I understand that a precondition, in context of Desing by contract/Liskov principle, is something that should be true before the code is called, e.g. the caller is responsible for that. Also, the author of the Eiffel language stated that most people do put another verification check into the called cade, simply as means of defensive programming.
Some time ago I read a question with a code similar to this:
void X(int value)
{
if (value > 100)
{do something...}
}
Some commenters argued that the if statement is not a precondition but I do not think that is right - if the contract states V must be 100, then this is verifying the precondition additionally and if a class is derived from this type and changes to v > 200, it would be strenghtening the precondition and thus violating the Liskov principle. Or isn't that the case?
As you said, a precondition is defined as a condition that must always be true before the proceeding code executes.
This means that anything that checks for a condition at the beginning of a function before other code is executed, then it is considered a precondition.
Example:
//We will do something cool here
//With an integer input
int doSomethingCool(final int input)
{
//Wait, what if input is null or less than 100?
if(null == input || input < 100)
{
//Return a -1 to signify an issue
return -1;
}
//The cool bit of multiplying by 50. So cool.
final int results = input * 50;
//Return the results;
return results;
}
In the example, the function, input is checked before anything else is executed. So long as the conditions are met, then the rest of the code will execute.
Bad Example:
//We will do something cool here
//With an integer input
int doSomethingCool(final int input)
{
//Want to make sure input is not null and larger than 100
if(null != input && input > 100)
{
//The cool bit of multiplying by 50. So cool.
final int results = input * 50;
//Return the results;
return results;
}
//Return a -1 to signify an issue because the
//preconditions were not met for some reason
return -1;
}
In the example, the precondition is to check that input is not null and larger than 100. This is a bad precondition because it could introduce unnecessary nesting of ifs and loops.
Preconditions should do checks and only return when the checks fail. There should be no work done in a precondition.
In keeping with the Liskov Substitution Principle, if type S is a subtype of type T, then type T can be replaced with type S. If type S overrides doSomethingCool and changes the precondition, then it is in violation, because type T is the base definition and defines the intended conditions that must be met.
Now for your answer
Yes, simple conditions still count as preconditions. As long as they are at the front of all other code that uses the variable, the condition is as what is needed by the program. Also, if the function is in a subtype and is overriding the parent class, then it should not change the precondition.
However, do not surround the code that you need to run within the precondition. That is bad practice. If value needs to be larger than 100, check value < 100 and set a return in the if check.
Related
In the documentation of compareTo function, I read:
Returns zero if this object is equal to the specified other object, a
negative number if it's less than other, or a positive number if it's
greater than other.
What does this less than or greater than mean in the context of strings? Is -for example- Hello World less than a single character a?
val epicString = "Hello World"
println(epicString.compareTo("a")) //-25
Why -25 and not -10 or -1 (for example)?
Other examples:
val epicString = "Hello World"
println(epicString.compareTo("HelloWorld")) //-55
Is Hello World less than HelloWorld? Why?
Why it returns -55 and not -1, -2, -3, etc?
val epicString = "Hello World"
println(epicString.compareTo("Hello World")) //55
Is Hello World greater than Hello World? Why?
Why it returns 55 and not 1, 2, 3, etc?
I believe you're asking about the implementation of compareTo method for java.lang.String. Here is a source code for java 11:
public int compareTo(String anotherString) {
byte v1[] = value;
byte v2[] = anotherString.value;
if (coder() == anotherString.coder()) {
return isLatin1() ? StringLatin1.compareTo(v1, v2)
: StringUTF16.compareTo(v1, v2);
}
return isLatin1() ? StringLatin1.compareToUTF16(v1, v2)
: StringUTF16.compareToLatin1(v1, v2);
}
So we have a delegation to either StringLatin1 or StringUTF16 here, so we should look further:
Fortunately StringLatin1 and StringUTF16 have similar implementation when it comes to compare functionality:
Here is an implementation for StringLatin1 for example:
public static int compareTo(byte[] value, byte[] other) {
int len1 = value.length;
int len2 = other.length;
return compareTo(value, other, len1, len2);
}
public static int compareTo(byte[] value, byte[] other, int len1, int len2) {
int lim = Math.min(len1, len2);
for (int k = 0; k < lim; k++) {
if (value[k] != other[k]) {
return getChar(value, k) - getChar(other, k);
}
}
return len1 - len2;
}
As you see, it iterated over the characters of the shorter string and in case the charaters in the same index of two strings are different it returns the difference between them. If during the iterations it doesn't find any different (one string is prefix of another) it resorts to the comparison between the length of two strings.
In your case, there is a difference in the first iteration already...
So its the same as `"H".compareTo("a") --> -25".
The code of "H" is 72
The code of "a" is 97
So, 72 - 97 = -25
Short answer: The exact value doesn't have any meaning; only its sign does.
As the specification for compareTo() says, it returns a -ve number if the receiver is smaller than the other object, a +ve number if the receiver is larger, or 0 if the two are considered equal (for the purposes of this ordering).
The specification doesn't distinguish between different -ve numbers, nor between different +ve numbers — and so neither should you. Some classes always return -1, 0, and 1, while others return different numbers, but that's just an implementation detail — and implementations vary.
Let's look at a very simple hypothetical example:
class Length(val metres: Int) : Comparable<Length> {
override fun compareTo(other: Length)
= metres - other.metres
}
This class has a single numerical property, so we can use that property to compare them. One common way to do the comparison is simply to subtract the two lengths: that gives a number which is positive if the receiver is larger, negative if it's smaller, and zero of they're the same length — which is just what we need.
In this case, the value of compareTo() would happen to be the signed difference between the two lengths.
However, that method has a subtle bug: the subtraction could overflow, and give the wrong results if the difference is bigger than Int.MAX_VALUE. (Obviously, to hit that you'd need to be working with astronomical distances, both positive and negative — but that's not implausible. Rocket scientists write programs too!)
To fix it, you might change it to something like:
class Length(val metres: Int) : Comparable<Length> {
override fun compareTo(other: Length) = when {
metres > other.metres -> 1
metres < other.metres -> -1
else -> 0
}
}
That fixes the bug; it works for all possible lengths.
But notice that the actual return value has changed in most cases: now it only ever returns -1, 0, or 1, and no longer gives an indication of the actual difference in lengths.
If this was your class, then it would be safe to make this change because it still matches the specification. Anyone who just looked at the sign of the result would see no change (apart from the bug fix). Anyone using the exact value would find that their programs were now broken — but that's their own fault, because they shouldn't have been relying on that, because it was undocumented behaviour.
Exactly the same applies to the String class and its implementation. While it might be interesting to poke around inside it and look at how it's written, the code you write should never rely on that sort of detail. (It could change in a future version. Or someone could apply your code to another object which didn't behave the same way. Or you might want to expand your project to be cross-platform, and discover the hard way that the JavaScript implementation didn't behave exactly the same as the Java one.)
In the long run, life is much simpler if you don't assume anything more than the specification promises!
How can I know if I actually need to return an l-value when using FALLBACK?
I'm using return-rw but I'd like to only use return where possible. I want to track if I've actually modified %!attrs or have only just read the value when FALLBACK was called.
Or (alternate plan B) can I attach a callback or something similar to my %!attrs to monitor for changes?
class Foo {
has %.attrs;
submethod BUILD { %!attrs{'bar'} = 'bar' }
# multi method FALLBACK(Str:D $name, *#rest) {
# say 'read-only';
# return %!attrs{$name} if %!attrs«$name»:exists;
# }
multi method FALLBACK(Str:D $name, *#rest) {
say 'read-write';
return-rw %!attrs{$name} if %!attrs«$name»:exists;
}
}
my $foo = Foo.new;
say $foo.bar;
$foo.bar = 'baz';
say $foo.bar;
This feels a bit like a X-Y question, so let's simplify the example, and see if that answers helps in your decisions.
First of all: if you return the "value" of a non-existing key in a hash, you are in fact returning a container that will auto-vivify the key in the hash when assigned to:
my %hash;
sub get($key) { return-rw %hash{$key} }
get("foo") = 42;
dd %hash; # Hash %hash = {:foo(42)}
Please note that you need to use return-rw here to ensure the actual container is returned, rather than just the value in the container. Alternately, you can use the is raw trait, which allows you to just set the last value:
my %hash;
sub get($key) is raw { %hash{$key} }
get("foo") = 42;
dd %hash; # Hash %hash = {:foo(42)}
Note that you should not use return in that case, as that will still de-containerize again.
To get back to your question:
I want to track if I've actually modified %!attrs or have only just read the value when FALLBACK was called.
class Foo {
has %!attrs;
has %!unexpected;
method TWEAK() { %!attrs<bar> = 'bar' }
method FALLBACK(Str:D $name, *#rest) is raw {
if %!attrs{$name}:exists {
%!attrs{$name}
}
else {
%!unexpected{$name}++;
Any
}
}
}
This would either return the container found in the hash, or record the access to the unknown key and return an immutable Any.
Regarding plan B, recording changes: for that you could use a Proxy object for that.
Hope this helps in your quest.
Liz's answer is full of useful info and you've accepted it but I thought the following might still be of interest.
How to know if returning an l-value ... ?
Let's start by ignoring the FALLBACK clause.
You would have to test the value. To deal with Scalars, you must test the .VAR of the value. (For non-Scalar values the .VAR acts like a "no op".) I think (but don't quote me) that Scalar|Array|Hash covers all the l-value super-types:
my \value = 42; # Int is an l-value is False
my \l-value-one = $; # Scalar is an l-value is True
my \l-value-too = #; # Array is an l-value is True
say "{.VAR.^name} is an l-value is {.VAR ~~ Scalar|Array|Hash}"
for value, l-value-one, l-value-too
How to know if returning an l-value when using FALLBACK?
Adding "when using FALLBACK" makes no difference to the answer.
How can I know if I actually need to return an l-value ... ?
Again, let's start by ignoring the FALLBACK clause.
This is a completely different question than "How to know if returning an l-value ... ?". I think it's the core of your question.
Afaik, the answer is, you need to anticipate how the returned value will be used. If there's any chance it'll be used as an l-value, and you want that usage to work, then you need to return an l-value. The language/compiler can't (or at least doesn't) help you make that decision.
Consider some related scenarios:
my $baz := foo.bar;
... (100s of lines of code) ...
$baz = 42;
Unless the first line returns an l-value, the second line will fail.
But the situation is actually much more immediate than that:
routine-foo = 42;
routine-foo is evaluated first, in its entirety, before the lhs = rhs expression is evaluated.
Unless the compiler's resolution of the routine-foo call somehow incorporated the fact that the very next thing to happen would be that the lhs will be assigned to, then there would be no way for a singly or multiply dispatched routine-foo to know whether it can safely return an r-value or must return an l-value.
And the compiler's resolution does not incorporate that. Thus, for example:
multi term:<bar> is rw { ... }
multi term:<bar> { ... }
bar = 99; # Ambiguous call to 'term:<bar>(...)'
I can imagine this one day (N years from now) being solved by a combination of allowing = to be an overloadable operator, robust macros that allow overloading of = being available, and routine resolution being modified so the above ambiguous call could do something equivalent to resolving to the is rw multi. But I doubt it will actually come to pass even with N=10. Perhaps there is another way but I can't think of one at the moment.
How can I know if I actually need to return an l-value when using FALLBACK?
Again, adding "when using FALLBACK" makes no difference to the answer.
I want to track if I've actually modified %!attrs or have only just read the value when FALLBACK was called.
When FALLBACK is called it doesn't know what context it's being called in -- r-value or l-value. Any modification comes after it has already returned.
In other words, whatever solution you come up with will being nothing to do per se with FALLBACK (even if you have to use it to implement some other aspect of whatever it is you're trying to do).
(Even if it were, I suspect trying to solve it via FALLBACK itself would just make matters worse. One can imagine writing two FALLBACK multis, one with an is rw trait, but, as explained above, my imagination doesn't stretch to that making any difference any time soon, if ever, and could only happen if the above imaginary things happened (the macros etc.) and the compiler was also modified to pay attention to the two FALLBACK multi variants, and I'm not at all meaning to suggest that that even makes sense.)
Plan B
Or (alternate plan B) can I attach a callback or something similar to my %!attrs to monitor for changes?
As Lizmat notes, that's the realm of Proxys. And thus your next SO question... :)
I have a question about using the new Objects.compare(o1, o2, Comparator) method - from my own testing of it, if both o1 and o2 are null then it returns 0, however, if one of them is null then it still throws a null pointer exception. I have found a lot of material on Objects.equals and some of the other Objects utility methods but not much at all on Objects.compare and when we are expected to use it / replace old code with it.
So here I could do this:
String s1 = "hi";
String s2 = "hi";
int x = Objects.compare(s1, s2, Comparator.naturalOrder());
System.out.println("x = " + x);
That works fine, returns 0, now this:
String s1 = null;
String s2 = null;
Also works fine and returns 0. However, this:
String s1 = "hi";
Strng s2 = null;
Throws a NullPointerException. I'm guessing the benefit of Objects.compare(o1,o2,Comparator) vs o1.compareTo(o2) is that it at least handles circumstances where both objects are null and when one of them is null it allows you to design a Comparator to handle it. I'm supposing, e.g.
int x = Objects.compare(s1, s2, Comparator.nullsFirst(Comparator.naturalOrder()));
Whereas with x.compareTo(y) there's no way to handle null unless you do so beforehand? So do the Java library developers now intend us to replace all calls to compareTo with Objects.compare, when we're concerned about nulls? e.g. would we do this in our Comparable implementations?
Side query 1: With regards to using nullsFirst if you use it then pass in a Comparator, which is chained using comparing, thenComparing, etc, does it apply to all of the inner comparators? e.g.
Comparator.nullsFirst(Comparator.comparing(Song::getTitle)
.thenComparing(Song::getArtist)
.thenComparing(Song::getDuration)
)
Would that apply nullsFirst to everything inside or do you need to use nullsFirst individually on each of them? I think from testing that it only applies to the actual Song objects being null, not for the fields of title or artist being null, i.e. if they are null then a NullPointerException is still thrown. Anyway around that?
Side query 2: final question is that because I like the Comparator.comparing syntax, I'm proposing to start to write my compareTo implementions using it - I was struggling to think how to replace this traditional approach, e.g.
public int compareTo(Song other) {
int result = this.title.compareTo(other.title);
if (result == 0) {
result = this.artist.compareTo(other.artist);
if (result == 0) {
result = Integer.compare(this.duration, other.duration);
}
}
return result;
}
then I thought I could use Objects.compare(...) as follows:
public int compareTo(Song other) {
return Objects.compare(this, other, Comparator.nullsFirst(
Comparator.comparing(Song::getTitle)
.thenComparing(Song::getArtist)
.thenComparingInt(Song::getDuration)
));
}
I thought this version was more elegant - I am assuming it is working as I think it is, e.g. by passing this and other as the first 2 arguments then the comparator, it has the same effect as the traditional compareTo approach with if statements? Whilst I can see that the benefit of Objects.compare catching two nulls would never occur as if this was null then the compareTo method call would never be reached (either by handling the exception or it being thrown). But by using nullsFirst I suppose if the argument passed in, i.e. other, was null, then this would handle this safely?
Many thanks in advance for any help.
Objects.compare is not meant to provide a null safe comparison, since there is no default behavior that could be implemented. It just implements a shortcut of not invoking the Comparator’s method when both objects are identical. In other words, it does a==b? 0: c.compare(a, b), nothing more. So not breaking when both objects are null is just a side-effect. The encapsulated code might look trivial but the other methods in this class are of a similar category. Using small utility methods a lot might still result in a notable win.
By the way, it’s not a Java 8 method at all. It exists since Java 7.
Regarding your second question, Comparator.nullsFirst(…) decorates an existing Comparator and will enforce the rule for null values before delegating to the provided comparator as it is the purpose of this comparator to shield the existing one from ever seeing null values. It doesn’t matter whether the decorated comparator is a chained one or not. As long as it is what you called the “inner comparator”, as
you must not invoke thenComparing on the result of nullsFirst as that would imply calling the next comparator when both values are null.
Comparator.nullsFirst(Comparator.comparing(a).thenComparing(b)) // perfect
Comparator.nullsFirst(Comparator.comparing(a)).thenComparing(b) // ouch
Now to your third question, implementing a compareTo method using a nullsFirst comparator is violating the interface specification:
The implementor must ensure sgn(x.compareTo(y)) == -sgn(y.compareTo(x)) for all x and y. (This implies that x.compareTo(y) must throw an exception iff y.compareTo(x) throws an exception.)
This implies that passing null as argument should always result in a NullPointerException as swapping argument and receiver would throw as well, unconditionally.
Orders including a null policy should always be provided as separate Comparators.
Note that it would also be quite inefficient as you would create a new Comparator (multiple Comparators, to be precise) for every compareTo call. Now image sorting a rather large list of these objects…
What I normally do for your final question is to first create a static comparator reference within the class:
public static final Comparator<Song> COMP_DEFAULT
= nullsFirst(comparing(Song::getTitle, nullsFirst(naturalOrder()))
.thenComparing(Song::getArtist, nullsFirst(naturalOrder()))
.thenComparingInt(Song::getDuration));
And then refer to this comparator in compareTo
public int compareTo(Song other) {
return COMP_DEFAULT.compare(this, other);
}
This way you're not recreating your comparator for each compareTo call, null safety of Song is guaranteed as is the result of a.comparetTo(b) == b.compareTo(a).
We also ensure null safety of each property by using nullsFirst(naturalOrder()) for the passed in key comparator (second argument).
As the Comparator returned is immutable it can be made public which can be handy for bundling some alternate Comparators with the class that consumers may use.
Why does
if (x) {
f();
}
call f() if x is an empty string ""?
Shouldn't empty strings in D implicitly convert to bool false like they do in Python and when empty arrays does it (in D)?
Update: I fixed the question. I had incorrectly reversed the reasoning logic. Luckily, the bright D minds understood what I meant anyway ;)
Conditions and if statements and loops are cast to bool by the compiler. So,
if(x) {...}
becomes
if(cast(bool)x) {...}
and in the case of arrays, casting to bool is equivalent to testing whether its ptr property is not null. So, it becomes
if(x.ptr !is null) {...}
In the case of arrays, this is actually a really bad test, because null arrays are considered to be the same as empty arrays. So, in most cases, you don't care whether an array is null or not. An array is essentially a struct that looks like
struct Array(T)
{
T* ptr;
size_t length;
}
The == operator will check whether all of the elements referred to by ptr are equal, but if length is 0 for both arrays, it doesn't care what the value of ptr is. That means that "" and null are equal (as are [] and null). However, the is operator explicitly checks the ptr properties for equality, so "" and null won't be the same according to the is operator, and whether a particular array which is empty has a null ptr depends on how its value was set. So, the fact that an array is empty really says nothing about whether it's null or not. You have to check with the is operator to know for sure.
The result of all this is that it's generally bad practice to put an array (or string) directly in a condition like you're doing with
if(x) {...}
Rather, you should be clear about what you're checking. Do you care whether it's empty? In that case, you should check either
if(x.empty) {...}
or
if(x.length == 0} {...}
Or do you really care that it's null? In that case, use the is operator:
if(x is null) {...}
The behavior of arrays in conditions is consistent with the rest of the language (e.g. pointer and reference types are checked to see whether they're null or not), but unfortunately, in practice, such behavior for arrays is quite bug-prone. So, I'd advise that you just don't ever put an array by itself in the condition of an if statement or loop.
the default conversion of arrays looks at the .ptr, which means only the default initialized arrays (or explicitly set to null) evaluate to false
as an added effect string literals in D are \0 terminated which means ("")[0] == '\0' and as such ("").ptr can't be null (which would lead to a segfault)
IMO it should look at the length and you can use the ptr when you need to
It does when I try it...
void main() {
import std.stdio;
string s = "";
if(s)
writeln("true"); // triggered
}
If it was "string s = null;" (which is the default initialization), it doesn't, because the null converts to false, but "" is ok on my computer. Are you sure it isn't null?
BTW, if you want to test for (non-)emptiness, the way I prefer to do it is if(x.length) and if(x.length == 0). Those work consistently for both "" and null, then if you specifically want null, do if(x is null). It is just a little more clear, especially since "" and null are interchangeable in a lot of other contexts in D.
I suppose this:
public static string abc()
{
return "abc";
}
Is better to call this function in this way:
string call = abc();
Console.writeline(call);
Than this?
console.writeline(abc());
is there any reason to prefer one to the other?
Both are valid. However, out of experience I have concluded that the first option is more suitable for readability and ease of maintenance. I can't count how many times I have changed from the "compact" style to the first one as a help for a debugging session.
For example, this style makes it easy to check the correctness intermediate of an intermediate result:
string call = abc();
assert(!call.empty()); // Just an example.
Console.writeline(call);
Also, it helps to make the code more robust later, adding a conditional check before the subsequent action that checks call's value, for example if the design does not guarantee that the condition of the previous assert holds but you still need to check it.
string call = abc();
if (!call.empty())
{
Console.writeline(call);
}
Note also that with this style you will be able to easily inspect the value of call in your debugger.
Given your exact example (one parameter, value not used elsewhere, no side effects), it's just a matter of style. However, it gets more interesting if there are multiple parameters and the methods have side effects. For example:
int counter;
int Inc() { counter += 1; return counter }
void Foo(int a, int b) { Console.WriteLine(a + " " + b); }
void Bar()
{
Foo(Inc(), Inc());
}
What would you expect Foo to print here? Depending on the language there might not even be a predictable result. In this situation, assigning the values to a variable first should cause the compiler (depending on language) to evaluate the calls in a predictable order.
Actually I don't see a difference if you don't have any error checking.
This would make a difference
string call = abc();
# if call is not empty
{
Console.writeline(call);
}
The above method could avoid empty string being written.