I've got a struct in a file that begins with this line:
// +build windows
Therefore it will only be built on Windows. However, the part of the application that initializes everything needs to check if it is running on Windows and if so, create an instance of the struct. I have no idea how to do this without breaking things on other platforms.
For example, if the file contains a function newWindowsSpecificThing() and I compile on Linux, the function won't exist because it is defined in a file that isn't being compiled. (And, of course, this will produce an error.)
How do I work around this dilemma?
I think your solution would be to have some method on your struct which is used on all platforms. Look at how the dir_*.go files work for the os package. The func (file *File) readdirnames(n int) (names []string, err error) is available on all platforms by providing it in dir_plan9.go, dir_unix.go and dir_windows.go.
For your problem, I'd take the same approach but with some generic method that does internal work. In your application logic you'd call that function and in your file_unix.go file you'd define that function to do nothing (empty body).
Somewhere you clearly have a function that calls newWindowsSpecificThing(). That should be in a Windows-specific file. If it were, then it wouldn't matter that it isn't available. The fact that you have something "check if it is running on Windows" suggests a if runtime.GOOS == "windows" statement somewhere. Rather than have that, move the entire if into a function that is defined in a Windows-specific file. You'll also need to define that function in a !windows file, which is fine.
As an example from my code, I have a function:
func Setup() *config {
var cfg *config
// setup portable parts of cfg
return PlatformSpecificSetup(cfg)
}
I then have a file marked // +build windows that defines PlatformSpecificSetup() one way, and another marked // +build !windows that defines it another. I never have to check runtime.GOOS and I never have to deal with undefined data types. The config struct itself is defined in those files, so it can have different fields for each platform (as long as they agree enough for Setup()). If I were being more careful, I could create a struct like:
type config struct {
// independent stuff
plat *platformConfig
}
And then just define platformConfig in each platform file, but in practice I've found that more trouble than it's worth.
Related
The question is simple, how do we make es6 modules act like the ImportScript function used on the web browser.
Explanation
The main reason is to soften the blow for developers as they change their code from es5 syntax to es6 so that the transition does not blow up your code the moment you make the change and find out there are a thousand errors due to missing inclusions. It also give's people the option to stay as is indefinitely if you don't want to make the full change at all.
Desired output
ImportScript(A file path/'s); can be applied globally(implicitly) across subsequently required code and vise-verse inside a main file to avoid explicit inclusion in all files.
ES6 Inclusion
This still does not ignore the fact that all your libraries will depend on modules format as well. So it is inevitable that we will still have to include the export statement in every file we need to require. However, this should not limit us to the ability to have a main file that interconnects them all without having to explicitly add includes to every file whenever you need a certain functionality.
DISCLAIMER'S
(Numbered):
(Security) I understand there are many reasons that modules exist and going around them is not advisable for security reasons/load times. However I am not sure about the risk (if any) of even using a method like "eval()" to include such scripts if you are only doing it once at the start of an applications life and to a constant value that does not accept external input. The theory is that if an external entity is able to change the initial state of your program as is launched then your system has already been compromised. So as it is I think the whole argument around Globalization vs modules boils down to the project being done(security/speed needed) and preference/risk.
(Not for everyone) This is a utility I am not implying that everyone uses this
(Already published works) I have searched a lot for this functionality but I am not infallible to err. So If a simple usage of this has already been done that follows this specification(or simpler), I'd love to know how/where I can attain such code. Then I will promptly mark that as the answer or just remove this thread entirely
Example Code
ES5 Way
const fs = require('fs');
let path = require('path');
/* only accepts the scripts with global variables and functions and
does not work with classes unless declared as a var.
*/
function include(f) {
eval.apply(global, [fs.readFileSync(f).toString()])
}
Main file Concept example:
ImportScript("filePath1");loaded first
ImportScript("filePath2");loaded second
ImportScript("filePath3");loaded third
ImportScript("filePath4");loaded fourth
ImportScript("filePath5");loaded fifth
ImportScript("someExternalDependency");sixth
/* where "functionNameFromFile4" is a function defined in
file4 , and "variableFromFile2" is a global dynamic
variable that may change over the lifetime of the
application.
*/
functionNameFromFile4(variableFromFile2);
/* current context has access to previous scripts contexts
and those scripts recognize the current global context as
well in short: All scripts should be able to access
variables and functions from other scripts implicitly
through this , even if they are added after the fact
*/
Typical exported file example (Covers all methods of export via modules):
/*where "varFromFile1" is a dynamic variable created in file1
that may change over the lifetime of the application and "var" is a
variable of type(varFromFile4) being concatenated/added together
with "varFromFile4".
*/
functionNameFromFile4(var){
return var+varFromFile1;
}
//Typical export statement
exportAllHere;
/*
This is just an example and does not cover all usage cases , just
an example of the possible functionality
*/
CONCLUSION
So you still need to export the files as required by the es6 standard , however you only need to import them once in a main file to globalize their functionality across all scripts.
I'm not personally a fan of globalizing all the exports from a module, but here's a little snippet that shows you how one ESM module's exports can be all assigned to the global object:
Suppose you had a simple module called operators.js:
export function add(a, b) {
return a + b;
}
export function subtract(a, b) {
return a - b;
}
You can import that module and then assign all of its exported properties to the global object with this:
import * as m from "./operators.js"
for (const [prop, value] of Object.entries(m)) {
global[prop] = value;
}
// can now access the exports globally
add(1, 2);
FYI, I think the syntax:
include("filePath1")
is going to be tough in ESM modules because dynamic imports in an ESM module using import (which is presumably what you would have to use to implement the include() function you show) are asynchronous (they return a promise), not synchronous like require().
I wonder if a bundler or a transpiler would be an option?
There is experimental work in nodejs related to custom loaders here: https://nodejs.org/api/esm.html#hooks.
If you can handle your include() function returning a promise, here's how you put the above code into that function:
async function include(moduleName) {
const m = await import(moduleName);
for (const [prop, value] of Object.entries(m)) {
global[prop] = value;
}
return m;
}
I'm trying to import a COM interface into VC++. The COM object is from a application called IDEA, but as that is not very easy to get a hold of for others to help me. So I figure that if someone could give me instructions as to how I would do this for Word, it would be equivalent.
IDEA does have a .tlb file, but it would appear that it is incomplete. I can access the COM API using python with an example being something like this:
if __name__ == "__main__":
dbName = "Sample-Employees.IMD"
idea = win32ComClient.Dispatch(dispatch="Idea.IdeaClient")
db = idea.OpenDatabase(dbName) # open db
table_def = db.TableDef() # get table definition
Using the .tbl file, I can get as far as this:
#import "D:\Program Files (x86)\CaseWare IDEA\IDEA\Idea.tlb"
#include "x64\Debug\idea.tlh"
#include "x64\Debug\idea.tli"
void fn()
{
Idea::IIdeaClientPtr client;
auto db = client->OpenDatabase("Sample-Employees.IMD");
db-> // interface not defined
}
Intellisense will complete after the db-> with the following: AddRef, GetIdOfNames, GetTypeInfo, GetTypeInfoCount, Invoke, QueryInterface and Release. Thus, what I mean by an incomplete interface definition.
Now, since the python example states Idea.IdeaClient, and I've seen this with word as well (i.e. word.application), I was thinking that it might be possible to use that. Looking around though, I can't seem to find reference to that using #import. I have seen it being used with CLSIDFromProgID, but that is very manual mechanism. COM SMARTPTRs would be far more preferable.
Is this even possible to do with VC++?
Maybe OpenDatabase returns IDispatch, but interface containing TableDef is still defined in TLB.
In this case you'll need to downcast IDispatch to I-something-containing-TableDef-method.
Use QueryInterface call to get derived interface from IDispatch, not C or C++ casts, such as static_cast.
Otherwise, you'll need to use IDispatch::Invoke. The best help you have is CComPtr<IDispatch> from ATL, this template specialization have Invoke helpers, so that you can do something like this:
CComPtr<IDispatch> p;
p = db;
CComVairant result;
p.Invoke("TableDef", &result);
Or use IDispatch::Invoke as is.
Python aways relies on IDispatch::Invoke and does not use static interfaces, that's why it does not encounter this problem.
In compiling languages like C we have a preprocessor that can be used to skip parts of program without compiling them, effectively just excluding them from the source code:
#ifdef SHOULD_RUN_THIS
/* this code not always runs */
#endif
So that if SHOULD_RUN_THIS is not defined, then the code will never be run.
In node.js we don't have a direct equivalent of this, so the first thing I can imagine is
if (config.SHOULD_RUN_THIS) {
/* this code not always runs */
}
However in node there is no way to guarantee that config.SHOULD_RUN_THIS will never change, so if (...) check will be performed each time in vain.
What would be the most performant way to rewrite it? I can think of
a) create a separate function to allow v8-optimizations:
function f(args) {
if (config.SHOULD_RUN_THIS) {
/* this code not always runs */
}
}
// ...
f(args);
b) create a variable to store the function and set it to an empty function when not needed:
var f;
if (config.SHOULD_RUN_THIS) {
f = (args) => {
/* this code not always runs */
}
}
else {
f = function () {} // does nothing
}
// ...
f(args);
c) do not create a separate function, just leave it in place:
if (config.SHOULD_RUN_THIS) {
/* this code not always runs */
}
What is the most performant way? Maybe some other way...
i personally would adopt ...
if (config.SHOULD_RUN_THIS) {
require('/path/for/conditional/module');
}
the module code is only required where needed, otherwise it is not even loaded in memory let alone executed.
the only downside is that it is not readily clear which modules are being required since your require statements are not all positioned at the top of the file.
es6 modularity adopts this dynamic module request approach.
PS use of config like this is great since, you can for example, use an environment variable to determine your code path. Great when spinning up, for example, a bunch of docker containers that you want to behave differently depending on the env vars passed to the docker run statements.
apologies for this insight if you are not a docker fan :) apologies i am waffling now!
if you're looking for a preprocessor for your Javascript, why not use a preprocessor for your Javascript? It's node-compatible and appears to do what you need. You could also look into writing a plugin for Babel or some other JS mangling tool (or v8 itself!)
If you're looking for a way to do this inside the language itself, I'd avoid any optimizations which target a single engine like v8 unless you're sure that's the only place your code will ever run. Otherwise, as has been mentioned, try breaking out conditional code into a separate module so it's only loaded if necessary for it to run.
I decided to start a new project to get into hacklang, and after fixing some if the problems I initially ran into transitioning from php habits, I ran into the following errors:
Unbound name: str_replace
Unbound name: empty
Doing some research I found that this is due to using 'legacy' php which isn't typechecked, and will error with //strict.
That's fine and all, empty() was easy enough to replace, however str_replace() is a bit more difficult.
Is there an equivalent function that will work with //strict? Or at least something similar.
I'm aware that I could use //decl but I feel like that defeats the purpose in my case.
Is there at least any way to tell which functions are implemented in hack and which are not in the documentation as I couldn't find one?
For reference (though it isn't too relevant to the question itself), here is the code:
<?hh //strict
class HackMarkdown {
public function parse(string $content) : string {
if($content===null){
throw new RuntimeException('Empty Content');
}
$prepared = $this->prepare($content);
}
private function prepare(string $contentpre) : Vector<string>{
$contentpre = str_replace(array("\r\n","\r"),"\n",$contentpre);
//probably need more in here
$prepared = Vector::fromArray(explode($contentpre,"\n"));
//and here
return $prepared;
}
}
You don't need to change your code at all. You just need to tell the Hack tools about all the inbuilt PHP functions.
The easiest way to do this is to download this folder and put it somewhere in your project. I put it in a hhi folder in the base of my project. The files in there tell Hack about all the inbuilt PHP functions.
Most of them don't have type hints, which can lead to Hack thinking the return type of everything is mixed instead of the actual return, that is actually correct in most cases as, for example, str_replace can return either a string or a bool. However, it does stop the "unbound name" errors, which is the main reason for adding them.
I've recently started working on a non-trivial project in CoffeeScript and I'm struggling with how best to deal with registering exports etc. I'm writing it in a very 'pythonesque' manner, with individual files effectively being 'modules' of related classes and functions. What I'm looking for is the best way to define classes and functions locally AND in exports/window with as little repetition as possible.
At the moment, I'm using the following in every file, to save writing exports.X = X for everything in the file:
class module
# All classes/functions to be included in exports should be defined with `#`
# E.g.
class #DatClass
exports[name] = item for own name, item of module
I've also looked at the possibility of using a function (say, publish) that puts the passed class in exports/window depending on its name:
publish = (f) ->
throw new Error 'publish only works with named functions' unless f.name?
((exports ? window).namespace ?= {})[f.name] = f
publish class A
# A is now available in the local scope and in `exports.namespace`
# or `window.namespace`
This, however, does not work with functions as, as far as I know, they cannot be 'named' in CoffeeScript (e.g. f.name is always '') and so publish cannot determine the correct name.
Is there any method that works like publish but works with functions? Or any alternative ways of handling this?
It's an ugly hack but you can use the following :
class module.exports
class #foo
#bar = 3
And then :
require(...).foo.bar // 3
The old
(function (exports) {
// my code
exports.someLib = ...
})(typeof exports === "undefined" ? window : exports);
Is a neat trick that should do what you want.
If writing that wrapper boilerplate is a pain then automate it with a build script.
What I'm looking for is the best way to define classes and functions locally AND in exports/window with as little repetition as possible.
It's impossible to do something like
exports.x = var x = ...;
without writing x twice in JavaScript (without resorting to black magicks, i.e. eval), and the same goes for CoffeeScript. Bummer, I know, but that's how it is.
My advice would be to not get too hung up on it; that kind of repetition is common. But do ask yourself: "Do I really need to export this function or variable and make it locally available?" Cleanly decoupled code doesn't usually work that way.
There's an exception to the "no named functions" rule: classes. This works: http://jsfiddle.net/PxBgn/
exported = (clas) ->
console.log clas.name
window[clas.name] = clas
...
exported class Snake extends Animal
move: ->
alert "Slithering..."
super 5