I'm trying to update my code but I'm stuck at this codeline.
How do I proceed to convert this to preg_replace_callback?
$buffer = preg_replace("#§([a-z0-9-_]+)\.?([a-z0-9-_]+)?#ie","\$templ->\\1(\\2)",$buffer);
Here is the process of converting preg_replace (with the e modifier) to preg_replace_callback. You create a function that will act on all of the matches that it finds. Normally this is pretty simple, however with your case it is a little more complex as the function returns the value of an object. To accommodate this, you can use an anonymous function (a function without a name) and attach the USE keyword with your object to it. This can be done inline, however for the sake of clarity, I have made it its own variable.
Take a look at this portion of the complete code below:
$callback_function = function($m) use ($templ) {
I created a variable named callback_function that will be used in the preg_replace_callback function. This function will be fed each match as the variable $m automatically. So within the function you can use $m[1] and $m[2] to access the parts of the expression that it matched. Also note that I've attached the $templ variable with the USE keyword so that $templ will be available within the function.
Hopefully that makes sense. Anyway, here is the complete code:
<?php
// SET THE TEXT OF THE BUFFER STRING
$buffer = 'There are a bunch of §guns.roses growing along the side of the §guns.road.';
// THIS IS JUST A SAMPLE CLASS SINCE I DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOUR CLASS REALLY LOOKS LIKE
class Test {
// FUNCTION NAMED 'guns' WITH A SPACE FOR A PARAMETER
public function guns($info) {
return '<b>BLUE '.strtoupper($info).'</b>';
}
}
// INSTANTIATE A NEW 'Test' CLASS
$templ = new Test();
// THIS IS THE FUNCTION THAT YOUR CALLBACK WILL USE
// NOTICE THAT IT IS AN ANONYMOUS FUNCTION (THERE IS NO FUNCTION NAME)
$callback_function = function($m) use ($templ) {
return $templ->$m[1]($m[2]);
};
// THIS USES PREG_REPLACE_CALLBACK TO SUBSTITUTE OUT THE MATCHED TEXT WITH THE CALLBACK FUNCTION
$buffer = preg_replace_callback('/§([a-z0-9-_]+)\.?([a-z0-9-_]+)?/i', $callback_function, $buffer);
// PRINT OUT THE FINAL VERSION OF THE STRING
print $buffer;
This outputs the following:
There are a bunch of <b>BLUE ROSES</b> growing along the side of the <b>BLUE ROAD</b>.
Related
I have a method that iterates over an array and call other method with every element as argument. If I declare this method as:
func didFinishedListFiles(files: [FileModel]) {
for var fileData in files {
self.downloadSingleFile(NSUUID(UUIDString: fileData.uuid!)!);
}
}
Xcode shows a warning:
Variable 'fileData' was never mutated; consider changing to 'let' constant
But if I change var to let:
func didFinishedListFiles(files: [FileModel]) {
for let fileData in files {
self.downloadSingleFile(NSUUID(UUIDString: fileData.uuid!)!);
}
}
Xcode shows an error:
'let' pattern cannot appear nested in an already immutable context
How is a correct way to implement it without any warnings/errors?
The for-in pattern implicitly uses a constant binding (in the scope it creates. That is, your fileData binding is automatically a local let, and therefore constant for each pass through the loop.
So the following:
for fileData in files { /*...*/ }
...is equivalent to :
var index = 0
while index < files.count {
let fileData = files[index]
//...
index += 1
}
You'd want to add var to the for-in binding only when you want to mutate that binding -- that is, if it's an object reference that you want to be able to point at something else during a single pass through the loop, or a value type that you want to be able to change. But it doesn't look like you're doing either of those things, so using var for this binding would be superfluous here.
(Swift 3 got rid of a lot of the places where you could make implicitly immutable bindings mutable, but left for var as an exception — it's still possible if you want to change something during a loop.)
I currently have two macros that are part of a (very limited-audience) plugin I'm developing, that both look basically like:
(function(){
exports.name = "name";
exports.params = [
{name: "value"}
];
function get(tiddler) {
// return some contents of some tiddler fields according to some rule
}
function parse(data) {
// convert string to some kind of useful object
}
function logic(x, y) {
// determine whether the two objects correspond in some way
};
function format(data, title) {
// produce WikiText for a link with some additional decoration
};
exports.run = function(value) {
value = parse(value);
var result = [];
this.wiki.each(function(tiddler, title) {
var data = get(tiddler);
if (data !== undefined && logic(value, parse(data))) {
result.push(format(data, title));
}
});
return result.join(" | ");
};
})();
So they're already fairly neatly factored when considered individually; the problem is that only the core logic is really different between the two macros. How can I share the functions get, logic and format between the macros? I tried just putting them in a separate tiddler, but that doesn't work; when the macros run, TW raises an error claiming that the functions are "not defined". Wrapping each function as its own javascript macro in a separate tiddler, e.g.
(function(){
exports.name = "get";
exports.params = [
{name: "tiddler"}
];
exports.run = function(tiddler) {
// return some contents of some tiddler fields according to some rule
}
})();
also didn't help.
I'd also like to set this up to be more modular/flexible, by turning the main get/parse/logic/format process into a custom filter, then letting a normal filter expression take care of the iteration and using e.g. the widget or <> macro to display the items. How exactly do I set this up? The documentation tells me
If the provided filter operators are not enough, a developer can add
new filters by adding a module with the filteroperator type
but I can't find any documentation of the API for this, nor any examples.
How can I share the functions get, logic and format between the macros?
You can use the Common/JS standard require('<tiddler title>') syntax to access the exports of another tiddler. The target tiddler should be set up as a JS module (ie, the type field set to application/javascript and the module-type field set to library). You can see an example here:
https://github.com/Jermolene/TiddlyWiki5/blob/master/core/modules/widgets/count.js#L15
I'd also like to set this up to be more modular/flexible, by turning the main get/parse/logic/format process into a custom filter, then letting a normal filter expression take care of the iteration and using e.g. the widget or <> macro to display the items. How exactly do I set this up?
The API for writing filter operators isn't currently documented, but there are many examples to look at:
https://github.com/Jermolene/TiddlyWiki5/tree/master/core/modules/filters
I noticed that when a variable is captured by a closure in Swift, the closure can actually modify the value. This seems crazy to me and an excellent way of getting horrendous bugs, specially when the same var is captured by several closures.
var capture = "Hello captured"
func g(){
// this shouldn't be possible!
capture = capture + "!"
}
g()
capture
On the other hand, there's the inout parameters, which allow a function or closure to modify its parameters.
What's the need for inout, even captured variables can already be modified with impunity??!!
Just trying to understand the design decisions behind this...
Variables from an outer scope that are captured aren't parameters to the routine, hence their mutablility is inherited from context. By default actual parameters to a routine are constant (let) and hence can't be modified locally (and their value isn't returned)
Also note that your example isn't really capturing capture since it's a global variable.
var global = "Global"
func function(nonmutable:Int, var mutable:Int, inout returnable:Int) -> Void {
// global can be modified here because it's a global (not captured!)
global = "Global 2"
// nomutable can't be modified
// nonmutable = 3
// mutable can be modified, but it's caller won't see the change
mutable = 4
// returnable can be modified, and it's caller sees the change
returnable = 5
}
var nonmutable = 1
var mutable = 2
var output = 3
function(nonmutable, mutable, &output)
println("nonmutable = \(nonmutable)")
println("mutable = \(mutable)")
println("output = \(output)")
Also, as you can see, the inout parameter is passed differently so that it's obvious that on return, the value may be different.
David's answer is totally correct, but I thought I'd give an example how capture actually works as well:
func captureMe() -> (String) -> () {
// v~~~ This will get 'captured' by the closure that is returned:
var capturedString = "captured"
return {
// The closure that is returned will print the old value,
// assign a new value to 'capturedString', and then
// print the new value as well:
println("Old value: \(capturedString)")
capturedString = $0
println("New value: \(capturedString)")
}
}
let test1 = captureMe() // Output: Old value: captured
println(test1("altered")) // New value: altered
// But each new time that 'captureMe()' is called, a new instance
// of 'capturedString' is created with the same initial value:
let test2 = captureMe() // Output: Old value: captured
println(test2("altered again...")) // New value: altered again...
// Old value will always start out as "captured" for every
// new function that captureMe() returns.
The upshot of that is that you don't have to worry about the closure altering the captured value - yes, it can alter it, but only for that particular instance of the returned closure. All other instances of the returned closure will get their own, independent copy of the captured value that they, and only they, can alter.
Here are a couple of use cases for closures capturing variables outside their local context, that may help see why this feature is useful:
Suppose you want to filter duplicates out of an array. There’s a filter function that takes a filtering predicate and returns a new array of only entries matching that predicate. But how to pass the state of which entries have already been seen and are thus duplicates? You’d need the predicate to keep state between calls – and you can do this by having the predicate capture a variable that holds that state:
func removeDupes<T: Hashable>(source: [T]) -> [T] {
// “seen” is a dictionary used to track duplicates
var seen: [T:Bool] = [:]
return source.filter { // brace marks the start of a closure expression
// the closure captures the dictionary and updates it
seen.updateValue(true, forKey: $0) == nil
}
}
// prints [1,2,3,4]
removeDupes([1,2,3,1,1,2,4])
It’s true that you could replicate this functionality with a filter function that also took an inout argument – but it would be hard to write something so generic yet flexible as the possibilities with closures. (you could do this kind of filter with reduce instead of filter, since reduce passes state from call to call – but the filter version is probably clearer)
There is a GeneratorOf struct in the standard library that makes it very easy to whip up sequence generators of various kinds. You initialize it with a closure, and that closure can capture variables to use for the state of the generator.
Suppose you want a generator that serves up a random ascending sequence of m numbers from a range 0 to n. Here’s how to do that with GeneratorOf:
import Darwin
func randomGeneratorOf(#n: Int, #from: Int) -> GeneratorOf<Int> {
// state variable to capture in the closure
var select = UInt32(n)
var remaining = UInt32(from)
var i = 0
return GeneratorOf {
while i < from {
if arc4random_uniform(remaining) < select {
--select
--remaining
return i++
}
else {
--remaining
++i
}
}
// returning nil marks the end of the sequence
return nil
}
}
var g = randomGeneratorOf(n: 5, from: 20)
// prints 5 random numbers in 0..<20
println(",".join(map(g,toString)))
Again, it’s possible to do this kind of thing without closures – in languages without them, you’d probably have a generator protocol/interface and create an object that held state and had a method that served up values. But closure expressions allow a flexible way to do this with minimal boiler plate.
A closure being able to modify the captured variable in the outer scope is pretty common across languages. This is the default behavior in C#, JavaScript, Perl, PHP, Ruby, Common Lisp, Scheme, Smalltalk, and many others. This is also the behavior in Objective-C if the outer variable is __block, in Python 3 if the outer variable is nonlocal, in C++ if the outer variable is captured with &
Is there any way you can make "document.getElementById" into a variable?
I want to be able to write
myVariable("id").innerHTML = (blabla);
instead of
document.getElementById("id").innerHTML = (blabla);
Pardon me if this has been answered. I've sought and found nil! newbie
You can wrap the output into another function
var shortID = function(id) {
return document.getElementById(id);
}
shortID('myID').innerHTML = "...";
To provide a simpler way to call common code, you can just define your own function like migvill suggests.
To answer the question directly though, you can point to the document.getElementById function (or any other function) using a variable. This is as obvious as you could imagine:
var myVariable = document.getElementById;
The problem with this is that the function itself (the object that myVariable now points to) is not intrinsically linked to the document object that it is designed to work with. When you write document.getElementById("id"), the document is automatically given to the function, but with myVariable you would need to specify it. This can be done using the call function:
myVariable.call(document, "id").innerHTML = "blabla";
And finally, the bind function can be used to create a new function that automatically links the given object (this has essentially the same effect as defining your own wrapper function):
var newFunc = myVariable.bind(document);
newFunc("id").innerHTML = "blabla";
I've never used nested functions, but have seen references to them in several languages (as well as nested classes, which I assume are related).
What is a nested function?
Why?!?
What can you do with a nested function that you cannot do any other way?
What can you do with a nested function this is difficult or inelegant without nested functions?
I assume nested functions are simply an artifact of treating everything as an object, and if objects can contain other objects then it follows.
Do nested functions have scope (in general, I suppose languages differ on this) just as variables inside a function have scope?
Please add the language you are referencing if you're not certain that your answer is language agnostic.
-Adam
One popular use of nested functions is closures. In a lexically scoped language with first-class functions it's possible to use functions to store data. A simple example in Scheme is a counter:
(define (make-counter)
(let ((count 0)) ; used to store the count
(define (counter) ; this is the counter we're creating
(set! count (+ count 1)) ; increment the count
count) ; return the new count
counter)) ; return the new counter function
(define mycounter (make-counter)) ; create a counter called mycounter
(mycounter) ; returns 1
(mycounter) ; returns 2
In this example, we nest the function counter inside the function make-counter, and by returning this internal function we are able to access the data available to counter when it was defined. This information is private to this instance of mycounter - if we were to create another counter, it would use a different spot to store the internal count. Continuing from the previous example:
(define mycounter2 (make-counter))
(mycounter2) ; returns 1
(mycounter) ; returns 3
It's useful for recursion when there is only 1 method that will ever call it
string[] GetFiles(string path)
{
void NestedGetFiles(string path, List<string> result)
{
result.AddRange( files in the current path);
foreach(string subPath in FoldersInTheCurrentPath)
NestedGetFiles(subPath, result);
}
List<string> result = new List<string>();
NestedGetFiles(path, result);
return result.ToArray();
}
The above code is completely made up but is based on C# to give the idea of what I mean. The only method that can call NestedGetFiles is the GetFiles method.
Nested functions allow you to encapsulate code that is only relevant to the inner workings of one function within that function, while still allowing you to separate that code out for readability or generalization. In some implementations, they also allow access to outer scope. In D:
int doStuff() {
int result;
void cleanUpReturn() {
myResource1.release();
myResource2.release();
return result * 2 + 1;
}
auto myResource1 = getSomeResource();
auto myResource2 = getSomeOtherResource();
if(someCondition) {
return cleanUpReturn();
} else {
doSomeOtherStuff();
return cleanUpReturn();
}
}
Of course, in this case this could also be handled with RAII, but it's just a simple example.
A nested function is simply a function defined within the body of another function. Why? About the only reason I could think of off the top of my head is a helper or utility function.
This is a contrived example but bear with me. Let's say you had a function that had to act on the results two queries and fill an object with values from one of the queries. You could do something like the following.
function process(qryResult q1, qryResult q2) {
object o;
if (q1.someprop == "useme") {
o.prop1 = q1.prop1;
o.prop2 = q1.prop2;
o.prop3 = q1.prop3;
} else if (q2.someprop == "useme") {
o.prop1 = q2.prop1;
o.prop2 = q2.prop2;
o.prop3 = q2.prop3;
}
return o;
}
If you had 20 properties, you're duplicating the code to set the object over and over leading to a huge function. You could add a simple nested function to do the copy of the properties from the query to the object. Like this:
function process(qryResult q1, qryResult q2) {
object o;
if (q1.someprop == "useme") {
fillObject(o,q1);
} else if (q2.someprop == "useme") {
fillObject(o,q2);
}
return o;
function fillObject(object o, qryResult q) {
o.prop1 = q.prop1;
o.prop2 = q.prop2;
o.prop3 = q.prop3;
}
}
It keeps things a little cleaner. Does it have to be a nested function? No, but you may want to do it this way if the process function is the only one that would have to do this copy.
(C#) :
I use that to simplify the Object Browser view, and to structure my classes better.
As class Wheel nested in Truck class.
Don't forget this detail :
"Nested types can access private and protected members of the containing type, including any inherited private or protected members."
They can also be useful if you need to pass a function to another function as an argument. They can also be useful for making factory functions for factory functions (in Python):
>>> def GetIntMaker(x):
... def GetInt():
... return x
... return GetInt
...
>>> GetInt = GetIntMaker(1)
>>> GetInt()
1
A nested function is just a function inside another function.
Yes, it is a result of everything being an object. Since you can have variables only visible in the function's scope and variables can point to functions you can have a function that is referenced by a local variable.
I don't think there is anything that you can do with a nested function that you absolutely couldn't do without. A lot of the times it makes sense, though. Namely, whenever a function is a "sub-function" of some other function.
A common use-case for me is when a function performs a lot of complicated logic but what the function computes/returns is easy to abstract for all the cases dictated by the logic.