I am trying to check whether two rects overlap, one of which comes from getBoundingClientRect, the other I am trying to construct from a mouse position.
I've already discovered that ClientRect is deprecated. Haxe now has a class called DOMRect, but when I try to instantiate it, I get a "cannot be called" warning. I am using haxe 3.2
In the haxe source it seems that the constructor for this class returns void, which doesn't make a lot of sense. The name is also pretty dumb, because I might be making rects which have no relation to the DOM.
Is it not possible to instantiate this thing? If so, what is the point of it?
Do I have to make an anonymous 'rect' or use a map of floats instead?
Related
I have a library of domain objects which need to be used in the project, however we've found a couple of the classes haven't got an equals or hashCode method implemented.
I'm looking for the simplest (and Grooviest) way to add those methods. Obviously I could create a subclass which only adds the methods, but this would be confusing for developers used to the library and would mean we'd have to refactor existing code.
It is not possible to get the source changed (currently).
If I could edit the class I would just use the #EqualsAndHashCode annotation to carry out an AST transformation (at compile time?), but I can't find a way to instruct the compiler to carry out the transformation on a class which I can't directly annotate.
I'm currently trying to work up an example using the ExpandoMetaClass, so I'd do something like:
MySuperClass.metaClass.hashCode = { ->
// Add dynamic hashCode calculation bits here
}
MySuperClass.metaClass.equals = { ->
// Add dynamic hashCode calculation bits here
}
I don't really want to hand-code the hashCode/equals methods for each class, so I'm looking for something dyamic (like #EqualsAndHashCode) which will work with this.
Am I on the right track? Is there a groovier way?
AST Transforms are only applied at compile time, so you'll get no help from the likes of #EqualsAndHashCode. MetaClass hacks are going to be your only option. That said, there are more-elegant ways to impose MetaClass behavior.
Shameless Self Plug I did a talk about this kind of stuff last year at SpringOne 2GX: http://www.infoq.com/presentations/groovy-app-architecture
In short, you might find benefit in creating extensions (unless you're in Grails) - http://mrhaki.blogspot.com/2013/01/groovy-goodness-adding-extra-methods.html, or by explicitly adding mixins - http://groovy.codehaus.org/Runtime+mixins ... But in general, these are just cleaner ways to do the exact same thing you're already doing.
I am wondering if there is a way to ignore certain TypeScript errors upon compilation?
I basically have the same issues most people with large projects have around using the this keyword, and I don't want to put all my classes methods into the constructor.
So I have got an example like so:
TypeScript Example
Which seems to create perfectly valid JS and allows me to get around the this keyword issue, however as you can see in the example the typescript compiler tells me that I cannot compile that code as the keyword this is not valid within that scope. However I don't see why it is an error as it produces okay code.
So is there a way to tell it to ignore certain errors? I am sure given time there will be a nice way to manage the this keyword, but currently I find it pretty dire.
== Edit ==
(Do not read unless you care about context of this question and partial rant)
Just to add some context to all this to show that I'm not just some nut-job (I am sure a lot of you will still think I am) and that I have some good reasons why I want to be able to allow these errors to go through.
Here are some previous questions I have made which highlight some major problems (imo) with TypeScript current this implementation.
Using lawnchair with Typescript
Issue with child scoping of this in Typescript
https://typescript.codeplex.com/discussions/429350 (And some comments I make down the bottom)
The underlying problem I have is that I need to guarantee that all logic is within a consistent scope, I need to be able to access things within knockout, jQuery etc and the local instance of a class. I used to do this with the var self = this; within the class declaration in JavaScript and worked great. As mentioned in some of these previous questions I cannot do that now, so the only way I can guarantee the scope is to use lambda methods, and the only way I can define one of these as a method within a class is within the constructor, and this part is HEAVILY down to personal preference, but I find it horrific that people seem to think that using that syntax is classed as a recommended pattern and not just a work around.
I know TypeScript is in alpha phase and a lot will change, and I HOPE so much that we get some nicer way to deal with this but currently I either make everything a huge mess just to get typescript working (and this is within Hundreds of files which I'm migrating over to TypeScript ) or I just make the call that I know better than the compiler in this case (VERY DANGEROUS I KNOW) so I can keep my code nice and hopefully when a better pattern comes out for handling this I can migrate it then.
Also just on a side note I know a lot of people are loving the fact that TypeScript is embracing and trying to stay as close to the new JavaScript features and known syntax as possible which is great, but typescript is NOT the next version of JavaScript so I don't see a problem with adding some syntactic sugar to the language as people who want to use the latest and greatest official JavaScript implementation can still do so.
The author's specific issue with this seems to be solved but the question is posed about ignoring errors, and for those who end up here looking how to ignore errors:
If properly fixing the error or using more decent workarounds like already suggested here are not an option, as of TypeScript 2.6 (released on Oct 31, 2017), now there is a way to ignore all errors from a specific line using // #ts-ignore comments before the target line.
The mendtioned documentation is succinct enough, but to recap:
// #ts-ignore
const s : string = false
disables error reporting for this line.
However, this should only be used as a last resort when fixing the error or using hacks like (x as any) is much more trouble than losing all type checking for a line.
As for specifying certain errors, the current (mid-2018) state is discussed here, in Design Meeting Notes (2/16/2018) and further comments, which is basically
"no conclusion yet"
and strong opposition to introducing this fine tuning.
I think your question as posed is an XY problem. What you're going for is how can I ensure that some of my class methods are guaranteed to have a correct this context?
For that problem, I would propose this solution:
class LambdaMethods {
constructor(private message: string) {
this.DoSomething = this.DoSomething.bind(this);
}
public DoSomething() {
alert(this.message);
}
}
This has several benefits.
First, you're being explicit about what's going on. Most programmers are probably not going to understand the subtle semantics about what the difference between the member and method syntax are in terms of codegen.
Second, it makes it very clear, from looking at the constructor, which methods are going to have a guaranteed this context. Critically, from a performance, perspective, you don't want to write all your methods this way, just the ones that absolutely need it.
Finally, it preserves the OOP semantics of the class. You'll actually be able to use super.DoSomething from a derived class implementation of DoSomething.
I'm sure you're aware of the standard form of defining a function without the arrow notation. There's another TypeScript expression that generates the exact same code but without the compile error:
class LambdaMethods {
private message: string;
public DoSomething: () => void;
constructor(message: string) {
this.message = message;
this.DoSomething = () => { alert(this.message); };
}
}
So why is this legal and the other one isn't? Well according to the spec: an arrow function expression preserves the this of its enclosing context. So it preserves the meaning of this from the scope it was declared. But declaring a function at the class level this doesn't actually have a meaning.
Here's an example that's wrong for the exact same reason that might be more clear:
class LambdaMethods {
private message: string;
constructor(message: string) {
this.message = message;
}
var a = this.message; // can't do this
}
The way that initializer works by being combined with the constructor is an implementation detail that can't be relied upon. It could change.
I am sure given time there will be a nice way to manage the this keyword, but currently I find it pretty dire.
One of the high-level goals (that I love) in TypeScript is to extend the JavaScript language and work with it, not fight it. How this operates is tricky but worth learning.
Using core data I'd like to fetch some data. My model uses some abstract entities, see attached picture, where QuantifiedIngredient is an abstract class.
I'd like to fetch Ingredient entities that have at least one RecipeQuantifiedIngredients, but in the middle is QuantifiedIngredient, which is an abstract class.
How can I do that, how can I test the actual type of an abstract class inside a NSPredicate? Any idea or suggestion?
The only clue I found was:
How can you reference child entity name in a predicate for a fetch request of the parent entity?
Would work a custom property in my QuantifiedIngredient to know if it is a RecipeQuantifiedIngredient? For instance isRecipeQuantifiedIngredient?
Thanks a lot for your help.
If recipe is required in RecipeQuantifiedIngredient, you could try to make a fetch, that checks, if there is any ingredient.recipe. I think, that will work.
The custom property, in kind of flag, will work for you too. You'll just need to set and unset it whenever you add or delete all the recipeQuantifiedIngredient.
I don't want to take the time to translate this into CoreData-speak so here is my thought in SQL:
SELECT * FROM quantifiedIngredients WHERE recipe <> NULL
or something like that. This is essentially Nikita's suggestion of using a flag, except that the 'flag' is the existence of a property. I don't know how CoreData will react when faced with GroceryQuantifiedIngredients that don't have the recipe, I think KVO will throw an exception. You might be so bold as to add a category:
#interface GroceryQuantifiedIngredients (KVOHack)
-(id)recipe;
#end
#implementation GroceryQuantifiedIngredients (KVOHack)
-(id) recipe { return nil; }
#end
This would of course require CoreData to enumerate all quantifiedIngredients, but I presume it will have to do so anyway, and a the return nil should optimize into tiny code. The other consideration is whether this will have a bad effect on the rest of your code; you will have to make that call.
Another idea which pops to mind as I finish this up is to do something like this (I'm getting really loose with my pseudo-code now):
SELECT * FROM quantifiedIngredients WHERE [i respondsToSelector:#selector(recipe)];
See what I mean? I forget whether CoreData lets you play with some kind of cursor when working with predicates or fetchedThingamabobbers, if it does than I think this is your best bet. Anyway it's Sunday afternoon so that stuff is left as a exercise for the reader.
+1 for a good question.
I have a question that keeps bothering me. Currently, I have started using Kohana 3.2 Framework. I've written a helper to handle some functionality - I have a number of methods, which are (as it should be) declared STATIC. But, all of these methods are somehow working with the database, so I need to load a model. Currently, every method has a non-static variable like this:
$comment = new Model_Comments;
$comment->addComment("abc");
OK, it seems to be working, but then I wanted to get rid of this redundancy by using class attribute to hold the instance of the model (with is class as well).
Something like this:
private static $comment; // Declaring attribute
self::$comment = new Model_Comment; // This is done within helper __constuct method
self::$comment->addComment("abc"); // And call it within the method.
But, I got failed with: Call to a member function addComment() on a non-object
Question is: is it possible to do it ? Maybe there are some other approaches ?
Sorry for a long story and, thanks in advice! :P
A static method cannot call a non-static method without operating on an instance of the class. So, what you're proposing won't work. There may be a way do accomplish something similar, but what about trying the following:
You could implement the singleton or factory pattern for your "helper" class. Then, you could create the model (as an attribute) as you instantiate/return the instance. With an actual instance of your "helper" class, you won't have to worry about the static scope issues.
In other words, you can create a helper-like class as a "normal" class in your application that, upon creation, always has the necessary model available.
I'd be happy to help further if this approach makes sense.
David
I am wondering why the following does not work in GNU Smalltalk:
Object subclass: Foo [ ] new printNl
I was expecting a printout of something like "a Foo", but instead gst prints "nil". Doesn't this seem a bit odd?
Object subclass: Foo [] is not “usual” Smalltalk syntax, it's a recent addition designed to make it practical to code in files. Prior to that there was no dedicated syntax to declare class, since they would be created by a command in the image. Interpreting this code as you expected would be wrong for a couple reasons:
First, if subclass: was a real message sent to Object, then Foo should resolve to something, which is not possible since it is just being declared. However, behind the scenes, the compiler does something similar Object subclass: #Foo where #Foo is a symbol for the name of a new class to be created. It would be possible to write all code like that, except then you could not use class names directly (since they don't exist yet when the code is read). You would have to do (Smalltalk at: #Foo) new printNl all over the place. So the whole form Object subclass: Foo [ ] is pure syntax that just declares that this class should be created, and does not mean that at this moment a message should be sent to Object, etc
Second, you don't want to create classes in the middle of an algorithm and send them messages immediately, that would be pretty ugly as a development practice. Note that classes have to be registered in the system so that the browser can display them, that the compiler can automatically recompile dependancies, that the version control can record them, etc. Also, what if your code accidentally runs this twice? Should you get a second class Foo and forget about the previous one? So, typically, only the compiler, browser, and other meta-programming tools create new classes, and only at the programmer's request.
This is interpreted as two statements. The first is
Object subclass: Foo [ ]
and the second is
new printNl
where the new variable is undefined so it is nil.