Related
I really appreciate the Raku's &?BLOCK variable – it lets you recurse within an unnamed block, which can be extremely powerful. For example, here's a simple, inline, and anonymous factorial function:
{ when $_ ≤ 1 { 1 };
$_ × &?BLOCK($_ - 1) }(5) # OUTPUT: «120»
However, I have some questions about it when used in more complex situations. Consider this code:
{ say "Part 1:";
my $a = 1;
print ' var one: '; dd $a;
print ' block one: '; dd &?BLOCK ;
{
my $a = 2;
print ' var two: '; dd $a;
print ' outer var: '; dd $OUTER::a;
print ' block two: '; dd &?BLOCK;
print "outer block: "; dd &?OUTER::BLOCK
}
say "\nPart 2:";
print ' block one: '; dd &?BLOCK;
print 'postfix for: '; dd &?BLOCK for (1);
print ' prefix for: '; for (1) { dd &?BLOCK }
};
which yields this output (I've shortened the block IDs):
Part 1:
var one: Int $a = 1
block one: -> ;; $_? is raw = OUTER::<$_> { #`(Block|…6696) ... }
var two: Int $a = 2
outer var: Int $a = 1
block two: -> ;; $_? is raw = OUTER::<$_> { #`(Block|…8496) ... }
outer block: -> ;; $_? is raw = OUTER::<$_> { #`(Block|…8496) ... }
Part 2:
block one: -> ;; $_? is raw = OUTER::<$_> { #`(Block|…6696) ... }
postfix for: -> ;; $_ is raw { #`(Block|…9000) ... }
prefix for: -> ;; $_ is raw { #`(Block|…9360) ... }
Here's what I don't understand about that: why does the &?OUTER::BLOCK refer (based on its ID) to block two rather than block one? Using OUTER with $a correctly causes it to refer to the outer scope, but the same thing doesn't work with &?BLOCK. Is it just not possible to use OUTER with &?BLOCK? If not, is there a way to access the outer block from the inner block? (I know that I can assign &?BLOCK to a named variable in the outer block and then access that variable in the inner block. I view that as a workaround but not a full solution because it sacrifices the ability to refer to unnamed blocks, which is where much of &?BLOCK's power comes from.)
Second, I am very confused by Part 2. I understand why the &?BLOCK that follows the prefix for refers to an inner block. But why does the &?BLOCK that precedes the postfix for also refer to its own block? Is a block implicitly created around the body of the for statement? My understanding is that the postfix forms were useful in large part because they do not require blocks. Is that incorrect?
Finally, why do some of the blocks have OUTER::<$_> in the but others do not? I'm especially confused by Block 2, which is not the outermost block.
Thanks in advance for any help you can offer! (And if any of the code behavior shown above indicates a Rakudo bug, I am happy to write it up as an issue.)
That's some pretty confusing stuff you've encountered. That said, it does all make some kind of sense...
Why does the &?OUTER::BLOCK refer (based on its ID) to block two rather than block one?
Per the doc, &?BLOCK is a "special compile variable", as is the case for all variables that have a ? as their twigil.
As such it's not a symbol that can be looked up at run-time, which is what syntax like $FOO::bar is supposed to be about afaik.
So I think the compiler ought by rights reject use of a "compile variable" with the package lookup syntax. (Though I'm not sure. Does it make sense to do "run-time" lookups in the COMPILING package?)
There may already be a bug filed (in either of the GH repos rakudo/rakudo/issues or raku/old-issues-tracker/issues) about it being erroneous to try to do a run-time lookup of a special compile variable (the ones with a ? twigil). If not, it makes sense to me to file one.
Using OUTER with $a correctly causes it to refer to the outer scope
The symbol associated with the $a variable in the outer block is stored in the stash associated with the outer block. This is what's referenced by OUTER.
Is it just not possible to use OUTER with &?BLOCK?
I reckon not for the reasons given above. Let's see if anyone corrects me.
If not, is there a way to access the outer block from the inner block?
You could pass it as an argument. In other words, close the inner block with }(&?BLOCK); instead of just }. Then you'd have it available as $_ in the inner block.
Why does the &?BLOCK that precedes the postfix for also refer to its own block?
It is surprising until you know why, but...
Is a block implicitly created around the body of the for statement?
Seems so, so the body can take an argument passed by each iteration of the for.
My understanding is that the postfix forms were useful in large part because they do not require blocks.
I've always thought of their benefit as being that they A) avoid a separate lexical scope and B) avoid having to type in the braces.
Is that incorrect?
It seems so. for has to be able to supply a distinct $_ to its statement(s) (you can put a series of statements in parens), so if you don't explicitly write braces, it still has to create a distinct lexical frame, and presumably it was considered better that the &?BLOCK variable tracked that distinct frame with its own $_, and "pretended" that was a "block", and displayed its gist with a {...}, despite there being no explicit {...}.
Why do some of the blocks have OUTER::<$_> in them but others do not?
While for (and given etc) always passes an "it" aka $_ argument to its blocks/statements, other blocks do not have an argument automatically passed to them, but they will accept one if it's manually passed by the writer of code manually passing one.
To support this wonderful idiom in which one can either pass or not pass an argument, blocks other than ones that are automatically fed an $_ are given this default of binding $_ to the outer block's $_.
I'm especially confused by Block 2, which is not the outermost block.
I'm confused by you being especially confused by that. :) If the foregoing hasn't sufficiently cleared this last aspect up for you, please comment on what it is about this last bit that's especially confusing.
During compilation the compiler has to keep track of various things. One of which is the current block that it is compiling.
The block object gets stored in the compiled code wherever it sees the special variable $?BLOCK.
Basically the compile-time variables aren't really variables, but more of a macro.
So whenever it sees $?BLOCK the compiler replaces it with whatever the current block the compiler is currently compiling.
It just happens that $?OUTER::BLOCK is somehow close enough to $?BLOCK that it replaces that too.
I can show you that there really isn't a variable by that name by trying to look it up by name.
{ say ::('&?BLOCK') } # ERROR: No such symbol '&?BLOCK'
Also every pair of {} (that isn't a hash ref or hash index) denotes a new block.
So each of these lines will say something different:
{
say $?BLOCK.WHICH;
say "{ $?BLOCK.WHICH }";
if True { say $?BLOCK.WHICH }
}
That means if you declare a variable inside one of those constructs it is contained to that construct.
"{ my $a = "abc"; say $a }"; # abc
say $a; # COMPILE ERROR: Variable '$a' is not declared
if True { my $b = "def"; say $b } # def
say $b; # COMPILE ERROR: Variable '$b' is not declared
In the case of postfix for, the left side needs to be a lambda/closure so that for can set $_ to the current value.
It was probably just easier to fake it up to be a Block than to create a new Code type just for that use.
Especially since an entire Raku source file is also considered a Block.
A bare Block can have an optional argument.
my &foo;
given 5 {
&foo = { say $_ }
}
foo( ); # 5
foo(42); # 42
If you give it an argument it sets $_ to that value.
If you don't, $_ will point to whatever $_ was outside of that declaration. (Closure)
For many of the uses of that construct, doing that can be very handy.
sub call-it-a (&c){
c()
}
sub call-it-b (&c, $arg){
c( $arg * 10 )
}
for ^5 {
call-it-a( { say $_ } ); # 0 1 2 3 4
call-it-b( { say $_ }, $_ ); # 010203040
}
For call-it-a we needed it to be a closure over $_ to work.
For call-it-b we needed it to be an argument instead.
By having :( ;; $_? is raw = OUTER::<$_> ) as the signature it caters to both use-cases.
This makes it easy to create simple lambdas that just do what you want them to do.
How can I know if I actually need to return an l-value when using FALLBACK?
I'm using return-rw but I'd like to only use return where possible. I want to track if I've actually modified %!attrs or have only just read the value when FALLBACK was called.
Or (alternate plan B) can I attach a callback or something similar to my %!attrs to monitor for changes?
class Foo {
has %.attrs;
submethod BUILD { %!attrs{'bar'} = 'bar' }
# multi method FALLBACK(Str:D $name, *#rest) {
# say 'read-only';
# return %!attrs{$name} if %!attrs«$name»:exists;
# }
multi method FALLBACK(Str:D $name, *#rest) {
say 'read-write';
return-rw %!attrs{$name} if %!attrs«$name»:exists;
}
}
my $foo = Foo.new;
say $foo.bar;
$foo.bar = 'baz';
say $foo.bar;
This feels a bit like a X-Y question, so let's simplify the example, and see if that answers helps in your decisions.
First of all: if you return the "value" of a non-existing key in a hash, you are in fact returning a container that will auto-vivify the key in the hash when assigned to:
my %hash;
sub get($key) { return-rw %hash{$key} }
get("foo") = 42;
dd %hash; # Hash %hash = {:foo(42)}
Please note that you need to use return-rw here to ensure the actual container is returned, rather than just the value in the container. Alternately, you can use the is raw trait, which allows you to just set the last value:
my %hash;
sub get($key) is raw { %hash{$key} }
get("foo") = 42;
dd %hash; # Hash %hash = {:foo(42)}
Note that you should not use return in that case, as that will still de-containerize again.
To get back to your question:
I want to track if I've actually modified %!attrs or have only just read the value when FALLBACK was called.
class Foo {
has %!attrs;
has %!unexpected;
method TWEAK() { %!attrs<bar> = 'bar' }
method FALLBACK(Str:D $name, *#rest) is raw {
if %!attrs{$name}:exists {
%!attrs{$name}
}
else {
%!unexpected{$name}++;
Any
}
}
}
This would either return the container found in the hash, or record the access to the unknown key and return an immutable Any.
Regarding plan B, recording changes: for that you could use a Proxy object for that.
Hope this helps in your quest.
Liz's answer is full of useful info and you've accepted it but I thought the following might still be of interest.
How to know if returning an l-value ... ?
Let's start by ignoring the FALLBACK clause.
You would have to test the value. To deal with Scalars, you must test the .VAR of the value. (For non-Scalar values the .VAR acts like a "no op".) I think (but don't quote me) that Scalar|Array|Hash covers all the l-value super-types:
my \value = 42; # Int is an l-value is False
my \l-value-one = $; # Scalar is an l-value is True
my \l-value-too = #; # Array is an l-value is True
say "{.VAR.^name} is an l-value is {.VAR ~~ Scalar|Array|Hash}"
for value, l-value-one, l-value-too
How to know if returning an l-value when using FALLBACK?
Adding "when using FALLBACK" makes no difference to the answer.
How can I know if I actually need to return an l-value ... ?
Again, let's start by ignoring the FALLBACK clause.
This is a completely different question than "How to know if returning an l-value ... ?". I think it's the core of your question.
Afaik, the answer is, you need to anticipate how the returned value will be used. If there's any chance it'll be used as an l-value, and you want that usage to work, then you need to return an l-value. The language/compiler can't (or at least doesn't) help you make that decision.
Consider some related scenarios:
my $baz := foo.bar;
... (100s of lines of code) ...
$baz = 42;
Unless the first line returns an l-value, the second line will fail.
But the situation is actually much more immediate than that:
routine-foo = 42;
routine-foo is evaluated first, in its entirety, before the lhs = rhs expression is evaluated.
Unless the compiler's resolution of the routine-foo call somehow incorporated the fact that the very next thing to happen would be that the lhs will be assigned to, then there would be no way for a singly or multiply dispatched routine-foo to know whether it can safely return an r-value or must return an l-value.
And the compiler's resolution does not incorporate that. Thus, for example:
multi term:<bar> is rw { ... }
multi term:<bar> { ... }
bar = 99; # Ambiguous call to 'term:<bar>(...)'
I can imagine this one day (N years from now) being solved by a combination of allowing = to be an overloadable operator, robust macros that allow overloading of = being available, and routine resolution being modified so the above ambiguous call could do something equivalent to resolving to the is rw multi. But I doubt it will actually come to pass even with N=10. Perhaps there is another way but I can't think of one at the moment.
How can I know if I actually need to return an l-value when using FALLBACK?
Again, adding "when using FALLBACK" makes no difference to the answer.
I want to track if I've actually modified %!attrs or have only just read the value when FALLBACK was called.
When FALLBACK is called it doesn't know what context it's being called in -- r-value or l-value. Any modification comes after it has already returned.
In other words, whatever solution you come up with will being nothing to do per se with FALLBACK (even if you have to use it to implement some other aspect of whatever it is you're trying to do).
(Even if it were, I suspect trying to solve it via FALLBACK itself would just make matters worse. One can imagine writing two FALLBACK multis, one with an is rw trait, but, as explained above, my imagination doesn't stretch to that making any difference any time soon, if ever, and could only happen if the above imaginary things happened (the macros etc.) and the compiler was also modified to pay attention to the two FALLBACK multi variants, and I'm not at all meaning to suggest that that even makes sense.)
Plan B
Or (alternate plan B) can I attach a callback or something similar to my %!attrs to monitor for changes?
As Lizmat notes, that's the realm of Proxys. And thus your next SO question... :)
This is a follow-up to my previous question.
I am finally able to reproduce the error here:
my #recentList = prompt("Get recentList: e.g. 1 2 3: ").words || (2,4,6);
say "the list is: ", #recentList;
for #recentList -> $x {
say "one element is: ", $x;
say "element type is: ", $x.WHAT;
say "test (1,2,3).tail(\"2\") : ", (1,2,3).tail("2");
say ( (10.rand.Int xx 10) xx 15 ).map: { #($_.tail($x)); };
}
And the results are ok as long as I use the default list by just hitting return at the prompt and not entering anything. But if I enter a number, it gives this error:
Get recentList: e.g. 1 2 3: 2
the list is: [2]
one element is: 2
element type is: (Str)
test (1,2,3).tail("2") : (2 3)
This type cannot unbox to a native integer: P6opaque, Str
in block at intType.p6 line 9
in block <unit> at intType.p6 line 5
If tail("2") works, why does tail($x) fail? Also, in my original code, tail($x.Int) wouldn't correct the problem, but it did here.
This is at best a nanswer. It is a thus-far failed attempt to figure out this problem. I may have just wandered off into the weeds. But I'll publish what I have. If nothing else, maybe it can serve as a reminder that the first three steps below are sensible ones; thereafter I'm gambling on my ability to work my way forward by spelunking source code when I would probably make much faster and more reliable progress by directly debugging the compiler as discussed in the third step.
OK, the first step was an MRE. What you've provided was an E that was fully R and sufficiently M. :)
Step #2 was increasing the M (golfing). I got it down to:
Any.tail('0'); # OK
Any.tail('1'); # BOOM
Note that it can be actual values:
1.tail('1'); # BOOM
(1..2).tail('1'); # BOOM
But some values work:
(1,2).tail('1'); # OK
Step #3 probably should be to follow the instructions in Playing with the code of Rakudo Perl 6 to track the compiler's execution, eg by sticking says in its source code and recompiling it.
You may also want to try out App::MoarVM::Debug. (I haven't.)
Using these approaches you'll have the power to track with absolute precision what the compiler does for any code you throw at it. I recommend you do this even though I didn't. Maybe you can figure out where I've gone wrong.
In the following I trace this problem by just directly spelunking the Rakudo compiler's source code.
A search for "method tail" in the Rakudo sources yielded 4 matches. For my golf the matching method is a match in core/AnyIterableMethods.pm6.
The tail parameter $n clearly isn't a Callable so the pertinent line that continues our spelunking is Rakudo::Iterator.LastNValues(self.iterator,$n,'tail').
A search for this leads to this method in core/Iterator.pm6.
This in turn calls this .new routine.
These three lines:
nqp::if(
n <= 0, # must be HLL comparison
Rakudo::Iterator.Empty, # negative is just nothing
explain why '0' works. The <= operator coerces its operands to numeric before doing the numeric comparison. So '0' coerces to 0, the condition is True, the result is Rakudo::Iterator.Empty, and the Any.tail('0') yields () and doesn't complain.
The code that immediately follows the above three lines is the else branch of the nqp::if. It closes with nqp::create(self)!SET-SELF(iterator,n,f).
That in turn calls the !SET-SELF routine, which has the line:
($!lastn := nqp::setelems(nqp::list, $!size = size)),
Which attempts to assign size, which in our BOOM case is '1', to $!size. But $!size is declared as:
has int $!size;
Bingo.
Or is it? I don't know if I really have correctly tracked the problem down. I'm only spelunking the code in the github repo, not actually running an instrumented version of the compiler and tracing its execution, as discussed as the sensible step #3 for trying to figure out the problem you've encountered.
Worse, when I'm running a compiler it's an old one whereas the code I'm spelunking is the master...
Why does this work?
(*,*).tail('1') # OK
The code path for this will presumably be this method. The parameter $n isn't a Callable so the code path will run thru the path that uses the $n in the lines:
nqp::unless(
nqp::istype($n,Whatever) || $n == Inf,
$iterator.skip-at-least(nqp::elems($!reified) - $n.Int)
The $n == Inf shouldn't be a problem. The == will coerce its operands to numerics and that should take care of $n being '1'.
The nqp::elems($!reified) - $n.Int shouldn't be a problem either.
The nqp ops doc shows that nqp::elems always returns an int. So this boils down to an int - Int which should work.
Hmm.
A blame of these lines shows that the .Int in the last line was only added 3 months ago.
So, clutching at straws, what happens if one tries:
(my int $foo = 1) - '1' # OK
Nope, that's not the problem.
It seems the trail has grown cold or rather I've wandered off the actual execution path.
I'll publish what I've got. Maybe someone else can pick it up from here or I'll have another go in a day or three...
In some dynamic languages I have seen this kind of syntax:
myValue = if (this.IsValidObject)
{
UpdateGraph();
UpdateCount();
this.Name;
}
else
{
Debug.Log (Exceptions.UninitializedObject);
3;
}
Basically being able to return the last statement in a branch as the return value for a variable, not necessarily only for method returns, but they could be achieved as well.
What's the name of this feature?
Can this also be achieved in staticly typed languages such as C#? I know C# has ternary operator, but I mean using if statements, switch statements as shown above.
It is called "conditional-branches-are-expressions" or "death to the statement/expression divide".
See Conditional If Expressions:
Many languages support if expressions, which are similar to if statements, but return a value as a result. Thus, they are true expressions (which evaluate to a value), not statements (which just perform an action).
That is, if (expr) { ... } is an expression (could possible be an expression or a statement depending upon context) in the language grammar just as ?: is an expression in languages like C, C# or Java.
This form is common in functional programming languages (which eschew side-effects) -- however, it is not "functional programming" per se and exists in other language that accept/allow a "functional like syntax" while still utilizing heavy side-effects and other paradigms (e.g. Ruby).
Some languages like Perl allow this behavior to be simulated. That is, $x = eval { if (true) { "hello world!" } else { "goodbye" } }; print $x will display "hello world!" because the eval expression evaluates to the last value evaluated inside even though the if grammar production itself is not an expression. ($x = if ... is a syntax error in Perl).
Happy coding.
To answer your other question:
Can this also be achieved in staticly typed languages such as C#?
Is it a thing the language supports? No. Can it be achieved? Kind of.
C# --like C++, Java, and all that ilk-- has expressions and statements. Statements, like if-then and switch-case, don't return values and there fore can't be used as expressions. Also, as a slight aside, your example assigns myValue to either a string or an integer, which C# can't do because it is strongly typed. You'd either have to use object myValue and then accept the casting and boxing costs, use var myValue (which is still static typed, just inferred), or some other bizarre cleverness.
Anyway, so if if-then is a statement, how do you do that in C#? You'd have to build a method to accomplish the goal of if-then-else. You could use a static method as an extension to bools, to model the Smalltalk way of doing it:
public static T IfTrue(this bool value, Action doThen, Action doElse )
{
if(value)
return doThen();
else
return doElse();
}
To use this, you'd do something like
var myVal = (6 < 7).IfTrue(() => return "Less than", () => return "Greater than");
Disclaimer: I tested none of that, so it may not quite work due to typos, but I think the principle is correct.
The new IfTrue() function checks the boolean it is attached to and executes one of two delegates passed into it. They must have the same return type, and neither accepts arguments (use closures, so it won't matter).
Now, should you do that? No, almost certainly not. Its not the proper C# way of doing things so it's confusing, and its much less efficient than using an if-then. You're trading off something like 1 IL instruction for a complex mess of classes and method calls that .NET will build behind the scenes to support that.
It is a ternary conditional.
In C you can use, for example:
printf("Debug? %s\n", debug?"yes":"no");
Edited:
A compound statement list can be evaluated as a expression in C. The last statement should be a expression and the whole compound statement surrounded by braces.
For example:
#include <stdio.h>
int main(void)
{
int a=0, b=1;
a=({
printf("testing compound statement\n");
if(b==a)
printf("equals\n");
b+1;
});
printf("a=%d\n", a);
return 0;
}
So the name of the characteristic you are doing is assigning to a (local) variable a compound statement. Now I think this helps you a little bit more. For more, please visit this source:
http://www.chemie.fu-berlin.de/chemnet/use/info/gcc/gcc_8.html
Take care,
Beco.
PS. This example makes more sense in the context of your question:
a=({
int c;
if(b==a)
c=b+1;
else
c=a-1;
c;
});
In addition to returning the value of the last expression in a branch, it's likely (depending on the language) that myValue is being assigned to an anonymous function -- or in Smalltalk / Ruby, code blocks:
A block of code (an anonymous function) can be expressed as a literal value (which is an object, since all values are objects.)
In this case, since myValue is actually pointing to a function that gets invoked only when myValue is used, the language probably implements them as closures, which are originally a feature of functional languages.
Because closures are first-class functions with free variables, closures exist in C#. However, the implicit return does not occur; in C# they're simply anonymous delegates! Consider:
Func<Object> myValue = delegate()
{
if (this.IsValidObject)
{
UpdateGraph();
UpdateCount();
return this.Name;
}
else
{
Debug.Log (Exceptions.UninitializedObject);
return 3;
}
};
This can also be done in C# using lambda expressions:
Func<Object> myValue = () =>
{
if (this.IsValidObject) { ... }
else { ... }
};
I realize your question is asking about the implicit return value, but I am trying to illustrate that there is more than just "conditional branches are expressions" going on here.
Can this also be achieved in staticly
typed languages?
Sure, the types of the involved expressions can be statically and strictly checked. There seems to be nothing dependent on dynamic typing in the "if-as-expression" approach.
For example, Haskell--a strict statically typed language with a rich system of types:
$ ghci
Prelude> let x = if True then "a" else "b" in x
"a"
(the example expression could be simpler, I just wanted to reflect the assignment from your question, but the expression to demonstrate the feature could be simlpler:
Prelude> if True then "a" else "b"
"a"
.)
I recently had the necessity of rewriting a javascript function in javascript, dynamically. The ease with which I did it, and how fun it was, astounded me.
Over here I've got some HTML:
<div id="excelExport1234"
onclick="if(somestuff) location.href='http://server/excelExport.aspx?id=56789&something=else'; else alert('not important');"
>Click here to export to excel</div>
And I couldn't change the outputted HTML, but I needed to add an extra parameter to that link. I started thinking about it, and realized I could just do this:
excelExport = $('excelExport1234');
if (needParam)
eval('excelExport.onclick = ' + excelExport.onclick.toString().replace("excelReport.aspx?id", "excelReport.aspx?extraParam=true&id") + ';');
else
eval('excelExport.onclick = ' + excelExport.onclick.toString().replace("extraParam=true&", "") + ';');
And it worked like a champ! excelExport.onclick returns a function object which I convert to a string, and do some string manip on. Since it's now in the form of "function() { ... }", I just go back and assign it to the onclick event of the dom object. It's a little ugly having to use eval, but AFAIK there isn't a javascript function constructor that can take a string of code and turn it into an object nicely.
Anyway, my point isn't that I'm super clever (I'm not), my point is that this is cool. And I know javascript isn't the only language that can do this. I've heard that lisp has had macros for years for this exact purpose. Except to really grok macros you need to really grok lisp, and I don't grok it, I just 'kind of get it'.
So my question is: In what other languages can you (easily) dynamically rewrite functions, and can you show me a simple example? I want to see where else you can do this, and how it's done!
(also, I have no idea what to tag this as, so I took random guesses)
LISP is the ultimate language at this. LISP functions are actual LISP lists, meaning you can manipulate LISP source code as if it were any other data structure.
Here's a very trivial example of how it works:
(define hi
(lambda () (display "Hello World\n")))
;; Displays Hello World
(hi)
(set! hi
(lambda () (display "Hola World\n")))
;; Displays Hola World
(hi)
This, however, is possible in any language where functions are first-class objects. One of the most interesting showcases of the power of this syntax for LISP is in its macro system. I really don't feel I could do the topic justice, so read these links if you're interested:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macro_(computer_science)#Lisp_macros
http://cl-cookbook.sourceforge.net/macros.html
I guess it depends on what exactly you define as "easily dynamic rewriting". For example in .Net you have the Func type and lambdas which allows you to define functions as variables or as temporary anonymous functions eg.
int[] numbers = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5};
Func<int[], int> somefunc;
if (someCondition)
{
somefunc = (is => is.Sum());
} else {
somefunc = (is => is.Count());
}
Console.WriteLine(somefunc(numbers).ToString());
The above is a very contrived example of either counting the items in an array of integers or summing then using dynamically created functions subject to some arbitrary condition.
Note - Please don't point out that these things can be easily accomplished without lambdas (which they obviously can) I was simply trying to write a very simple example to demonstrate the concept in C#
Self-modifying code is also called degenerate code. This is generally considered a bad thing, and it used to be a goal of high-level languages to prevent it from being written easily.
This is from the wikipedia entry:
Self-modifying code is seen by some as a bad practice which makes code harder to read and maintain. There are however ways in which self modification is nevertheless deemed acceptable, such as when sub routine pointers are dynamically altered - even though the effect is almost identical to direct modification.
I think that it is the case in most of dynamic languages. Here is an example in Python
def f(x):
print x
def new_function(x): print "hello", x
f("world")
f = new_function
f("world")
The output is
world
hello world
I think that such technique should be used carefully
Scheme allows you to do that.
(define (salute-english name) (display "Hello ") (display name))
(define (salute-french nom) (display "Salut ") (display nom))
Now you redefine a fonction by assigning the salute variable to the right function, either salute-english or salute-french, like this:
(define salute salute-english)
(define (redefined-the-salute-function language)
(if (eq? language 'french)
(set! salute salute-french)
(set! salute salute-english)))
More generaly functional programming language allows you to do that or as functions are first class value. Functions can be manipulated, passed around, sometimes assigned to variables and so on. The list then include: Lisp, Scheme, Dylan, OCaml and SML. Some languages having first class functions includes Python, Ruby, Smalltalk and i think Perl.
Note that when you have an interactive language where you can interactively type your program, the redefinition of functions/methods must be possible: the REPL has to be able to do that, just in case you happen to retype the definition of an already defined functions.
I used to do this all the time in TCL, it was a breeze and worked wonderfully. I could investigate somethings interface over the network and then create a custom-made interface on the fly to access and control things. For example, you could make a custom SNMP interface from a generic SNMP library.
I haven't used it, but C# has some built-in support for generating it's own byte-code, which is fairly impressive.
I've done this sort of thing in C as well, but there it is non-portable and almost never worth the hassle. It is a technique used sometimes for "self-optimizing" code to generate the appropriate C function to optimally process a given data set.
You could do it in C++, but it wouldn't be easy, safe, or recommended.
Generate the text of the source code
invoke the compiler (fork & exec) to build a dynamic library. In gcc, you can pass the source code you want to compile on standard input, it doesn't have to be in a file.
Load the library (LoadLibrary() on windows, dlopen() on linux)
get a function pointer to whatever function you want (GetProcAddress() on windows, dlsym() on linux)
If you want to replace an existing function, if it's a virtual function you could modify the v-table to point to the new function (that part especially is a horrible idea fraught with peril). The location of the v-table or the format of it isn't part of the C++ standard, but all the toolchains I've used have been consistent within themselves, so once you figure out how they do it, it probably won't break.
Easy enough in Perl.
*some_func = sub($) {
my $arg = shift;
print $arg, "\n";
};
some_func('foo');
Re Sam Saffron's request:
*hello_world = sub() {
print "oops";
};
hello_world();
*hello_world = sub() {
print "hello world";
};
hello_world();
In PLSQL:
create or replace procedure test
as
begin
execute immediate '
create or replace procedure test2
as
begin
null;
end;
';
end;
/
Here's something else in Python (in addition to luc's answer), which I am not recommending, but just to show it - there is exec, which can execute a string which you could build to be whatever code...
I/O shown here is from a Python 2.5.2 interpreter session. Just some simple examples of constructing strings to execute from substrings (>>> is the interpreter prompt)...
>>> def_string = 'def my_func'
>>> param_string_1 = '():'
>>> param_string_2 = '(x):'
>>> do_string_1 = ' print "Do whatever."'
>>> do_string_2 = ' print "Do something with", x'
>>> do_string_3 = ' print "Do whatever else."'
>>> do_string_4 = ' print "Do something else with", x'
>>> def_1 = '\n'.join([def_string+param_string_1, do_string_1, do_string_3])
>>> print def_1
def my_func():
print "Do whatever."
print "Do whatever else."
>>> exec def_1
>>> my_func()
Do whatever.
Do whatever else.
>>> def_2 = '\n'.join([def_string+param_string_2, do_string_2, do_string_4])
>>> print def_2
def my_func(x):
print "Do something with", x
print "Do something else with", x
>>> exec def_2
>>> my_func('Tom Ritter')
Do something with Tom Ritter
Do something else with Tom Ritter
>>>
Trivial in Ruby:
def hello_world; puts "oops"; end
hello_world
# oops
def hello_world; puts "hello world"; end
hello_world
# hello world
Of course that example is boring:
require "benchmark"
# why oh _why
class Object
def metaclass; class << self; self; end; end
def meta_eval &blk; metaclass.instance_eval &blk; end
end
class Turtle
end
def make_it_move(klass)
klass.send(:define_method, :move) { |distance|
puts "moving #{distance} meters"
sleep(0.1 * distance)
}
end
make_it_move(Turtle)
turtle = Turtle.new
turtle.move(1)
# moving 1 meters
def profile(instance, method)
instance.meta_eval do
m = instance_method(method)
define_method method do |*a|
puts "Benchmarking #{instance.class} #{method}"
puts Benchmark.measure {
m.bind(instance).call(*a)
}
end
end
end
profile(turtle, :move)
turtle.move(10)
# Benchmarking Turtle move
# moving 10 meters
# 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 ( 1.000994)
Turtle.new.move(3)
# moving 3 meters
The code above:
Defines a blank class
Adds a method to it
Grabs an instance
Intercepts that method on that instance only
Changing what a function does is supported in a lot of languages, and it's not as complicated as you might think. In functional languages, functions are values, and function names are symbols that are bound to them like any variable. If the language allows you to reassign the symbol to a different function, this is trivial.
I think the more interesting features are the ability to get the source code for a function (toString above) and to create a new function from a string (eval in this case).