as my post describes it, I'd like to create an UTIL class with a never_both function.
class
UTIL
create
default_create
feature -- could be in class BOOLEAN
double_implies, reversible_implies, never_both (a, b: BOOLEAN): BOOLEAN
-- Into boolean class with never_with
do
if a and b then
Result := False
else
Result := True
end
end
end
When I use it
invariant
never_both: {UTIL}.never_both (attached last_error, attached last_success_message)
the compiler complains about a VUNO error
never_both used in the non-object call is not a class feature.
I saw 2 notations about objects creating
- {UTIL}.never_both (a, b)
- ({UTIL}).never_both (a, b)
Whats the difference between them?
How to create an application wide (could be even world wide once if you want!) object for the use of this UTIL if possible in Eiffel?!
I know this is a TUPLE of questions so I put them in Bold
If you want to use a feature without creating the corresponding object, it should be marked as a class feature. This is done in the feature postcondition with the same keyword:
foo ...
do
...
ensure
instance_free: class
...
end
After that, the feature can be used in an objectless call {BAR}.foo ....
The notation ({BAR}).qux does not denote an objectless call. It is an object call on the target object of type TYPE [BAR]. The object describes the type BAR.
Related
Consider class with type parameter, that should be used as Map key.
class Foo<K> {
var map: Map<K, Dynamic> = new Map();
}
This does not compile with error Type parameters of multi type abstracts must be known.
The reason is understandable - Map is abstract and it's underlying type is selected based on key type, so key type should be known when compiling new Map() expression. On the other hand non-generic type with type parameters are compiled once for all parameters.
Looks like adding #:generic metadata should help. But actually it does not. My guess was that this is because haxe compiler compiles #:generic types the same as it does with non-generic types, and only then does some extra work for generic type. So I was thinking that having a Map with key type defined by type parameter is impossible in haxe.
But recently I've stumbled upon this issue: https://github.com/HaxeFoundation/haxe/issues/2537
Simn's answer there says, that this can be done by adding #:remove #:generic metadata. And it actually works.
#:remove #:generic
class Foo<K> {
var map: Map<K, Dynamic> = new Map();
}
For me this looks like magic and I'm not comfortable with this. In documentation I only see that
#:remove Causes an interface to be removed from all implementing classes before generation. That does not explain why this works.
If you replace Map by haxe.ds.BalancedTree and use only #:generic without #:remove, you will see your class Foo generated on your target containing new BalancedTree< object, object > (object is Dynamic). That means, Foo class holds general BalancedTree< object, object > type, while Foo_String for example holds generic BalancedTree< string, object > type. Now, if you go back to your Map, you will see that "Abstract haxe.ds.Map has no #:to function that accepts haxe.IMap< Foo.K, Dynamic >", e.g. no Map< Dynamic, Dynamic > implementation exists. That's why you need to use #:remove which will actually stop generation of Foo class, or at least, remove new Map< Dynamic, Dynamic > from the Foo (#:remove "Causes an interface to be removed" is misleading here)
These two subs do the same thing when inside a class.
Sub DemoMe( )
Me.AboutMe ' Calls AboutMe procedure.
End Sub
Sub DemoMe( )
AboutMe ' Does the same thing.
End Sub
What is the point? Does the Me keyword do anything? What is the preferred way of an object accessing its own members?
tldr; No, although there are situations where it can be useful.
From the VBA language specification (5.3.1.5):
Each procedure that is a method has an implicit ByVal parameter called
the current object that corresponds to the target object of an
invocation of the method. The current object acts as an anonymous
local variable with procedure extent and whose declared type is the
class name of the class module containing the method declaration. For
the duration of an activation of the method the data value of the
current object variable is target object of the procedure invocation
that created that activation. The current object is accessed using the
Me keyword within the <procedure-body> of the method but cannot be
assigned to or otherwise modified.
That's all it is, just a "free" local variable that refers to the specific instance that the method is being called on. This also happens to be the default context for the procedures during their invocation, so it can be omitted if the code is intended to operate on the current instance. Although as #HansPassant points out in the comment above, it also allows the editor to bind to the interface and provide IntelliSense.
That said, there are a couple instances where you would either want to or have to use it (this is by no means an exhaustive list):
Naming collisions:
If your class has a member that "hides" a built-in VBA function, it can be used to make the scope explicit:
Public Property Get Left() As Long
'...
End Property
Public Property Get Right() As Long
'...
End Property
Public Property Get Width() As Long
Width = Me.Right - Me.Left
End Property
Equity Checks:
Public Function Equals(other As Object) As Boolean
If other Is Me Then
Equals = True
Exit Function
End If
'...
End Function
Fluent Functions:
This can be a useful pattern for compositing objects - you perform an action, then return the instance of the class so they can be "chained". Excel's Range interface does this in a lot of cases:
Public Function Add(Value As Long) As Class1
'Do whatever.
Set Add = Me
End Function
Public Sub Foo()
Dim bar As New Class1
bar.Add(1).Add(1).Add 1
End Sub
Not any more than there are reasons to use this in Java, C#, or any other language: it's a reserved identifier that represents the current instance of the class - what you do with that is up to your imagination.
What is the preferred way of an object accessing its own members?
Indeed, an object doesn't need the Me keyword to access it own public interface. Same as this in other languages, I'd even call it redundant. However it can sometimes be a good idea to explicitly qualify member calls with Me, especially when the class has a VB_PredeclaredId attribute (e.g. any UserForm): referring to UserForm1 in the code-behind of UserForm1 yields a reference to the default instance of the class, whereas qualifying member calls with Me yields a reference to the current instance of that class.
Accessing Inherited Members
VBA user code can't do class inheritance, but a lot of VBA classes do have a base class. The members of UserForm when you're in the code-behind of UserForm1, and those of Worksheet when you're in the code-behind of Sheet1, aren't necessarily easy to find. But since the inherited members show up in IntelliSense/auto-complete, you can type Me. and browse a list of members inherited from the base class, members that you would otherwise need to know about in order to invoke.
A class creating an instance of itself inside itself? That I've never seen.
You're missing out! I do this all the time, to enable referring to the object instance held by a With block, inside a Factory Method - like this GridCoord class.
Public Function Create(ByVal xPosition As Long, ByVal yPosition As Long) As IGridCoord
With New GridCoord
.X = xPosition
.Y = yPosition
Set Create = .Self
End With
End Function
Public Property Get Self() As IGridCoord
Set Self = Me
End Property
Note that while the GridCoord class exposes a getter and a setter for both X and Y properties, the IGridCoord interface only exposes the getters. As a result, code written against the IGridCoord interface is effectively working with read-only properties.
Another use is to get the name of the class module, without needing to hard-code it. This is particularly useful when raising custom errors: just use TypeName(Me) for the Source of the error.
The Builder Pattern notoriously returns Me, which enables a "fluent API" design that makes it possible to write code that incrementally builds complex objects through chained member calls, where each member returns Me (except the final Build call, which returns the type of the class being built):
Dim thing As Something
Set builder = New ThingBuilder
Set thing = builder _
.WithFoo(42) _
.WithBar("test") _
.WithSomething _
.WithSomethingElse
.Build
#PBeezy : In addition to my comment :
Me, refers to the object it's coming from so AboutMe resides in the class. If you had another instance, say this is Class1, you'd have dim c as Class1, as soon as you create an instance of Class1 in Class1, you need to tell the compiler which class you are using, the holding class or the instance created in, where, me.class1.aboutme would be logically valid. You can also create, a class for each cell in a workbook, then you could refer to A1's class from B1's class. Also, if there is a public function/sub called AboutMe, this also helps.
Class (clsPerson)
Public c1 As clsPerson
Public strPersonName As String
Public Function NAME_THIS_PERSON(strName As String)
strPersonName = strName
End Function
Public Function ADD_NEW_CHILD(strChildName As String)
Set c1 = New clsPerson
c1.strPersonName = strChildName
End Function
Normal module
Sub test()
Dim c As New clsPerson
c.NAME_THIS_PERSON "Mother"
c.ADD_NEW_CHILD "Nathan"
Debug.Print c.strPersonName
Debug.Print c.c1.strPersonName
End Sub
Gives these results
Mother
Nathan
I am using Nomin for mapping tasks. As taken from the documentation of Nomin it should be able to map fields with the same name by itself in case automapping has been activated. When activating it, it causes an infinite loop exception.
I have the following:
mappingFor a: CoinsOnMarketPlace, b: Coin
// automap() // when deactivated it works fine, when activated infinite loop
a.coin.name = b.name
a.coin.rank = b.rank
a.priceUSD = b.priceUSD // Could be automapped
a.priceBTC = b.priceBTC // Could be automapped
...
Exception:
org.nomin.core.NominException: ./net/hemisoft/ccm/repository/coinmarketcap2coin.groovy: Recursive mapping rule a = b causes infinite loop!
One thing worth adding regarding your use case - this Recursive mapping rule a = b causes infinite loop! exception is thrown because you use groovy classes in your mapping rule. Nomin uses ReflectionIntrospector and what's important:
It performs getting/setting properties using accessor methods which are called through the Java reflection mechanism. ReflectionIntrospector uses supplied NamingPolicy instance to determine accessor methods. JbNamingPolicy is used by default, this implementation cerresponds the JavaBeans convention. Its InstanceCreator named ReflectionInstanceCreator instantiates objects using Class.newInstance().
Source: http://nomin.sourceforge.net/introspectors.html
A simple Groovy class like:
class Entity {
String name
String somethingElse
}
gets compiled to a Java class that implements GroovyObject providing following methods:
public interface GroovyObject {
Object invokeMethod(String var1, Object var2);
Object getProperty(String var1);
void setProperty(String var1, Object var2);
MetaClass getMetaClass();
void setMetaClass(MetaClass var1);
}
In this case ReflectionInstanceCreator combined with automap() resolves following mappings:
a.property = b.property
and
a = b
where a = b mapping comes from MetaClass getMetaClass() getter method I suppose, because there is no mapping like a.metaClass = b.metaClass resolved. a.property = b.property gets resolved because of Object getProperty(String var1) method.
Solution
This problem can be solved by specifying explicitly ExplodingIntrospector for your mapping script that:
It performs getting/setting properties using a class field immediately through through the Java reflection mechanism and may be useful in case when domain object don't provide accessors for their properties. Supplied instance creator is ReflectionInstanceCreator.
Source: http://nomin.sourceforge.net/introspectors.html
All you have to do is to add
introspector exploding
right below mappingFor a: ..., b: ... header. For example:
import mypackage.Entity
import mypackage.EntityDto
mappingFor a: Entity, b: EntityDto
introspector exploding
automap()
a.test2 = b.test1
Tested with two Groovy classes, worked like a charm. Hope it helps.
Scenario:
I have x number of classes. Lets say 10; Each class does different UI Functions. When a user loads a file, that extension tells the program the classname to load; but it's in the form of a string.
Is there anyway to pass a string off as a classname? Something to the effect of.
var classname = "Booger";
var nose = new classname(){ //classname really means "Booger"
//Do Operation
}
You can reflect a type by name using var t = Type.from_name(classname);, however, this works on all types, including enums and structs and it might be the type Type.INVALID. You should probably do some checks, like t.is_a(typeof(MyParentClass)).
You can then instantiate a copy using var obj = Object.new(t);. The whole thing would look like:
var classname = "Booger";
var t = Type.from_name(classname);
if (t.is_a(typeof(MyParentClass)))
return Object.new(t);
else
return null;
It's also worth noting that the run-time type names have the namespace prepended, so you might want to do "MyNs" + classname. You can check in either the generated C or doing typeof(MyClass).name().
I've had the same problem as the OP in regards to getting an assertion error against null. If you take a look at the Glib documentation (in C) it mentions you have to register your class by actually specifying the class name first before you can actually use a string representation of your class name.
In other words you have to use your class first BEFORE you can instantiate a copy of your class with Glib.Type.from_name ("ClassName").
You can use your class first by instantiating a class instance or by getting type information for your class.
var type = typeof (MyClass);
var type_from_string = Type.from_name ("MyClass");
Furthermore, when you use Object.new to create a class there are two things you need to be aware of:
1) You need to cast the return value to get your specific class or base class.
var instance_of_my_class = Object.new (type) as MyClass;
2) Constructors for your class will no longer be called (I don't why). You will need to use the GObject style constructor inside your class:
construct {
pizza = 5;
}
In Groovy you can do surprising type conversions using either the as operator or the asType method. Examples include
Short s = new Integer(6) as Short
List collection = new HashSet().asType(List)
I'm surprised that I can convert from an Integer to a Short and from a Set to a List, because there is no "is a" relationship between these types, although they do share a common ancestor.
For example, the following code is equivalent to the Integer/Short example in terms of the
relationship between the types involved in the conversion
class Parent {}
class Child1 extends Parent {}
class Child2 extends Parent {}
def c = new Child1() as Child2
But of course this example fails. What exactly are the type conversion rules behind the as operator and the asType method?
I believe the default asType behaviour can be found in: org.codehaus.groovy.runtime.DefaultGroovyMethods.java
org.codehaus.groovy.runtime.typehandling.DefaultTypeTransformation.java.
Starting from DefaultGroovyMethods it is quite easy to follow the behavior of asType for a specific object type and requested type combination.
According to what Ruben has already pointed out the end result of:
Set collection = new HashSet().asType(List)
is
Set collection = new ArrayList( new HashSet() )
The asType method recognizes you are wanting a List and being the fact HashSet is a Collection, it just uses ArrayList's constructor which takes a Collection.
As for the numbers one, it converts the Integer into a Number, then calls the shortValue method.
I didn't realize there was so much logic in converting references/values like this, my sincere gratitude to Ruben for pointing out the source, I'll be making quite a few blog posts over this topic.