I would like to know if that's possible to cast a Dynamic to an other class (partially or totally)
For example, this code breaks :
class Test {
public function new() {}
public var id: String;
}
class Main {
public static function main() {
var x:Dynamic = JsonParser.parse("{\"id\":\"sdfkjsdflk\"}");
var t:Test = cast(x, Test);
}
}
with the following message
Class cast error
However, my "Test" class has an "id" field like the dynamic object. (That's an example, my use case is more complexe than that ^^)
So, I don't understand how to get an object from my Dynamic one.
This isn't exactly casting a dynamic to a class instance but may accomplish the same thing:
create an empty instance of the class with Type.createEmptyInstance
set all of the fields from the Dynamic object on the new class instance using Reflect
Example:
import haxe.Json;
class Test {
public function new() {}
public var id: String;
}
class Main {
public static function main() {
var x:Dynamic = Json.parse("{\"id\":\"sdfkjsdflk\"}");
var t:Test = Type.createEmptyInstance(Test);
for (field in Type.getInstanceFields(Test))
if (Reflect.hasField(x, field))
Reflect.setProperty(t, field, Reflect.getProperty(x, field));
trace(t.id);
}
}
You could use typedef
typedef Test = {
public var id: String;
}
class Main {
public static function main() {
var t:Test = JsonParser.parse("{\"id\":\"sdfkjsdflk\"}");
}
}
Json.parse returns anonymous structure(implementation platform dependent), typed as Dynamic. There isn't a single chance to cast it to anything but Dynamic, unless Json.parse returns Int, Float or String, which some parsers permit, but which isn't actually permitted by JSON specification.
That is this way because, the operation of casting doesn't check what fields some object have. Operation of casting only checks if the object is an instance of class you are casting to. Obviously, anonymous structure can't be an instance of any class(inside haxe abstractions at least).
However, the right way to perform the thing you seem to be trying to perform is the way stated by #Ben Morris, in his answer.
Related
I can't seem to get this working, but I'd be surprised if it wasn't possible in Haxe.
I'm trying to pass a couple of Enum values defined in my game to a function, so that it can then concatenate them as String types and pass that to other functions.
Example:
// In a general Entity class:
public override function kill():Void {
messages.dispatchCombined(entityType, ListMessages.KILLED);
super.kill();
}
And in my Messages.hx class:
package common;
import msignal.Signal.Signal1;
/**
* A Message / Event class using Signals bound to String names.
* #author Pierre Chamberlain
*/
class Messages{
var _messages:MessagesDef;
public function new() {
_messages = new MessagesDef();
}
public function add(pType:String, pCallback:FuncDef) {
if (_messages[pType] == null) {
_messages[pType] = new Signal1<Dynamic>();
}
var signals = _messages[pType];
signals.add( pCallback );
}
public function dispatch(pType:String, pArg:Dynamic):Bool {
var signals = _messages[pType];
if (signals == null) return false;
signals.dispatch(pArg);
return true;
}
//Compiler doesn't like passing enums :(
public inline function addCombined(pSource:Enum, pEvent:Enum, pCallback:FuncDef) {
add( combine(pSource, pEvent), pCallback );
}
public inline function dispatchCombined(pSource:Enum, pEvent:Enum, pArg:Dynamic):Bool {
return dispatch( combine(pSource, pEvent), pArg);
}
//How can I just pass the enum "names" as strings?
static inline function combine(a:Enum, b:Enum):String {
return String(a) + ":" + String(b);
}
}
typedef MessagesDef = Map<String, Signal1<Dynamic>>;
typedef FuncDef = Dynamic->Void;
Note how addCombined, dispatchCombined and combine expect an "Enum" type, but in this case I'm not sure if Haxe actually expects the entire Enum "class" to be passed (ie: ListMessages instead of ListMessages.KILLED) or if a value should work. Anyways, compiler doesn't like it - so I'm assuming another special Type has to be used.
Is there another way to go about passing enums and resolving them to strings?
I think you need EnumValue as parameter type (if it is only for enum values), and use Std.String to convert to String values.
static inline function combine(a:EnumValue, b:EnumValue):String {
return Std.string(a) + ":" + Std.string(b);
}
Of course that can be written smaller using String interpolation:
static inline function combine(a:EnumValue, b:EnumValue):String {
return '$a:$b';
}
Of course that can be 'more dynamic' using type parameters:
static inline function combine<A, B>(a:A, b:B):String {
return '$a:$b';
}
There is totally no need to use Dynamic as suggested. If you use Dynamic, you basically turn off the type system.
live example:
http://try.haxe.org/#a8844
Use Dynamic instead of Enum or pass them as Strings right away since you can always convert to enum from String if you need it later.
Anyway pass the enum as enum:Dynamic and then call Std.string(enum);
EDIT: Using EnumValue is definitely better approach than Dynamic, I use Dynamic in these functions because I send more than just Enums there and I am not worried about type safety in that case.
Basically, I want to override a parent class with different arguments. For example:
class Hold<T> {
public var value:T;
public function new(value:T) {
set(value);
}
public function set(value:T) {
this.value = value;
}
}
Then override that class, something like:
class HoldMore extends Hold<T> {
public var value2:T;
public function new(value:T, value2:T) {
super(value);
set(value, value2);
}
override public function set(value:T, value2:T) {
this.value = value;
this.value2 = value2;
}
}
Obviously this will return an error, Field set overloads parent class with different or incomplete type. Is there a way around this? I tried using a public dynamic function, and then setting set in the new() function, but that gave a very similar error. Any thoughts?
This is just a complement to #stroncium's answer, which is totally correct.
Here is an example how it could look like:
class Hold<T> {
public var value:T;
public function new(value:T) {
set(value);
}
public function set(value:T) {
this.value = value;
}
}
class HoldMore<T> extends Hold<T> {
public var value2:T;
public function new(value:T, value2:T) {
super(value);
setBoth(value, value2);
}
// you cannot override "set" with a different signature
public function setBoth(value:T, value2:T) {
this.value = value;
this.value2 = value2;
}
}
alternatively, you could use an array as parameter or a dynamic object holding multiple values in order to "set" them using the same method, but you loose some of the compiler's type checking.
If you wrote the base class you could add an optional argument to it, this would be a workaround though, not directly what you want to do.
In the current state it totally won't work. There is not only 1 problem, but few of them:
Type T is meaningless in context of this new class, you should either use some concrete type or template this class over T.
You can not change the number of arguments of function when overriding it. However you can add another function(with a different name) to accept 2 arguments and do what you want (which is the way you would use in most languages, by the way).
I don't really understand how you see a contravariance problem there. The actual problem is that haxe doesn't support function overload. (It actually does, the function signature is name + full type, but that's not what you would want to write nor support, and is mostly used for js/java externs.)
Unfortunately the language doesn't allow it.
I came across a lot of code in our company codebase with the following structure
class Base
{
public Base (var a, var b)
{
base_a = a;
base_b = b;
}
var base_a;
var base_b;
}
class Derived:Base
{
publc Derived (var a,b,c,d): base (a,d)
{
der_c = c;
der_d = d;
}
var der_c;
var der_d;
var der_e;
}
class Ref
{
Base _ref;
public Ref( var a,b,c,d)
{
_ref = new Derived (a,b,c,d)
}
public void method( )
{
_ref.der_e = 444; // won't compile
}
}
What is the correct way to initialize der_e ? What is the advantages of having a reference of base class and using an object derived class for _ref ? Just the fact that using a base class reference can hold multiple derived class objects ? If that's the case, should all the member variables of derived class be initialized during construction itself (like this: _ref = new Derived (a,b,c,d) ). What if I want to initialize _ref.der_e later in a method ? I know I can do this (var cast_ref = _ref as Derived; cast_ref.der_e = 444) but this look doesn't seem to the best practice. What is the idea of having such a structure and what is the correct of initializing a member of a derived class object after it has been constructed ?
Those are too many questions in a single post.
What is the correct way to initialize der_e ?
For initializing der_e you will have to have Reference of Derived class as it knows about the der_e property and not Base class.
What is the advantages of having a reference of base class and using
an object derived class for _ref ?
Yes that's called Polymorphism which is the essence of Object Oriented Programming. It allows us to hold various concrete implementations without knowing about the actual implementation.
If that's the case, should all the member variables of derived class
be initialized during construction itself (like this: _ref = new
Derived (a,b,c,d) )
There is no such rule. It depends on your scenario. If the values are not meant to be changed after the creation of the object and the values are known before hand during construction of the object then they should be initialized during construction.
Again if there are various scenarios like sometimes values are known and sometimes not then there can be Overloaded Constructors, which take different arguments.
What if I want to initialize _ref.der_e later in a method ?
That is perfectly fine, it depends on what you are trying to achieve. The question is not a concrete one but an abstract one in which it is difficult to comment on what you are trying to achieve.
I know I can do this (var cast_ref = _ref as Derived; cast_ref.der_e =
444) but this look doesn't seem to the best practice.
I am sharing some Java code which is similar to C# as I am from Java background
//This class knows about Base and nothing about the Derived class
class UserOfBase{
Base ref;
//Constructor of UserOfBase gets passed an instance of Base
public UserOfBase(Base bInstance){
this.ref = bInstance;
}
//Now this class should not cast it into Derived class as that would not be a polymorphic behavior. In that case you have got your design wrong.
public void someMethod(){
Derived derivedRef = (Derived)ref; //This should not happen here
}
}
I am sharing some references which would help you with this, as I think the answer can be very long to explain.
Factory Pattern
Dependency Injection
Head First Design Patterns
Posts on SO regarding polymorphism
You can create a constructor in your derived class and map the objects or create an extension method like this:
public static class Extensions
{
public static void FillPropertiesFromBaseClass<T1, T2>(this T2 drivedClass, T1 baseClass) where T2 : T1
{
//Get the list of properties available in base class
System.Reflection.PropertyInfo[] properties = typeof(T1).GetProperties();
properties.ToList().ForEach(property =>
{
//Check whether that property is present in derived class
System.Reflection.PropertyInfo isPresent = drivedClass.GetType().GetProperty(property.Name);
if (isPresent != null && property.CanWrite)
{
//If present get the value and map it
object value = baseClass.GetType().GetProperty(property.Name).GetValue(baseClass, null);
drivedClass.GetType().GetProperty(property.Name).SetValue(drivedClass, value, null);
}
});
}
}
for example when you have to class like this:
public class Fruit {
public float Sugar { get; set; }
public int Size { get; set; }
}
public class Apple : Fruit {
public int NumberOfWorms { get; set; }
}
you can initialize derived class by this code:
//constructor
public Apple(Fruit fruit)
{
this.FillPropertiesFromBaseClass(fruit);
}
I've a base presenter class:
public abstract class PresenterBase<T> where T : IView
{
//Some code
}
A concrete presenter class that implements this base:
public class RegistrationPresenter : PresenterBase<IRegistration>
{
//Some Code
}
A concrete presenter factory to return the instance of presenter which depends on a specific interface contract:
public class ProductPresenterFactory : PresenterFactoryBase
{
// Some code
public override PresenterBase<IView> GetPresenter(IView view, string name = "")
{
if (view == null && string.IsNullOrEmpty(name))
throw new ArgumentNullException();
return presenter;
}
}
I need to implement the GetPresenter method. The user will put the interface contract, for example of type IRegistration in the above case. This method should figure out the class that implements PresenterBase<IRegistration> and return an instance.
I did not write this with a compiler; I might have made a few mistakes.
You'll first need to get the type of the presenterbase, then we'll scour the assemble for the implementation, then call it's constructor. I'll make some assumptions as written in the code.
var genericType = typeof (PresenterBase<>).MakeGenericType(new[] { view.GetType() });
var allTypes = GetType().Assembly.GetTypes(); // I assume the class is in the same assembly.
var typeToImplement = allTypes.Single(t => t.IsSubclassOf(genericType)); // I assume there is only one implementation for the given type
var constructorToCall = typeToImplement.GetConstructors().First(); // I assume there is one constructor
var presenter = constructorToCall.Invoke(new object[0]); // I assume there is no parameter
Suppose I have a List<IMyInterface>...
I have three classes which implement IMyInterface: MyClass1, MyClass2, and MyClass3
I have a readonly Dictionary:
private static readonly Dictionary<Type, Type> DeclarationTypes = new Dictionary<Type, Type>
{
{ typeof(MyClass1), typeof(FunnyClass1) },
{ typeof(MyClass2), typeof(FunnyClass2) },
{ typeof(MyClass3), typeof(FunnyClass3) },
};
I have another interface, IFunnyInteface<T> where T : IMyInterface
I have a method:
public static IFunnyInterface<T> ConvertToFunnyClass<T>(this T node) where T : IMyInterface
{
if (DeclarationTypes.ContainsKey(node.GetType())) {
IFunnyInterface<T> otherClassInstance = (FunnyInterface<T>) Activator.CreateInstance(DeclarationTypes[node.GetType()], node);
return otherClassInstance;
}
return null;
}
I'm trying to call the constructor of FunnyClasses and insert as parameter my MyClass object. I don't want to know which object it is: I just want to instantiate some FunnyClass with MyClass as a parameter.
What happens when I call ConvertToFunnyClass, T is of type IMyInterface, and when I try to cast it to FunnyInterface<T>, it says I can't convert FunnyClass1, for instance, to FunnyInterface<IMyInterface>
My current workaround (not a beautiful one), is this:
public static dynamic ConvertToFunnyClass<T>(this T node) where T : IMyInterface
{
if (DeclarationTypes.ContainsKey(node.GetType())) {
var otherClassInstance = (FunnyInterface<T>) Activator.CreateInstance(DeclarationTypes[node.GetType()], node);
return otherClassInstance;
}
return null;
}
And I don't like it because the return type is dynamic, so when I access it from somewhere else, I have no idea what type it is, and I lose intellisense, and stuff. I don't know about any performance implications either.
Any clues?
Thanks in Advance!
Resolution
As I'm using C# 4.0, I could stop casting errors using covariance (output positions only), and so I changed my IFunnyInterface to
IFunnyInteface<out T> where T : IMyInterface
Thank you all for the replies.
Essentially, your problem is that you are trying to convert FunnyInterface<T> to FunnyInterface<IMyInterface>. As has been mentioned several times (one example is here, more information here), this is not valid in most circumstances. Only in .NET 4, when the generic type is an interface or delegate, and the type parameter has been explicitly declared as variant with in or out, can you perform this conversion.
Is FunnyInterface actually an interface?
thecoop answer points you exactly to why you can't do it.
A cleaner solution to the problem (besides using dynamic) would be a base non-Generics Interface:
public interface IFunnyInterfaceBase
{
}
public interface IFunnyInteface<T> : IFunnyInterfaceBase
where T : IMyInterface
{
}
And you need to move methods signature you use in that code from IFunnyInteface to IFunnyInterfaceBase.
This way you would be able to write something like this:
MyClass2 c2 = new MyClass2();
IFunnyInterfaceBase funnyInstance = c2.ConvertToFunnyClass();
The Exception you said you got in your code is not due to the extension method signature itself (the method is fine)..it is originated by the type of your lvalue (the type of the variable you use to store its return value)!
Obviously this solution applies only if you can modify IFunnyInterface source code!