I'm extending a chrome extension that is written in coffeescript and have come across this syntax:
Commands =
init: ->
for command, description of commandDescriptions
#addCommand(command, description[0], description[1])
availableCommands: {}
keyToCommandRegistry: {}
I'd just like to check the difference between this syntax and a class (which would be like this, hypothetically):
class Commands
init: ->
for command, description of commandDescriptions
#addCommand(command, description[0], description[1])
availableCommands: {}
keyToCommandRegistry: {}
Is it just that the former doesn't have a prototype? am I right in thinking that it's alright to call the methods on the Commands in the top, as in Commands.init(). The project I'm working in seems to use both syntaxes so I would like to be sure I understand the implications of each before I use one or another.
Thanks.
The primary implication of the first Command is that it is an Object, not a Function, so there is no way to stamp out instances of it directly.
It is a bit confusing that its init method includes commandDescriptions (which I can only expect is declared somewhere else) and #addCommand, which is not attached to the Command object. If Command didn't have #addCommand, I would expect that it is a singleton. But as a method that is not declared on Command is expected to be present, it looks like the group of functionality in Command is meant to be mixed into another class.
Edit:
To clarify, objects can have #variables. In the init function, you would reference availableCommands or keyToCommandRegistry as #availableCommands and #keyToCommandRegistry. However, in this particular example, #addCommand is not declared anywhere. I would have expected it to be declared as part of the Command object declaration, like:
CommandsA =
init: ->
for command, description of commandDescriptions
#addCommand(command, description[0], description[1])
availableCommands: {}
keyToCommandRegistry: {}
addCommand: (command, descriptionInfo, otherDescriptionInfo) ->
#Does some stuff
If you can find where addCommand is declared, it would help in understanding how Command is intended to be used.
Also of note: since Command is an object and not a class, the availableCommands and keyToCommandRegistry objects can be thought of as static class variables.
Related
I am aware that a variable can be dynamically typed with the def keyword in Groovy. But I have also noticed that in some circumstances it can be left out, such as when defining method parameters, eg func(p1, p2) instead of func(def p1, def p2). The latter form is discouraged.
I have noticed that this is extendable to all code - anytime you want to define a variable and set its value, eg var = 2 the def keyword can be safely left out. It only appears to be required if not instantiating the variable on creation, ie. def var1 so that it can be instantiated as a NullObject.
Is this the only time def is useful? Can it be safely left out in all other declarations, for example, of classes and methods?
Short answer: you can't. There are some use cases where skipping the type declaration (or def keyword) works, but it is not a general rule. For instance, Groovy scripts allow you to use variables without specific type declaration, e.g.
x = 10
However, it works because groovy.lang.Script class implements getProperty and setProperty methods that get triggered when you access a missing property. In this case, such a variable is promoted to be a global binding, not a local variable. If you try to do the same on any other class that does not implement those methods, you will end up getting groovy.lang.MissingPropertyException.
Skipping types in a method declaration is supported, both in dynamically compiled and statically compiled Groovy. But is it useful? It depends. In most cases, it's much better to declare the type for a better readability and documentation purpose. I would not recommend doing it in the public API - the user of your API will see Object type, while you may expect some specific type. It shows that this may work if your intention is to receive any object, no matter what is its specific type. (E.g. a method like dump(obj) could work like that.)
And last but not least, there is a way to skip type declaration in any context. You can use a final keyword for that.
class Foo {
final id = 1
void bar(final name) {
final greet = "Hello, "
println greet + name + "!"
}
}
This way you can get a code that compiles with dynamic compilation, as well as with static compilation enabled. Of course, using final keyword prevents you from re-assigning the variable, but for the compiler, this is enough information to infer the proper type.
For more information, you can check a similar question that was asked on SO some time ago: Groovy: "def" keyword vs concrete type
in Groovy it plays an important role in Global and Local variable
if the variable name is same with and without def
def is considered local and without def its global
I have explained here in detail https://stackoverflow.com/a/45994227/2986279
So if someone use with and without it will make a difference and can change things.
I've seen a bunch of questions related to this subject, but none of them offers anything that would be an acceptable solution (please, no loading external Groovy scripts, no calling to sh step etc.)
The operation I need to perform is a oneliner, but pipeline limitations made it impossible to write anything useful in that unter-language...
So, here's minimal example:
#NonCPS
def encodeProperties(Map properties) {
properties.collect { k, v -> "$k=$v" }.join('|')
}
node('dockerized') {
stage('Whatever') {
properties = [foo: 123, bar: "foo"]
echo encodeProperties(properties)
}
}
Depending on whether I add or remove #NonCPS annotation, or type declaration of the argument, the error changes, but it never gives any reason for what happened. It's basically random noise, that contradicts the reality of the situation (at times it would claim that some irrelevant object doesn't have a method encodeProperties, other times it would say that it cannot find a method encodeProperties with a signature that nobody was trying to call it with (like two arguments instead of one) and so on.
From reading the documentation, which is of disastrous quality, I sort of understood that maybe functions in general aren't serializable, and that is why you need to explain this explicitly to the Groovy interpreter... I'm sorry, this makes no sense, but this is roughly what documentation says.
Obviously, trying to use collect inside stage creates a load of new errors... Which are, at least understandable in that the author confesses that their version of Groovy doesn't implement most of the Groovy standard...
It's just a typo. You defined encodeProperties but called encodeProprties.
I have a Groovy script that lets the user define some dynamic properties and methods and later executes a user-defined closure. A script would look like this:
// init properties and methods dynamically at runtime
context.prop1 = "Some test value"
context.method1 = { String input ->
"exec " + input.toUpperCase()
}
// "this" is set to the context variable from above
run {
println method1( prop1 )
}
So in the beginning of the script, a context is initialized with user-defined properties (e.g. prop1) and methods (e.g. method1). The context is then used as this pointer in the run closure. I have achieved this by dynamically extending the meta class of the context and setting the context as delegate of the run closure (with DELEGATE_FIRST as resolves strategy).
Currently I am struggling at type checking. Before executing the run closure, I would like to check if method1 really expects prop1. I have looked into the DelegatesTo annotation, but that doesn't seem to work for dynamically extended objects. I have also played with the AST, but since my knowledge on that topic is limited, I haven't come up with a solution. If what I want to achieve is possible, any pointers in the right direction would be greatly appreciated.
You want to add a method to a context at runtime and then type check this before execution of that method.
Type checking is done at compile time. That is before anything of your program is executed. There is normally no chance this can ever check anything that will only happen at runtime, unless you have a way to statically declare it and give the compiler the power to do the check. But this means normally, you will have to do static compilation.
One way would be to use type checking extensions, but I think in your case that might be overkill. A more simple way would be to use extension modules. And the most simple way would be to use custom script base class.
But for any of these solution you will need static compilation to really have type checking, same for DelegatesTo (which is more used in combination with extension modules). For a type checked DSL a mix of type checking extensions and extension modules can work very well. But you will of course loose more dynamic features of the language and some simplicity.
I am making a simple debugger window in ActionScript for myself where I can add and remove variables I want to track. I was to be able to add variables to the list by just doing something like
DebuggerMonitor.trackVar(variable).
My question is, is there any way I can turn "variable" itself (the name, not the value) into a String to be added into a text field?
Depending on how "intelligent" your debugger should be, you could just pass the name along:
DebuggerMonitor.trackVar( variable, "variable" );
since obviously, when used in a context like this, the name should be known at the time you are writing the program.
You can also do some reflection magic to get instance variable names, but it won't work for temp variables (their names are dropped at compilation time):
public function getVariableName( instance:*, match:* ):String {
var typeDescription:XML = describeType( instance );
var variables:XMLList = typeDescription..variable;
var accessors:XMLList = typeDescription..accessor;
for each(var variable:XML in variables)
if(matchesXMLName( instance, variable, match ))
return variable.#name;
for each(var accessor:XML in accessors)
if(matchesXMLName( instance, accessor, match ))
return accessor.#name;
return "No name found.";
}
private function matchesXMLName( instance:*, xml:XML, match:* ):Boolean {
return match == instance[xml.#name.toString()];
}
var varName:String = getVariableName ( myObject, variable );
Using reflections like this will also be quite costly, if used often - you will have to think of a way to cache the type descriptions.
I recommend you check out the as3commons reflections package - there is a lot of useful functionality in there...
Short answer - No :(
You can access the type name but not individual instance names, as these are lost at run-time.
There is a confusion caused by the keyword 'var' because it is used to create several types of bindings.
Lexical bindings (the keyword 'var' was used inside a function).
Dynamic bindings (the keyword 'var' was used to declare a class' field).
Lexical bindings are interpreted by the compiler at compile time as addresses of the registers of the registers space occupied by the function. The names given to lexical bindings perish at this time and it is not possible to restore them at runtime - therefore you can't get the "name" of the variable.
Dynamic bindings are a kind of "public API" of the objects that declare them, they may be accessed from the code that was not compiled together with the code that created them, this is why, for the purpose of reflection the names of these bindings are stored in compiled code. However, ActionScript has no way of referencing LHS values, so you cannot, even if you know the name of the variable and the object declaring it, pass it to another function. But you can look it up in the debugger or by calling describeType on the object declaring the variable. Note that describeType will not show information on private variables even if you are calling it from the scope of the object in question.
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.