':'Failure',
'-25201':'IllegalArgument',
'-25202':'InvalidUIElement',
'-25203':'InvalidUIElementObserver',
'-25212':'NoValue',
'-25214':'NotEnoughPrecision',
'-25208':'NotImplemented',
'-25209':'NotificationAlreadyRegistered',
'-25210':'NotificationNotRegistered',
'-25207':'NotificationUnsupported',
'-25213':'ParameterizedAttributeUnsupported',
'0':'Success'
};
var unwrap = ObjC.deepUnwrap.bind(ObjC);
var bind = ObjC.bindFunction.bind(ObjC);
bind('CFMakeCollectable', [ 'id', [ 'void *' ] ]);
Ref.prototype.nsObject = function() {
return unwrap($.CFMakeCollectable(this[0]));
}
function getAttrValue(AXUIElement, AXAttrName) {
var e;
var _AXAttrValue = Ref();
e = $.AXUIElementCopyAttributeValue(AXUIElement,
AXAttrName,
_AXAttrValue);
if (err[e]!='Success') return err[e];
return _AXAttrValue.nsObject();
}
function getAttrValues(AXUIElement, AXAttrNames){
var e;
var _AXAttrValues = Ref();
e = $.AXUIElementCopyMultipleAttributeValues(AXUIElement,
AXAttrNames,
0,
_AXAttrValues);
if (err[e]!='Success') return err[e];
return _AXAttrValues.nsObject();
}
function getAttrNames(AXUIElement) {
var e;
var _AXAttrNames = Ref();
e = $.AXUIElementCopyAttributeNames(AXUIElement, _AXAttrNames);
if (err[e]!='Success') return err[e];
return _AXAttrNames.nsObject();
}
(() => {
const pid_1 = $.NSWorkspace.sharedWorkspace
.frontmostApplication
.processIdentifier;
const appElement = $.AXUIElementCreateApplication(pid_1);
const menuBar = getAttrValue(appElement,"AXMenuBar");
const menuBarItems = getAttrValue(menuBar, "AXChildren");
return menuBarItems.map(x => {
return getAttrValues(x, ["AXTitle", "AXEnabled"]);
});
})();

How to create a hash table in ATS?

Could someone show me an example that makes typical use of a hash table? I want to build such a table to test whether a given string represents a legal word in a English dictionary.
You can use the myhashtblref.hats interface to quickly build your own hash table types. See this chapter of the ATS2 tutorial for a motivational example.
If you compile to JavaScript, you can readily create a hash table in the following manner:
//
extern
fun
theWords_map_search(key: string): bool = "mac#"
//
%{^
//
var
theWords_map = {};
//
function
theWords_map_add(key)
{ theWords_map[key] = 0; return; }
//
function
theWords_map_search(key)
{ return theWords_map.hasOwnProperty(key); }
//
%} // end of [val]

Enum values as parameter default values in Haxe

Is there a way to use enum default parameters in Haxe? I get this error:
Parameter default value should be constant
enum AnEnum {
A;
B;
C;
}
class Test {
static function main() {
Test.enumNotWorking();
}
static function enumNotWorking(e:AnEnum = AnEnum.A){}
}
Try Haxe link.
Update: this feature has been added in Haxe 4. The code example from the question now compiles as-is with a regular enum.
Previously, this was only possible if you're willing to use enum abstracts (enums at compile time, but a different type at runtime):
#:enum
abstract AnEnum(Int)
{
var A = 1;
var B = 2;
var C = 3;
}
class Test3
{
static function main()
{
nowItWorks();
}
static function nowItWorks(param = AnEnum.A)
{
trace(param);
}
}
There's nothing special about the values I chose, and you could choose another type (string, or a more complex type) if it better suits your use case. You can treat these just like regular enums (for switch statements, etc.) but note that when you trace it at runtime, you'll get "1", not "A".
More information: http://haxe.org/manual/types-abstract-enum.html
Sadly enums can't be used as default values, because in Haxe enums aren't always constant.
This piece of trivia was on the old website but apparently hasn't made it into the new manual yet:
http://old.haxe.org/ref/enums#using-enums-as-default-value-for-parameters
The workaround is to check for a null value at the start of your function:
static function enumNotWorking(?e:AnEnum){
if (e==null) e=AnEnum.A;
}
Alternatively, an Enum Abstract might work for your case.

ES6 read-only enums that can map value to name

I would like to define an enum-like structure in JS, but have two requirements:
The values be read-only, i.e. no users can assign to them.
The values (0, 1, 2, ...) can be mapped back into the names (as with Java's name method)
The methods I know to create enums like this typically meet one requirement or the other, not both.
I've tried:
const MyEnum = {
a: 0,
b: 1,
c: 2
};
The enum itself is constant, but the values are still mutable and I can't map values back to names efficiently.
When writing an enum in Typescript, it outputs:
var MyEnum;
(function (MyEnum) {
MyEnum[MyEnum["a"] = 0] = "a";
MyEnum[MyEnum["b"] = 1] = "b";
MyEnum[MyEnum["c"] = 2] = "c";
})(MyEnum || (MyEnum = {}));
This can map both ways, but still doesn't have constant values.
The only option I've found that meets both requirements would be using getters on a class:
class MyEnum {
get a() {
return 0;
}
...
}
This method dramatically restricts the legal names and has a lot of overhead, especially in browsers that don't inline getters well (or can't).
#Shmiddty suggested freezing an object:
const MyEnum = Object.freeze({
a: 0,
b: 1,
c: 2
});
This meets the constant requirement well, but doesn't provide a great way to map values back to names.
I could write a helper that builds the reverse mapping like:
function reverseEnum(enum) {
Object.keys(enum).forEach(k => {
enum[enum[k]] = k;
});
}
But any kind of programmatic solution to generate the reverse mapping will run into problems if the original object is frozen or otherwise actually constant.
Is there a clean, concise solution to this in JS?
This does a pretty good job, IMHO.
function Enum(a){
let i = Object
.keys(a)
.reduce((o,k)=>(o[a[k]]=k,o),{});
return Object.freeze(
Object.keys(a).reduce(
(o,k)=>(o[k]=a[k],o), v=>i[v]
)
);
} // y u so terse?
const FOO = Enum({
a: 0,
b: 1,
c: "banana"
});
console.log(FOO.a, FOO.b, FOO.c); // 0 1 banana
console.log(FOO(0), FOO(1), FOO("banana")); // a b c
try {
FOO.a = "nope";
}
catch (e){
console.log(e);
}
I'd use a Map so that your enum values can be any type, rather than having them coerced into strings.
function Enum(obj){
const keysByValue = new Map();
const EnumLookup = value => keysByValue.get(value);
for (const key of Object.keys(obj)){
EnumLookup[key] = obj[key];
keysByValue.set(EnumLookup[key], key);
}
// Return a function with all your enum properties attached.
// Calling the function with the value will return the key.
return Object.freeze(EnumLookup);
}
If your enum is all strings, I'd also probably change one line to:
EnumLookup[key] = Symbol(obj[key]);
to ensure that the enum values are being used properly. Using just a string, you have no guarantee that some code hasn't simply passed a normal string that happens to be the same as one of your enum values. If your values are always strings or symbols, you could also swap out the Map for a simple object.
Just recently implemented an Es6 version that works quite well:
const k_VALUES = {}
export class ErrorCode {
constructor(p_apiCode, p_httpCode){
this.apiCode = p_apiCode;
this.httpCode = p_httpCode;
k_VALUES[p_apiCode] = this;
}
static create(p_apiCode){
if(k_VALUES[p_apiCode]){
return k_VALUES[p_apiCode];
}
return ErrorCode.UNKNOWN;
}
}
ErrorCode.UNKNOWN = new ErrorCode(0, 500);
ErrorCode.NOT_FOUND = new ErrorCode(-1000, 404);
ErrorCode.NOT_FOUND_EMAIL = new ErrorCode(-1001, 404);
ErrorCode.BAD_REQUEST = new ErrorCode(-1010, 404);
I wanted to implement a similar pattern as what we do with Java enums. This enables me to use a constructor to pass values. The constructor then freezes the ErrorCode object - nice and convenient.
Usage: first import your enum class...
import {ErrorCode} from "../common/services/errors/ErrorCode";
Now, after importing the enum class, access it like so:
if( errCode.includes(ErrorCode.BAD_REQUEST.apiCode) ){...}
PS> This is used in conjunction with a Webpack setup using Babel to convert our ES6 classes down for browser compatibility.

Calling Several Functions Linked With Classes at Certain Times with AS3

I'm working on a random wave system for a game. The idea is that every 1000 points a movement pattern would be selected from around 50 possibilities. This would affect the speed, direction, and image of the selected item. I have devised a method that I think will work, but I'm unsure if this is going to cost too much memory to run.
public class engine extends MovieClip {
private var countK:Number = 0;
private var newWave:Boolean = true;
public function engine() {
stage.addEventListener(Event.ENTER_FRAME, update);
}
private function update():void {
checkCount();
checkNew();
}
private function checkCount():void {
if (count => 1000) {
newWave=true;
count = 0;
}
}
private function checkNew():void {
if(newWave) {
randomNumber();
newWave=false
}
}
Above is my quick idea of getting a random number to be generated every 1000 points. Points can be added in any way you want (just add say 20 to "Score" and 20 to "count" at the same time). Where I can a random number function in checkNew, I won't be pulling another function, it's simply there for the sake of legibility.
var newEnemy:mEnemy =new mEnemy();
stage.addChild(newEnemy);
EnemyArray.push(newEnemy);
trace(EnemyArray.length);
Above is some code that can add an instance of mEnemy to the stage. Now where I'm starting to loose it is, how can I translate the random number into a viable method of changing mEnemy's behaviour?
Is it wise to have 50 functions inside the mEnemy class and just before I addChild, I do something like newEnemy.WAVEfuncton1(); ? If that is the case, can I save code by getting it to select the function without writing a whole bunch of if statements?
Instead of;
if (randomN==1) {
newEnemy.WAVEfunction1();
}
if (randomN==2) {
newEnemy.WAVEfunction2();
}
....
Can I do;
newEnemy.WAVEfunction[randomN]();
This is also assuming that using functions inside the enemy is the best idea. Is it better to have the behaviours inside the engine class instead?
As you can see, I'm no programmer. I'm very new to this sort of thinking and I don't want to create a mistake that will destroy the performance of the game (not to mention picking up bad habits too!).
If you have taken the time to read this question, thank you! If you tolerate my ignorance, then thank you even more!
If the wave functions are just creating a single enemy of a certain type, it might make more sense to make an array with the details of each type like this: (I'm guessing at how your enemies work of course)
private const ENEMY_TYPES:Array = [
{speed:1, direction:90, image:1},
{speed:2, direction:45, image:2}
]
then change mEnemy() to set itself up according to the details you give it:
public function mEnemy(details:Object) {
mySpeed = details.speed;
...
That way, you can just write new mEnemy(ENEMY_TYPES[randomN]);
Alternatively, if you do need to have lots of separate wave functions, you can use the [ ] array access operator to access the properties of an object such as newEnemy by name (or this to reference the current object):
var exampleProperty:String = "Hello.";
this["exampleProperty"];
So you can run your wave functions by writing:
newEnemy["WAVEfunction" + String(randomN)]();
A 2-year old question and rather non-actual already but let me try myself here as I have just signed up.
As I understood, what are you proposing to do here is writing all 50 behaviour methods for each kind of Enemy, which is of course not good.
First, you can add the "behaviour" entity. So each enemy now has a behaviour property.
Next, you have to create a separate Behaviour class or interface, which will have 50 subclasses (Behaviour1...Behaviour50), each subclass implementing its own run() method. Note that this way you will be able to add or remove behaviours without touching anything else. A basic implementation would look like this:
public class Behaviour() {
public function run(e:Enemy):void {
e.y += 10;
}
}
So you see, it's not like enemy is doing something. It's the Behaviour that does something with the enemy it was passed to.
Next, you need a mechanism to get the proper subclass from a given random number.
What you need is a Factory - a static class that will return different types of Behaviours based on input params. Something like this:
public class BehaviourFactory {
public static getBehaviour(n:int):Behaviour {
switch(n) {
case 1: return new Behaviour1();
case 2: return new Behaviour2();
// etc.
}
}
}
Instead of having 50 choices inside a switch, you can also use the class definition:
var c:Class = getDefinitionByName('Behaviour' + your_random_number) as Class;
return new c;
(In further implementatons it can be cached, stored in an Array etc.) After you have a Factory, you just do:
var b:Behaviour = BehaviourFactory.getBehaviour(your_random_number);
Next, you can use different approaches depending of how exactly the behaviour changes. For example, if the enemy is born with a specific current behaviour and it doesn't change during the enemy's lifetime, you can just assign one of Behaviour subclasses to the Enemy's behaviour property:
public class Enemy {
public var behaviour:Behaviour;
public function Enemy(b:Behaviour) {
this.behaviour = b;
}
}
var e:Enemy = new Enemy(BehaviourFactory.getBehaviour(random_number));
e.behaviour.run(e);
This property of course can also be changed dynamically so the next time it is run the enemy will behave differently.
If the behaviour is global for all enemies and changes for all of them at once, you don't event need to have a property in an Enemy object. You just have a global Behaviour object and pass there an Enemy instance:
var e:Enemy = enemy_list[i];
current_behaviour.run(e);
it will take care of processing each active enemy according to the currently chosen behaviour.
Finally, there's more interesting way to implement behaviours. Suppose you have several behaviour types that don't have anything in common. Say, the Enemy can be Crawling, Flying, Shooting and Poisonous. So let's say you're attempting to implement all possible combinations: Flying, FlyingShooting, FlyingPoisonous, FlyingShootingPoisonous, etc. You would have to create a Behaviour subclass for each of these combinations despite them having very common basic parts.
There's an other way to go, called the Decorator pattern. You simply write a method for each single quality. Whenever you need a combination of qualities, you simply create object with first quality and wrap it into the object with the second quality and wrap it into the object with the third quality etc. So your base Behaviour class needs one addition:
public class Behaviour {
private var parent_bhv: Behaviour;
public function Behaviour(bhv:Behaviour = null) {
if (bhv) this.parent_bhv = bhv;
}
public function run(e:Enemy):void {
e.y += 10; // do what we need to do
if (this.parent_bhv) this.parent_bhv.run(e); // pass to a next bhv.
}
}
Let's create compound behaviour of number 1, 3 and 15:
var decorated_behaviour:Behaviour = BehaviourFactory.getDecoratedBehaviour([1, 3, 15]);
let's also add the corresponding BehaviourFactory method:
public class BehaviourFactory {
public static function getDecoratedBehaviour(bhv_list:Array):Behaviour {
var b:Behaviour = null;
for (var i:int = 0; i < bhv_list.length; i++) {
var c:Class = getDefinitionByName('Behaviour' + bhv_list[i]) as Class;
b = new c(b);
}
return b;
}
}
Now you're all set without having to code all possible combinations!

Resources