Haxe allows child constructor classes to call the parent's constructor using super(), but tying to use super() outside of the constructor method triggers an error. Is it possible for a child to call a parent's method if that method has been overridden?
Hastily written example:
class Parent {
var thing:Bool;
public function someFunc(){
if(this.thing){
return "TRUE!";
} else {
return "FALSE!";
}
}
}
class Child extends Parent {
var thing2:Bool;
public override function someFunc() {
if(this.thing2){
return "TRUE!";
} else {
return someFunc(); //call to parent function?
}
}
}
Yes that is possible with the super keyword.
public override function someFunc() {
if (this.isWorking) {
return true;
} else {
return super.someFunc();
}
}
http://haxe.org/manual/types-class-inheritance.html
super.someFunc() in the Child is what you want.
(super() always means the parent class' constructor, which can only be called from the child's constructor)
Related
I have an app.js with this code:
var addnote = (title,body) => { /* enter code here */ }
module.exports = {addnote};
Can I add another addnotes function with different parameters to that file?
Function overloading in JavaScript does not exist like in other programming languages such as C# and Java.
What you should be looking to do is pass an object as a parameter that has properties attached and filter them out there..
You could call different functions from your little 'mapping function' just implement the logic there if it isn't big (to keep the code clear).
function foo(parameters){
var title = parameters.title;
var body = parameters.body;
if(parameters.extraProperty){
// oh we have extraProperty passed in too, run a different function?
bar(title, body, parameters.extraProperty); // ??
}
}
foo({title: 'Title', body: 'Body', extraProperty: 'This is extra...'});
If this is your own custom module, you can use the concept of function overriding, where each child class can have its own way to handle something and also have a default way to do things.
class Parent {
constructor(name) {
this.name = name;
}
greet() {
console.log(`Hello ${this.name}`);
}
}
class Child1 extends Parent {
constructor(name) {
super(name);
}
greet() {
console.log(`Hey there ${this.name}. This is Child 1`);
}
}
class Child2 extends Parent {
constructor(name) {
super(name);
}
greet() {
console.log(`Hi there ${this.name}. This is Child 2`);
}
}
const o1 = new Child1('Foo')
const o2 = new Child2('Foo')
o1.greet();
o2.greet();
But if you are trying to override a function in an external module(You do not have access to that code, like a library), my suggestion is to create a wrapper and add functionality there.
Assuming that you have a class
class MyClass {
world() {
console.log("hello world");
}
}
I can run the method similar to the following:
var hello = new MyClass();
hello.world();
# outputs: hello world
Is there a way to handle direct function calls on an object? For example:
hello();
Returns: TypeError: hello is not a function.
Can I make this call a default function? For example, similar to PHP's invoke function ...
We can only make something callable in JavaScript if that thing is an object which, at some point, delegates to Function.prototype. Therefore, our class will need to extend Function or extend from a class which extends Function. We also need to be able to access instance variables from our class object (in order to call invoke()), so it needs to be bound to itself. This binding can only happen in the constructor.
Since our class will inherit from Function, we need to call super before being able to use this . However, the Function constructor actually takes a code string, which we won't have, because we want to be able to set invoke later on. So we'll need to extend Function in a different class which will be the parent class to our class and which will do the work of setting the prototype of our dummy function (which we need in order to be able to call the returned object). Bringing all of this together, we get:
class ExtensibleFunction extends Function {
constructor(f) {
// our link to Function is what makes this callable,
// however, we want to be able to access the methods from our class
// so we need to set the prototype to our class's prototype.
return Object.setPrototypeOf(f, new.target.prototype);
}
}
class MyClass extends ExtensibleFunction {
constructor() {
// we build an ExtensibleFunction which accesses
// the late-bound invoke method
super(function() { return this.invoke(); });
return this.bind(this); // and bind our instance
// so we have access to instance values.
}
invoke() {
console.log("Hello, world!");
}
}
x = new MyClass();
x(); //prints "Hello, world!"
I mostly adapted the techniques found in this answer in order to do this.
An interesting aspect of using this technique is that you could name MyClass something like Callable and remove the invoke method - then any class which extends Callable would become callable as long as it had an invoke() method. In fact...
class ExtensibleFunction extends Function {
constructor(f) {
// our link to Function is what makes this callable,
// however, we want to be able to access the methods from our class
// so we need to set the prototype to our class's prototype.
return Object.setPrototypeOf(f, new.target.prototype);
}
}
class Callable extends ExtensibleFunction {
constructor() {
// we build an ExtensibleFunction which accesses
// the late-bound invoke method
super(function() { return this.invoke(); });
return this.bind(this); // and bind our instance
// so we have access to instance values.
}
}
class CallableHello extends Callable {
invoke() {
console.log("Hello, world!");
}
}
class CallableBye extends Callable {
invoke() {
console.log("Goodbye cruel world!");
}
}
x = new CallableHello();
x(); //prints "Hello, world!"
y = new CallableBye();
y(); //prints "Goodbye cruel world!"
(Of course, you could get the same effect by setting properties on function objects, but this is more consistent I guess)
I'm learning TypeScript and have the following class:
class DetailDriver {
public get driver() {
return super.getEntity();
}
public activate(): breeze.Promise {
var id = this.driver.id(); // this refers to (class) DetailDriver
return promise
.then(getCertificate)
.fail(somethingWrong);
function getCertificate() {
var id = this.driver.id(); // this refers to any
return ...
}
}
}
As you can see on the above code, the first call to this refers to my class DetailDriver. That's good. The second call to this (inside getCertificate) refers to any. That's not what I need. I need to refer to my class DetailDriver.
How to proceed?
Thanks.
Well,
According to section 4.9.2 of the TypeScript Language Specification you should use fat arrow syntax to preserve the scoping for this.
return promise
.then(() => return.this.id;)
.fail(somethingWrong);
Then the this keyword is properly determined to be a Driver.
For reference, you could also just do:
class SomeClass {
public someMethod() {
// Do something
}
public anotherMethod() {
var that = this; // Reference the class instance
function someFunction () {
that.someMethod();
}
}
}
You could refactor to something like this:
class DetailDriver {
public get driver() {
return super.getEntity();
}
public activate(): breeze.Promise {
var id = this.driver.id(); // this refers to (class) DetailDriver
return promise
.then(this.getCertificate.bind(this)) // <- important part
.fail(somethingWrong);
}
// new method function here
private getCertificate() {
var id = this.driver.id(); // this refers to any
return ...
}
}
Using the function keyword anywhere in your class will make any reference to this keyword refer to that function rather than the outer class. Generally, you want to avoid defining functions inside of classes, unless you use the "fat arrow" syntax. That would look like this:
class DetailDriver {
public get driver() {
return super.getEntity();
}
public activate(): breeze.Promise {
var id = this.driver.id(); // this refers to (class) DetailDriver
return promise
.then(() => { // <- important part
var id = this.driver.id(); // this refers to any
return ...
})
.fail(somethingWrong);
}
}
I'd like to create a DSL with syntax like:
Graph.make {
foo {
bar()
definedMethod1() // isn't missing!
}
baz()
}
Where when the handler for this tree encounters the outermost closure, it creates an instance of some class, which has some defined methods and also its own handler for missing methods.
I figured this would be easy enough with some structure like:
public class Graph {
def static make(Closure c){
Graph g = new Graph()
c.delegate = g
c()
}
def methodMissing(String name, args){
println "outer " + name
ObjImpl obj = new ObjImpl(type: name)
if(args.length > 0 && args[0] instanceof Closure){
Closure closure = args[0]
closure.delegate = obj
closure()
}
}
class ObjImpl {
String type
def methodMissing(String name, args){
println "inner " + name
}
def definedMethod1(){
println "exec'd known method"
}
}
}
But the methodMissing handler interprets the entire closure inside Graph rather than delegating the inner closure to ObjImpl, yielding output:
outer foo
outer bar
exec'd known method
outer baz
How do I scope the missing method call for the inner closure to the inner object that I create?
The easy answer is to set the inner closure's resolveStrategy to "delegate first", but doing that when the delegate defines a methodMissing to intercept all method calls has the effect of making it impossible to define a method outside the closure and call it from inside, e.g.
def calculateSomething() {
return "something I calculated"
}
Graph.make {
foo {
bar(calculateSomething())
definedMethod1()
}
}
To allow for this sort of pattern it's better to leave all the closures as the default "owner first" resolve strategy, but have the outer methodMissing be aware of when there is an inner closure in progress and hand back down to that:
public class Graph {
def static make(Closure c){
Graph g = new Graph()
c.delegate = g
c()
}
private ObjImpl currentObj = null
def methodMissing(String name, args){
if(currentObj) {
// if we are currently processing an inner ObjImpl closure,
// hand off to that
return currentObj.invokeMethod(name, args)
}
println "outer " + name
if(args.length > 0 && args[0] instanceof Closure){
currentObj = new ObjImpl(type: name)
try {
Closure closure = args[0]
closure()
} finally {
currentObj = null
}
}
}
class ObjImpl {
String type
def methodMissing(String name, args){
println "inner " + name
}
def definedMethod1(){
println "exec'd known method"
}
}
}
With this approach, given the above DSL example, the calculateSomething() call will pass up the chain of owners and reach the method defined in the calling script. The bar(...) and definedMethod1() calls will go up the chain of owners and get a MissingMethodException from the outermost scope, then try the delegate of the outermost closure, ending up in Graph.methodMissing. That will then see that there is a currentObj and pass the method call back down to that, which in turn will end up in ObjImpl.definedMethod1 or ObjImpl.methodMissing as appropriate.
If your DSL can be nested more than two levels deep then you'll need to keep a stack of "current objects" rather than a single reference, but the principle is exactly the same.
An alternative approach might be to make use of groovy.util.BuilderSupport, which is designed for tree building DSLs like yours:
class Graph {
List children
void addChild(ObjImpl child) { ... }
static Graph make(Closure c) {
return new GraphBuilder().build(c)
}
}
class ObjImpl {
List children
void addChild(ObjImpl child) { ... }
String name
void definedMethod1() { ... }
}
class GraphBuilder extends BuilderSupport {
// the various forms of node builder expression, all of which
// can optionally take a closure (which BuilderSupport handles
// for us).
// foo()
public createNode(name) { doCreate(name, [:], null) }
// foo("someValue")
public createNode(name, value) { doCreate(name, [:], value) }
// foo(colour:'red', shape:'circle' [, "someValue"])
public createNode(name, Map attrs, value = null) {
doCreate(name, attrs, value)
}
private doCreate(name, attrs, value) {
if(!current) {
// root is a Graph
return new Graph()
} else {
// all other levels are ObjImpl, but you could change this
// if you need to, conditioning on current.getClass()
def = new ObjImpl(type:name)
current.addChild(newObj)
// possibly do something with attrs ...
return newObj
}
}
/**
* By default BuilderSupport treats all method calls as node
* builder calls. Here we change this so that if the current node
* has a "real" (i.e. not methodMissing) method that matches
* then we call that instead of building a node.
*/
public Object invokeMethod(String name, Object args) {
if(current?.respondsTo(name, args)) {
return current.invokeMethod(name, args)
} else {
return super.invokeMethod(name, args)
}
}
}
The way BuilderSupport works, the builder itself is the closure delegate at all levels of the DSL tree. It calls all its closures with the default "owner first" resolve strategy, which means that you can define a method outside the DSL and call it from inside, e.g.
def calculateSomething() {
return "something I calculated"
}
Graph.make {
foo {
bar(calculateSomething())
definedMethod1()
}
}
but at the same time any calls to methods defined by ObjImpl will be routed to the current object (the foo node in this example).
There are at least two problems with this approach:
Defining ObjImpl within the same context as Graph means that any missingMethod call will hit Graph first
Delegation appears to happen locally unless a resolveStrategy is set, e.g.:
closure.resolveStrategy = Closure.DELEGATE_FIRST
I have a mixin class that bundles functionality for different types that do not share a common heritage. The mixing is applied using the #Mixin annotation, so it is handled at compile time.
Some of the mixin methods return this as the result of a method call. The problem is that the this is of the mixing type and not the type of the base class. When I want to work typed in the rest of the application a ClassCastException is thrown saying that the mixing type can not be cast to the base type.
In the example code below return this returns an object of type AMixin instead of an Object of type BaseClass.
How can I have return this return an object of type BaseClass instead of an object of type AMixin?
class AMixin {
def getWhatIWant(){
if(isWhatIwant){
return this
} else {
getChildWhatIWant()
}
}
def getChildWhatIWant(){
for (def child in childred) {
def whatIWant = child.getWhatIWant()
if (whatIWant) {
return whatIWant
}
}
return null
}
}
#Mixin(AMixin)
class BaseClass {
boolean isWhatiWant
List<baseClass> children
}
I just ran into this same situation. I solved it by setting 'this' from the concrete class into a private variable 'me' inside the concrete class and return 'me' in the Mixin classes. For example:
class MyMixin {
def mixinMethod() {
// do stuff
return me
}
}
#Mixin(MyMixin)
class MyConcreteClass {
private MyConcreteClass me
MyConcreteClass() {
me = this
}
}
I feel like it's a bit kludgy, but I think it's a lot simpler than this other solution. I personally need the ability to use the same Mixin in multiple classes, and it sounds like this other proposed solution would not allow for that if you cannot assign multiple Categories to a single Mixin class.
I created the class Base added the category to the AMixin Class and the BaseClass extends from Base.....(http://groovy.codehaus.org/Category+and+Mixin+transformations)
Executed this in GroovyConsole I get
BaseClass#39c931fb
class Base {
boolean isWhatIwant
List<BaseClass> children
}
#Category(Base)
class AMixin {
def getWhatIWant(){
if(isWhatIwant){
return this
} else {
getChildWhatIWant()
}
}
def getChildWhatIWant(){
for (def child in children) {
def whatIWant = child.getWhatIWant()
if (whatIWant) {
return whatIWant
}
}
return null
}
}
#Mixin(AMixin)
public class BaseClass extends Base {
}
def b = new BaseClass(isWhatIwant:true)
println b.getWhatIWant()
EDIT just a DummyClass. I know it's very awkward that It works....I'm sure Guillaume Laforge could answer how this works...
class DummyClass {
}
#Category(DummyClass)
class AMixin {
def getWhatIWant(){
if(isWhatIwant){
return this
} else {
getChildWhatIWant()
}
}
def getChildWhatIWant(){
for (def child in children) {
def whatIWant = child.getWhatIWant()
if (whatIWant) {
return whatIWant
}
}
return null
}
}
#Mixin(AMixin)
public class BaseClass extends DummyClass {
boolean isWhatIwant
List<BaseClass> children
}
def b = new BaseClass(isWhatIwant:true)
println b.getWhatIWant()