I've been playing around with Neko Modules, but I think I'm getting some inconsistent behaviour.
var funcs = 0;
var objs = 0;
for (i in 0...m.globalsCount())
{
var obj:Dynamic = m.getGlobal(i);
if (Reflect.compareMethods(obj, init))
trace("matched");
if (Reflect.isFunction(obj))
funcs++;
else if (Reflect.isObject(obj))
objs++;
}
trace('Functions: $funcs');
trace('Objects: $objs');
In the above code, when I run it the first time, I get a total of 4487 functions. If I remove a function, rebuild and run, I get the expected 4486.
I added the compareMethods comparison to compare the obj with init, where init is a function I declared in the Main file, but the trace is never output.
I glanced over at the code hint for the compareMethods function, and I stumbled across the following terminology: if 'f1' and the 'f2' are **physically** equal.
Now, they are both functions, and no where in the Haxe manual does it mention anything about physical functions. So I have a two part question, really.
What is a physical function, and how do I achieve the trace result as you would expect above? Thank you, in advance.
According to haxe unit tests (and js source of Reflect) Reflect.compareMethods returns true only if you are comparing any method of the same object to itself.
// https://github.com/HaxeFoundation/haxe/blob/ff3d7fe6911ab84c370b1334d537a768a55cca56/tests/unit/src/unit/TestReflect.hx
//
// t(expr) - expr should be true
// f(expr) - expr should be false
function testCompareMethods() {
var a = new MyClass(0);
var b = new MyClass(1);
t( Reflect.compareMethods(a.add,a.add) );
f( Reflect.compareMethods(a.add,b.add) );
f( Reflect.compareMethods(a.add,a.get) );
f( Reflect.compareMethods(a.add,null) );
f( Reflect.compareMethods(null, a.add) );
/*
Comparison between a method and a closure :
Not widely supported atm to justify officiel support
var fadd : Dynamic = Reflect.field(a, "add");
var fget : Dynamic = Reflect.field(a, "get");
t( Reflect.compareMethods(fadd, fadd) );
t( Reflect.compareMethods(a.add, fadd) );
t( Reflect.compareMethods(fadd, a.add) );
f( Reflect.compareMethods(fadd, fget) );
f( Reflect.compareMethods(fadd, a.get) );
f( Reflect.compareMethods(fadd, null) );
*/
}
Also, possible use case
class Test {
static function main() {
var a = new A();
var i:I = a;
trace(Reflect.compareMethods(a.test, i.test)); //returns true
}
}
interface I
{
function test():Void;
}
class A implements I
{
public function new() {}
public function test() {}
}
Related
I'm trying to multiply some string a by some integer b such that a * b = a + a + a... (b times). I've tried doing it the same way I would in python:
class Test {
static function main() {
var a = "Text";
var b = 4;
trace(a * b); //Assumed Output: TextTextTextText
}
}
But this raises:
Build failure Test.hx:6: characters 14-15 : String should be Int
There doesn't seem to be any information in the Haxe Programming Cookbook or the API Documentation about multiplying strings, so I'm wondering if I've mistyped something or if I should use:
class Test {
static function main() {
var a = "Text";
var b = 4;
var c = "";
for (i in 0...b) {
c = c + a;
}
trace(c); // Outputs "TextTextTextText"
}
}
Not very short, but array comprehension might help in some situations :
class Test {
static function main() {
var a = "Text";
var b = 4;
trace( [for (i in 0...b) a].join("") );
//Output: TextTextTextText
}
}
See on try.haxe.org.
The numeric multiplication operator * requires numeric types, like integer. You have a string. If you want to multiply a string, you have to do it manually by appending a target string within the loop.
The + operator is not the numeric plus in your example, but a way to combine strings.
You can achieve what you want by operator overloading:
abstract MyAbstract(String) {
public inline function new(s:String) {
this = s;
}
#:op(A * B)
public function repeat(rhs:Int):MyAbstract {
var s:StringBuf = new StringBuf();
for (i in 0...rhs)
s.add(this);
return new MyAbstract(s.toString());
}
}
class Main {
static public function main() {
var a = new MyAbstract("foo");
trace(a * 3); // foofoofoo
}
}
To build on tokiop's answer, you could also define a times function, and then use it as a static extension.
using Test.Extensions;
class Test {
static function main() {
trace ("Text".times(4));
}
}
class Extensions {
public static function times (str:String, n:Int) {
return [for (i in 0...n) str].join("");
}
}
try.haxe.org demo here
To build on bsinky answer, you can also define a times function as static extension, but avoid the array:
using Test.Extensions;
class Test {
static function main() {
trace ("Text".times(4));
}
}
class Extensions {
public static function times (str:String, n:Int) {
var v = new StringBuf();
for (i in 0...n) v.add(str);
return v.toString();
}
}
Demo: https://try.haxe.org/#e5937
StringBuf may be optimized for different targets. For example, on JavaScript target it is compiled as if you were just using strings https://api.haxe.org/StringBuf.html
The fastest method (at least on the JavaScript target from https://try.haxe.org/#195A8) seems to be using StringTools._pad.
public static inline function stringProduct ( s : String, n : Int ) {
if ( n < 0 ) {
throw ( 1 );
}
return StringTools.lpad ( "", s, s.length * n );
}
StringTools.lpad and StringTools.rpad can't seem to decide which is more efficient. It looks like rpad might be better for larger strings and lpad might be better for smaller strings, but they switch around a bit with each rerun. haxe.format.JsonPrinter uses lpad for concatenation, but I'm not sure which to recommend.
Just ran into this issue in Haxe and was wondering if this was a bug or if it was done on purpose...
I was binding a function that prints a timestamp. The timestamp in this case was a getter in my globals class. I expected that if I were to wait a few seconds and then invoke the bound function, it would use the value of the getter at the time the function was bound. That was not the case. Instead, it seems to be calling the getter to get the current value each time.
I checked to see if this happens if I switched from using a getter to a normal function call to fetch my timestamp as my parameter. The latter works as expected.
function printTime(time:Int):Void {
trace("The time is: " + time);
}
var p:Void->Void = printTime.bind(Globals.timestampgetter);
var p2:Void->Void = printTime.bind(Global.timestampfunc());
// wait 5 seconds
p(); // prints CURRENT timestamp, i.e. adds the 5 seconds that passed
p2(); // prints time at which printTime.bind was called
EDIT:
Forgot to mention... I'm using Haxe 3.1.3 and OpenFL 3.0.0 beta, compiling to a Flash target.
After some more tries I reduced the test case to the following and I can confirm that it is a bug in the Flash generator. I reported it here: https://github.com/HaxeFoundation/haxe/issues/4089
class Test {
static function main() {
function printTime(time:Float)
trace("The time is: " + time);
timestamp = timestampfunc();
var t = timestampfunc();
var p1 = printTime.bind(timestamp);
var p2 = printTime.bind(t);
var p3 = printTime.bind(timestampfunc());
p1();
p2();
p3();
haxe.Timer.delay(function() {
t = timestamp = timestampfunc();
p1();
p2();
p3();
}, 1000);
}
public static var timestamp : Float;
static function timestampfunc() return Date.now().getTime();
}
I tried your code and it works as expected for me. The values are set at bind time and do not change even if you delay the calls of p and p2.
Here is the code I tested:
class Test {
static function main() {
function printTime(time:Float):Void {
trace("The time is: " + time);
}
var p = printTime.bind(Test.timestampgetter);
var p2 = printTime.bind(Test.timestampfunc());
p();
p2();
haxe.Timer.delay(function() {
p();
p2();
}, 1000);
}
public static var timestampgetter(get, null) : Float;
static function timestampfunc() return Date.now().getTime();
static function get_timestampgetter() return Date.now().getTime();
}
You can test it yourself here: http://try.haxe.org/#C85Ce
Interesting... the problem seems to stem from using "default" instead of "get" for the getter.
Franco's code works. But this code doesn't:
class Test {
static function main() {
function printTime(time:Float):Void {
trace("The time is: " + time);
}
updateTimestamp();
var p = printTime.bind(Test.timestampgetter);
var p2 = printTime.bind(Test.timestampfunc());
p();
p2();
haxe.Timer.delay(function() {
p();
p2();
}, 1000);
}
static function updateTimestamp():Void {
timestampgetter = Date.now().getTime();
haxe.Timer.delay(updateTimestamp, 1000);
}
public static var timestampgetter(default, null) : Float;
static function timestampfunc() return Date.now().getTime();
static function get_timestampgetter() return Date.now().getTime();
}
I am getting started with Haxe and OpenFl, and have some experience with Javascript and Lua.
It was going pretty well, till I got to a point where I needed a function similar to wait() in Lua, etc, which stops the script until the number of seconds you set is over.
How would I go about doing this?
EDIT: To clarify, I am building to Flash.
Although this is old, I wanted to add another point for reference. The OP mentioned in a comment this was for a game. One method I often use is (and could probably be put in a library):
var timerCount:Float = 0;
var maxTimerCounter:Float = 5;
function update () {
timerCounter += elapsedTime;
if (timerCounter > maxTimerCounter){
onTimerComplete();
timerCount = 0;
}
}
In SYS you are looking for:
static function sleep( seconds : Float ) : Void
Suspend the current execution for the given time (in seconds).
Example: Sys.sleep(.5);
http://haxe.org/api/sys/
Edit: User is porting to flash.
So the suggestion is to use Timer
http://haxe.org/api/haxe/timer
In Timer the suggestion is to use
static function delay( f : Void -> Void, time_ms : Int ) : Timer
Someone on stack overflow has an example that looks like this: haxe.Timer.delay(callback(someFunction,"abc"), 10); located here... Pass arguments to a delayed function with Haxe
For the Flash compile target, the best you can do is use a timer, and something like this setTimeout() function.
This means slicing your function into two - everything before the setTimeout(), and everything after that, which is in a separate function that the timeout can call.
so somethine like, eg:
tooltipTimerId = GlobalTimer.setTimeout(
Tooltip.TOOLTIP_DELAY_MS,
handleTooltipAppear,
tootipParams
);
[...]
class GlobalTimer {
private static var timerList:Array<Timer>;
public static function setTimeout(milliseconds:Int, func:Dynamic, args:Array<Dynamic>=null):Int {
var timer:Timer = new Timer(milliseconds);
var id = addTimer(timer, timerList);
timer.run = function() {
Reflect.callMethod(null, func, args);
clearTimeout(id);
}
return id;
}
private static function addTimer(timer:Timer, arr:Array<Timer>):Int {
for (i in 0...arr.length) {
if (null == arr[i]) {
arr[i] = timer;
return i;
}
}
arr.push(timer);
return arr.length -1;
}
public static function clearTimeout(id:Int) {
var timers:Array<Timer> = GlobalTimer.getInstance().timerList;
try {
timers[id].stop();
timers[id] = null;
} catch(e:Error) {/* Nothing we can do if it fails, really. */}
}
}
JavaScript allows functions to be treated as objects--if you first define a variable as a function, you can subsequently add properties to that function. How do you do the reverse, and add a function to an "object"?
This works:
var foo = function() { return 1; };
foo.baz = "qqqq";
At this point, foo() calls the function, and foo.baz has the value "qqqq".
However, if you do the property assignment part first, how do you subsequently assign a function to the variable?
var bar = { baz: "qqqq" };
What can I do now to arrange for bar.baz to have the value "qqqq" and bar() to call the function?
It's easy to be confused here, but you can't (easily or clearly or as far as I know) do what you want. Hopefully this will help clear things up.
First, every object in Javascript inherits from the Object object.
//these do the same thing
var foo = new Object();
var bar = {};
Second, functions ARE objects in Javascript. Specifically, they're a Function object. The Function object inherits from the Object object. Checkout the Function constructor
var foo = new Function();
var bar = function(){};
function baz(){};
Once you declare a variable to be an "Object" you can't (easily or clearly or as far as I know) convert it to a Function object. You'd need to declare a new Object of type Function (with the function constructor, assigning a variable an anonymous function etc.), and copy over any properties of methods from your old object.
Finally, anticipating a possible question, even once something is declared as a function, you can't (as far as I know) change the functionBody/source.
There doesn't appear to be a standard way to do it, but this works.
WHY however, is the question.
function functionize( obj , func )
{
out = func;
for( i in obj ){ out[i] = obj[i]; } ;
return out;
}
x = { a: 1, b: 2 };
x = functionize( x , function(){ return "hello world"; } );
x() ==> "hello world"
There is simply no other way to acheive this,
doing
x={}
x()
WILL return a "type error". because "x" is an "object" and you can't change it. its about as sensible as trying to do
x = 1
x[50] = 5
print x[50]
it won't work. 1 is an integer. integers don't have array methods. you can't make it.
Object types are functions and an object itself is a function instantiation.
alert([Array, Boolean, Date, Function, Number, Object, RegExp, String].join('\n\n'))
displays (in FireFox):
function Array() {
[native code]
}
function Boolean() {
[native code]
}
function Date() {
[native code]
}
function Function() {
[native code]
}
function Number() {
[native code]
}
function Object() {
[native code]
}
function RegExp() {
[native code]
}
function String() {
[native code]
}
In particular, note a Function object, function Function() { [native code] }, is defined as a recurrence relation (a recursive definition using itself).
Also, note that the answer 124402#124402 is incomplete regarding 1[50]=5. This DOES assign a property to a Number object and IS valid Javascript. Observe,
alert([
[].prop="a",
true.sna="fu",
(new Date()).tar="fu",
function(){}.fu="bar",
123[40]=4,
{}.forty=2,
/(?:)/.forty2="life",
"abc".def="ghi"
].join("\t"))
displays
a fu fu bar 4 2 life ghi
interpreting and executing correctly according to Javascript's "Rules of Engagement".
Of course there is always a wrinkle and manifest by =. An object is often "short-circuited" to its value instead of a full fledged entity when assigned to a variable. This is an issue with Boolean objects and boolean values.
Explicit object identification resolves this issue.
x=new Number(1); x[50]=5; alert(x[50]);
"Overloading" is quite a legitimate Javascript exercise and explicitly endorsed with mechanisms like prototyping though code obfuscation can be a hazard.
Final note:
alert( 123 . x = "not" );
alert( (123). x = "Yes!" ); /* ()'s elevate to full object status */
Use a temporary variable:
var xxx = function()...
then copy all the properties from the original object:
for (var p in bar) { xxx[p] = bar[p]; }
finally reassign the new function with the old properties to the original variable:
bar = xxx;
var A = function(foo) {
var B = function() {
return A.prototype.constructor.apply(B, arguments);
};
B.prototype = A.prototype;
return B;
};
NB: Post written in the style of how I solved the issue. I'm not 100% sure it is usable in the OP's case.
I found this post while looking for a way to convert objects created on the server and delivered to the client by JSON / ajax.
Which effectively left me in the same situation as the OP, an object that I wanted to be convert into a function so as to be able to create instances of it on the client.
In the end I came up with this, which is working (so far at least):
var parentObj = {}
parentObj.createFunc = function (model)
{
// allow it to be instantiated
parentObj[model._type] = function()
{
return (function (model)
{
// jQuery used to clone the model
var that = $.extend(true, null, model);
return that;
})(model);
}
}
Which can then be used like:
var data = { _type: "Example", foo: "bar" };
parentObject.createFunc(data);
var instance = new parentObject.Example();
In my case I actually wanted to have functions associated with the resulting object instances, and also be able to pass in parameters at the time of instantiating it.
So my code was:
var parentObj = {};
// base model contains client only stuff
parentObj.baseModel =
{
parameter1: null,
parameter2: null,
parameterN: null,
func1: function ()
{
return this.parameter2;
},
func2: function (inParams)
{
return this._variable2;
}
}
// create a troop type
parentObj.createModel = function (data)
{
var model = $.extend({}, parentObj.baseModel, data);
// allow it to be instantiated
parentObj[model._type] = function(parameter1, parameter2, parameterN)
{
return (function (model)
{
var that = $.extend(true, null, model);
that.parameter1 = parameter1;
that.parameter2 = parameter2;
that.parameterN = parameterN;
return that;
})(model);
}
}
And was called thus:
// models received from an AJAX call
var models = [
{ _type="Foo", _variable1: "FooVal", _variable2: "FooVal" },
{ _type="Bar", _variable1: "BarVal", _variable2: "BarVal" },
{ _type="FooBar", _variable1: "FooBarVal", _variable2: "FooBarVal" }
];
for(var i = 0; i < models.length; i++)
{
parentObj.createFunc(models[i]);
}
And then they can be used:
var test1 = new parentObj.Foo(1,2,3);
var test2 = new parentObj.Bar("a","b","c");
var test3 = new parentObj.FooBar("x","y","z");
// test1.parameter1 == 1
// test1._variable1 == "FooVal"
// test1.func1() == 2
// test2.parameter2 == "a"
// test2._variable2 == "BarVal"
// test2.func2() == "BarVal"
// etc
Here's easiest way to do this that I've found:
let bar = { baz: "qqqq" };
bar = Object.assign(() => console.log("do something"), bar)
This uses Object.assign to concisely make copies of all the the properties of bar onto a function.
Alternatively you could use some proxy magic.
JavaScript allows functions to be
treated as objects--you can add a
property to a function. How do you do
the reverse, and add a function to an
object?
You appear to be a bit confused. Functions, in JavaScript, are objects. And variables are variable. You wouldn't expect this to work:
var three = 3;
three = 4;
assert(three === 3);
...so why would you expect that assigning a function to your variable would somehow preserve its previous value? Perhaps some annotations will clarify things for you:
// assigns an anonymous function to the variable "foo"
var foo = function() { return 1; };
// assigns a string to the property "baz" on the object
// referenced by "foo" (which, in this case, happens to be a function)
foo.baz = "qqqq";
var bar = {
baz: "qqqq",
runFunc: function() {
return 1;
}
};
alert(bar.baz); // should produce qqqq
alert(bar.runFunc()); // should produce 1
I think you're looking for this.
can also be written like this:
function Bar() {
this.baz = "qqqq";
this.runFunc = function() {
return 1;
}
}
nBar = new Bar();
alert(nBar.baz); // should produce qqqq
alert(nBar.runFunc()); // should produce 1
In haxe documentation of properties, there is the example:
class C {
public var x(get,set) : Int;
function get_x(){ return 123; }
function set_x(value){
doSomethingWith(value);
return 123;
}
}
But why do we have to return a value in setter of x above? is there a good reason?
The reason is, in Haxe, the assignment expression does return a value, eg.
var a;
trace(a = 3.14);//3.14
It is natural since we can chain assignments together:
var test = a = 3.14; //test will be 3.14
For example there is a weird class,
class Weird {
public function new():Void {}
public var x(get, set):Int;
function get_x() return x;
function set_x(v:Int):Int {
x = v;
return 123;
}
}
var weird = new Weird();
trace(weird.x = 456); //123
trace(weird.x); //456
var test = weird.x = 456; //test will be 123
But of course, usually we simply return the input of the setter, because it is more logical:
function set_x(v:Int):Int {
return x = v;
}
Sometimes it's just nice to have a setter function return the previous value, so you can code like this:
oldval=set(newval);
do_something();
set(oldval);
to temporarily set a new value, then restore the old one after you've finished.