I am aware that a variable can be dynamically typed with the def keyword in Groovy. But I have also noticed that in some circumstances it can be left out, such as when defining method parameters, eg func(p1, p2) instead of func(def p1, def p2). The latter form is discouraged.
I have noticed that this is extendable to all code - anytime you want to define a variable and set its value, eg var = 2 the def keyword can be safely left out. It only appears to be required if not instantiating the variable on creation, ie. def var1 so that it can be instantiated as a NullObject.
Is this the only time def is useful? Can it be safely left out in all other declarations, for example, of classes and methods?
Short answer: you can't. There are some use cases where skipping the type declaration (or def keyword) works, but it is not a general rule. For instance, Groovy scripts allow you to use variables without specific type declaration, e.g.
x = 10
However, it works because groovy.lang.Script class implements getProperty and setProperty methods that get triggered when you access a missing property. In this case, such a variable is promoted to be a global binding, not a local variable. If you try to do the same on any other class that does not implement those methods, you will end up getting groovy.lang.MissingPropertyException.
Skipping types in a method declaration is supported, both in dynamically compiled and statically compiled Groovy. But is it useful? It depends. In most cases, it's much better to declare the type for a better readability and documentation purpose. I would not recommend doing it in the public API - the user of your API will see Object type, while you may expect some specific type. It shows that this may work if your intention is to receive any object, no matter what is its specific type. (E.g. a method like dump(obj) could work like that.)
And last but not least, there is a way to skip type declaration in any context. You can use a final keyword for that.
class Foo {
final id = 1
void bar(final name) {
final greet = "Hello, "
println greet + name + "!"
}
}
This way you can get a code that compiles with dynamic compilation, as well as with static compilation enabled. Of course, using final keyword prevents you from re-assigning the variable, but for the compiler, this is enough information to infer the proper type.
For more information, you can check a similar question that was asked on SO some time ago: Groovy: "def" keyword vs concrete type
in Groovy it plays an important role in Global and Local variable
if the variable name is same with and without def
def is considered local and without def its global
I have explained here in detail https://stackoverflow.com/a/45994227/2986279
So if someone use with and without it will make a difference and can change things.
Related
Sorry to all you Groovy dudes if this is a bit of a noob question.
In SOAPUI, i can create a Groovy script where i can define an arbitrary variable to the run context to retrieve at a later time.
context.previouslyUndefinedVariable = 3
def num = context.previouslyUndefinedVariable
What feature of Groovy allows previously undefined variables to be added to an object like this? I would like to learn more about it.
Many thanks in advance!
Groovy has the ability to dynamically add methods to a class through metaprogramming.
To learn more, see:
What is Groovy's MetaClass used for?
Groovy Goodness: Add Methods Dynamically to Classes with ExpandoMetaClass
Runtime and compile-time metaprogramming
The accepted answer is a bit of a poor explanation for how SoapUI is doing it.
In this case, context is always an instance of some SoapUI library java class (such as WsdlTestRunContext), and these are all implementations of Map. You can check context.getClass() and assert context in Map.
When you look up a property on a Map, Groovy uses the getAt and putAt methods. There are various syntaxes you can use. All of these are equivalent:
context.someUndef
context.'someUndef'
context[someUndef]
context['someUndef']
context.getAt('someUndef')
And
context.someUndef = 3
context.'someUndef' = 3
context[someUndef] = 3
context['someUndef'] = 3
context.putAt('someUndef', 3)
I like to use any of the above that include quote marks, so that Groovy-Eclipse doesn't flag it as a missing property.
It's also interesting that Groovy looks for a getAt() method before it checks for a get method being referred to as a property.
For example, consider evaluating "foo".class. The String instance doesn't have a property called class and it also doesn't have a method getAt(String), so the next thing it tries is to look for a "get" method with that name, i.e. getClass(), which it finds, and we get our result: String.
But with a map, ['class':'bar'].class refers to the method call getAt('class') first, which will be 'bar'. If we want to know what type of Map it is, we have to be more specific and write in full: ['class':'bar'].getClass() which will be LinkedHashMap.
We still have to specify getClass() even if that Map doesn't have a matching key, because ['foo':'bar'].class will still mean ['foo':'bar'].getAt('class'), which will be null.
I have a Groovy script that lets the user define some dynamic properties and methods and later executes a user-defined closure. A script would look like this:
// init properties and methods dynamically at runtime
context.prop1 = "Some test value"
context.method1 = { String input ->
"exec " + input.toUpperCase()
}
// "this" is set to the context variable from above
run {
println method1( prop1 )
}
So in the beginning of the script, a context is initialized with user-defined properties (e.g. prop1) and methods (e.g. method1). The context is then used as this pointer in the run closure. I have achieved this by dynamically extending the meta class of the context and setting the context as delegate of the run closure (with DELEGATE_FIRST as resolves strategy).
Currently I am struggling at type checking. Before executing the run closure, I would like to check if method1 really expects prop1. I have looked into the DelegatesTo annotation, but that doesn't seem to work for dynamically extended objects. I have also played with the AST, but since my knowledge on that topic is limited, I haven't come up with a solution. If what I want to achieve is possible, any pointers in the right direction would be greatly appreciated.
You want to add a method to a context at runtime and then type check this before execution of that method.
Type checking is done at compile time. That is before anything of your program is executed. There is normally no chance this can ever check anything that will only happen at runtime, unless you have a way to statically declare it and give the compiler the power to do the check. But this means normally, you will have to do static compilation.
One way would be to use type checking extensions, but I think in your case that might be overkill. A more simple way would be to use extension modules. And the most simple way would be to use custom script base class.
But for any of these solution you will need static compilation to really have type checking, same for DelegatesTo (which is more used in combination with extension modules). For a type checked DSL a mix of type checking extensions and extension modules can work very well. But you will of course loose more dynamic features of the language and some simplicity.
I am making a simple debugger window in ActionScript for myself where I can add and remove variables I want to track. I was to be able to add variables to the list by just doing something like
DebuggerMonitor.trackVar(variable).
My question is, is there any way I can turn "variable" itself (the name, not the value) into a String to be added into a text field?
Depending on how "intelligent" your debugger should be, you could just pass the name along:
DebuggerMonitor.trackVar( variable, "variable" );
since obviously, when used in a context like this, the name should be known at the time you are writing the program.
You can also do some reflection magic to get instance variable names, but it won't work for temp variables (their names are dropped at compilation time):
public function getVariableName( instance:*, match:* ):String {
var typeDescription:XML = describeType( instance );
var variables:XMLList = typeDescription..variable;
var accessors:XMLList = typeDescription..accessor;
for each(var variable:XML in variables)
if(matchesXMLName( instance, variable, match ))
return variable.#name;
for each(var accessor:XML in accessors)
if(matchesXMLName( instance, accessor, match ))
return accessor.#name;
return "No name found.";
}
private function matchesXMLName( instance:*, xml:XML, match:* ):Boolean {
return match == instance[xml.#name.toString()];
}
var varName:String = getVariableName ( myObject, variable );
Using reflections like this will also be quite costly, if used often - you will have to think of a way to cache the type descriptions.
I recommend you check out the as3commons reflections package - there is a lot of useful functionality in there...
Short answer - No :(
You can access the type name but not individual instance names, as these are lost at run-time.
There is a confusion caused by the keyword 'var' because it is used to create several types of bindings.
Lexical bindings (the keyword 'var' was used inside a function).
Dynamic bindings (the keyword 'var' was used to declare a class' field).
Lexical bindings are interpreted by the compiler at compile time as addresses of the registers of the registers space occupied by the function. The names given to lexical bindings perish at this time and it is not possible to restore them at runtime - therefore you can't get the "name" of the variable.
Dynamic bindings are a kind of "public API" of the objects that declare them, they may be accessed from the code that was not compiled together with the code that created them, this is why, for the purpose of reflection the names of these bindings are stored in compiled code. However, ActionScript has no way of referencing LHS values, so you cannot, even if you know the name of the variable and the object declaring it, pass it to another function. But you can look it up in the debugger or by calling describeType on the object declaring the variable. Note that describeType will not show information on private variables even if you are calling it from the scope of the object in question.
This is what I am trying to do:
public void method(int myVal, string myOtherVal)
{
// doing something
}
dynamic myVar = new SomeDynamicObjectImplementer();
method(myVar.IntProperty, myVar.StringProperty);
Note that my properties are also DynamicObjects. My problem is that the TryConvert method is never called and that I get a runtime error saying the method signature is invalid.
The following is working great:
string strVar = myVar.StringProperty;
int intVar = myVar.IntProperty;
And I would like to avoid
method((int)myVar.IntProperty, (string)myVar.StringProperty);
Is it possible to override something in DynamicObject to allow this? (or something else)
Thank you
The problem is your assumption that it will try a dynamic implicit convert on arguments of an dynamic invocation to make a method call work, this is not true.
When your arguments aren't statically typed, it will use the runtime type to find the best matching method (if the runtime type matches the static rules for implicit conversion to the argument type this will work too), since your your IntProperty,StringProperty seem to be returning a DynamicObject rather than an Int and a String or something that could statically be converter implicitly, this lookup will fail.
If SomeDynamicObjectImplementer could actually return an Int for IntProperty and a String for StringProperty your method call for without casting would actually work. It's also probably a better dynamic typing practice if you data type is based on the actually type of data rather than usage using try convert. You could add actually implicit convert methods for every possible type that you could return to that returned DynamicObject type, but that could cause strange resolution issues to depending on how much you are overloading.
However, another option to keep your dynamic implementation the same is to mix a little controlled static typing in, you can use ImpromputInterface (in nuget) to put an interface on top of a dynamic object, if you do that then the TryConvert method would be called on your returned DynamicObjects.
public interface ISomeStaticInterface{
int IntProperty {get;}
string StringProperty {get;}
}
...
var myVar = new SomeDynamicObjectImplementer().ActLike<ISomeStaticInterface>();
method(myVar.IntProperty, myVar.StringProperty);
Instead of using myVar.IntProperty can't you just put them in variables first, like you already did, and then use then for your method?
so method(intVar , strVar); seems fine. At least more elegant than casting.
Of course, if you're already certain your object will have IntProperty and StringProperty, why not just make an actual object with those properties instead?
Why are you doing the cast?
method(myVar.IntProperty, myVar.StringProperty);
should compile.
If the two properties must be the types suggested by the names then they shouldn't be dynamic.
Hypothetic and academic question.
pseudo-code:
<pre><code>
class Book{
read(theReader)
}
class BookWithMemory extends Book {
read(theReader, aTimestamp = null)
}
</pre></code>
Assuming:
an interface (if supported) would prohibit it
default value for parameters are supported
Notes:
PHP triggers an strict standards error for this.
I'm not surprised that PHP strict mode complains about such an override. It's very easy for a similar situation to arise unintentionally in which part of a class hierarchy was edited to use a new signature and a one or a few classes have fallen out of sync.
To avoid the ambiguity, name the new method something different (for this example, maybe readAt?), and override read to call readAt in the new class. This makes the intent plain to the interpreter as well as anyone reading the code.
The actual behavior in such a case is language-dependent -- more specifically, it depends on how much of the signature makes up the method selector, and how parameters are passed.
If the name alone is the selector (as in PHP or Perl), then it's down to how the language handles mismatched method parameter lists. If default arguments are processed at the call site based on the static type of the receiver instead of at the callee's entry point, when called through a base class reference you'd end up with an undefined argument value instead of your specified default, similarly to what would happen if there was no default specified.
If the number of parameters (with or without their types) are part of the method selector (as in Erlang or E), as is common in dynamic languages that run on JVM or CLR, you have two different methods. Create a new overload taking additional arguments, and override the base method with one that calls the new overload with default argument values.
If I am reading the question correctly, this question seems very language specific (as in it is not applicable to all dynamic languages), as I know you can do this in ruby.
class Book
def read(book)
puts book
end
end
class BookWithMemory < Book
def read(book,aTimeStamp = nil)
super book
puts aTimeStamp
end
end
I am not sure about dynamic languages besides ruby. This seems like a pretty subjective question as well, as at least two languages were designed on either side of the issue (method overloading vs not: ruby vs php).