I'm new to groovy and I'm wondering where can I find a full list of predefined
groovy variables like it and delegate?
The particular thing that I'm interested in is if there are predefined keyword for
the reference to the object from where the current method was invoked, for example:
5.times { print 5 - it}
with the use of such keyword it should be something like:
5.times { print *keyword* - it }
so the question is what's the keyword should be used there?
P.S.: another example:
MyObject myObject = new myObject();
myObject.getField(); // MyObject has method named getField
myObject.doJob ({
...
((MyObject)*keyword*).getField(); // instead of myObject.getField();
...
})
For a good list of all actual keywords (which are fewer than you'd think) and object-level properties that are like keywords, this article is really good: http://marxsoftware.blogspot.com/2011/09/groovys-special-words.html
If you have control over the doJob method in your example, then you should set the delegate of the closure:
def doJob(Closure closure) {
closure.delegate = this
closure.resolveStrategy = Closure.DELEGATE_FIRST
// loop or whatever
closure()
}
Now, in your closure, you can reference any properties on the parent object directly, like so:
myObject.doJob ({
...
getField()
...
})
Groovy Closures - Implicit Variables.
Are you asking for this?
int number = 5
number.times { print number - it }
Hope this will help you
Related
I'm having trouble adding elements to an object that keeps a collection of generic-typed values. I tried a Minimal Working Example that causes the error:
class OneElementQueue {
type eltType;
var elements : [0..0] eltType;
//initializer
proc init(type eltType) {
this.eltType = eltType;
}
proc add(element : eltType) {
this.elements[0] = element;
}
proc remove() : eltType {
return this.elements[0];
}
} //end of OneElementQueue
class Monkey {
var name: string;
var age: int;
proc init(name : string, age : int) {
this.name = name;
this.age = age;
}
} //end of class Monkey
var q = new owned OneElementQueue(Monkey);
var m = new owned Monkey("Kyle", 6);
q.add(m);
When I try to compile all of this, I get an error:
$ chpl BadQueue.chpl
BadQueue.chpl:12: In function 'add':
BadQueue.chpl:13: error: Scoped variable would outlive the value it is set to
BadQueue.chpl:12: note: consider scope of element
$
What is the correct way to go about adding something to a generic data structure like this? How am I going about this the wrong way?
There are two possible approaches you can take here, depending on what behavior you want:
"I want to have my collection take ownership of the Monkey objects"
In this case, you'll want to instantiate your OneElementQueue collection to store owned Monkey objects rather than simply [borrowed] Monkey objects, which is the default for class types. You can do this with the one line change (Try it Online):
var q = new owned OneElementQueue(owned Monkey);
In this approach, passing an owned Monkey to your add() method will pass the ownership to the argument and eventually to the collection, making the original object reference invalid (nil).
"I want to have my collection borrow the existing Monkey objects without taking ownership of them"
In this case, you'll need to tell the add() method that the argument passed into it will outlive the argument itself (and then be sure not to lie about it). In Chapel version 1.19, this can be done via lifetime annotations:
proc add(element : eltType) lifetime element > this {
where the annotation lifetime element > this asserts that the actual argument passed through element will outlive the this collection itself, so the compiler should not fear that the borrow will cease to exist once the formal argument has.
Lifetime annotations were not available in Chapel 1.18, so if you're using that version you need to use a slightly bigger hammer and apply pragma "unsafe" to the method. Note that pragmas are not an officially supported feature and may change in the future, so for this case, served as a stopgap until lifetime annotations had been implemented (Try it Online):
pragma "unsafe"
proc add(element : eltType) {
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 created a macro annotation to be used together with another macro to transform case classes into records with dynamic, typed method dispatching.
https://github.com/DeliteEPFL/virtualization-lms-core/blob/macrovirt/src/common/RecordsAnnot.scala
trait T {
#mRecord
case class Region(key: Int)
}
will be transformed into
trait T {
type Region = Record {
val r_regionkey: Rep[Int]
}
def Region(key: Rep[Int], name: Rep[String], comment: Rep[String]): Rep[Region] =
Record (r_regionkey = key) //another macro, but does not really matter
}
The problem is that those are 2 definitions which have to be put in the place of one which I didn't manage to do. When you do:
q"$typedef ; $metdef"
you will end up with a Block() and thus the definitions are local, the workaround I do right now is:
q"object O {$typedef ; $metdef}"
and then
#mRecord
case class Region(key: Int)
import O._
which is not the cleanest as you need unique object names, the IDE will highlight O._ as non existent and other issues.
splicing only works if you known the surrounding context, which is not the case for macro annotations...
val body = q"$typedef ; $metdef"
q"""trait T { $body }""" //created a block inside the body
q"""trait T { ..$body }""" //this will lift the block and add the defintions to the body directly
Thanks for any pointer.
Cedric
I am a Java programmer, and I am learning Ruby...
But I don't get where those blocks of codes can give me gain... like what's the purpose of passing a block as an argument ? why not have 2 specialized methods instead that can be reused ?
Why have some code in a block that cannot be reused ?
I would love some code examples...
Thanks for the help !
Consider some of the things you would use anonymous classes for in Java. e.g. often they are used for pluggable behaviour such as event listeners or to parametrize a method that has a general layout.
Imagine we want to write a method that takes a list and returns a new list containing the items from the given list for which a specified condition is true. In Java we would write an interface:
interface Condition {
boolean f(Object o);
}
and then we could write:
public List select(List list, Condition c) {
List result = new ArrayList();
for (Object item : list) {
if (c.f(item)) {
result.add(item);
}
}
return result;
}
and then if we wanted to select the even numbers from a list we could write:
List even = select(mylist, new Condition() {
public boolean f(Object o) {
return ((Integer) o) % 2 == 0;
}
});
To write the equivalent in Ruby it could be:
def select(list)
new_list = []
# note: I'm avoid using 'each' so as to not illustrate blocks
# using a method that needs a block
for item in list
# yield calls the block with the given parameters
new_list << item if yield(item)
end
return new_list
end
and then we could select the even numbers with simply
even = select(list) { |i| i % 2 == 0 }
Of course, this functionality is already built into Ruby so in practice you would just do
even = list.select { |i| i % 2 == 0 }
As another example, consider code to open a file. You could do:
f = open(somefile)
# work with the file
f.close
but you then need to think about putting your close in an ensure block in case an exception occurs whilst working with the file. Instead, you can do
open(somefile) do |f|
# work with the file here
# ruby will close it for us when the block terminates
end
The idea behind blocks is that it is a highly localized code where it is useful to have the definition at the call site. You can use an existing function as a block argument. Just pass it as an additional argument, and prefix it with an &
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.