If one pass a method as a funarg, how one can tell if passed function is a method, and get `this' object of a method is?
class A {
public function f():Void{
trace("f");
}
}
class B {
static function withFunarg(f:Void->Void):Void{
//HERE
}
public static function main(){
var a = new A();
withFunarg(a.f);
}
}
You cannot and there is no way to retrieve this. But it seems to me like an anti-pattern trying to do that. If you want the method and the container you can define a typedef:
typedef F = {
f : Void -> Void
}
Now you have the method and the container.
Haxe doesn't offer a cross-platform way to do that and it is generally not recomended.
But if you ultimately need this feature, you can use some platform-specific ways.
For example on js the following will work(at least on current haxe dev version):
static function getThis(f:Dynamic):Dynamic{
return (f.scope && f.method) ? f.scope : null;
}
It will return the object if the function is a method and a null otherwise. Result on calling on non-function is unspecified.
If you want to get the implicit `this' argument of a method, you have to make it explicit, like this
static function withMethodFunarg(o:{}, f:{}->Void):Void{
//HERE you have both object and function on this object
trace(o);
f(o);
}
public static function main(){
var a = new A();
withMethodFunarg(a,function(a){a.f()});
}
Which is, actually, pretty straight-forward: function is a function, no implicits, method caller is a method caller.
Related
I'm trying to wrap my head around abstract by implementing a Set data-type, like so:
abstract Set<T>(Map<T, Bool>) {
public inline function new() {
this = new Map<T, Bool>();
}
public inline function has(item:T):Bool {
return this.exists(item);
}
public inline function add(item:T):Set<T> {
this.set(item, true);
return null;
}
public inline function remove(item:T):Set<T> {
this.remove(item);
return null;
}
public inline function iterator():Iterator<T> {
return this.keys();
}
}
The compiler doesn't like this, though. It tells me Set.hx:8: characters 11-29 : Abstract Map has no #:to function that accepts IMap<util.Set.T, Bool>
I don't really understand this at all, since if I change the constructor to
public inline function new(val:Map<T, Bool>) {
this = val;
}
and then instantiate with var set = new Set(new Map());, it works.
That's pretty gross, though. I'd like the ability to instantiate Sets without exposing the underlying implementation. Ultimately, I'd prefer a constructor with the signature new(?initial:Iterable<T>). Is this possible? Am I misunderstanding something?
The problem is that currently it's impossible to instantiate Map without they key type being known (and since Set.T is a free type parameter, this doesn't work). However since the constructor is inline, T may well be known at the call site. The problem is that the compiler still tries to generate Set.new. You can avoid this by prefixing it with #:extern. Working example: https://try.haxe.org/#1D06C
How do you get callbacks running in haxe 3 that are passed by another class?
I'm trying to pass a callback function to a class, but I'm getting an error
public static var onFocusCallback:Dynamic;
public static function triggerFocus():Void
{
onFocusCallback.bind();
}
the error I get is
[Fault] exception, information=ReferenceError: Error #1069: Property bind not found on builtin.as$0.MethodClosure and there is no default value.
Try not to use Dynamic if possible. It can trigger weird errors like that one.
The way to use a callback is like this http://try.haxe.org/#60f45
class Test {
static function main() {
onFocusCallback = function() {
trace("focus");
}
triggerFocus();
}
// Try not to use Dynamic
//public static var onFocusCallback:Dynamic;
// If you don't know the type of the function, you can use this:
//public static var onFocusCallback:haxe.Constraints.Function;
// But it's always better to give a concrete type like:
public static var onFocusCallback:Void->Void;
public static function triggerFocus():Void
{
if(onFocusCallback != null) onFocusCallback();
}
}
the other solution I got to work, within minutes of posting question, was to use Reflect
Reflect.callMethod(null, onFocusCallback, []);
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 would like to dynamically invoke a Class's Property via a String. In the following code, I can dynamically invoke a Class's Function via a String.
var myClass:Class = getDefinitionByName("myPackage.MyClass") as Class;
myClass["myStaticMethod"]();
where MyClass is defined as:
package myPackage {
public class MyClass {
public function MyClass() {}
public function myMethod():void {};
public static function myStaticMethod():void {};
public static function get myProperty():Object { return null; }
}
}
However, a Property, such as MyClass.myProperty is not a Function. So,
var myClass:Class = getDefinitionByName("myPackage.MyClass") as Class;
myClass["myProperty"]();
throws an error: TypeError: Error #1006: value is not a function because myProperty is not a Function.
Is there any way to do this dynamically via Strings?
Thanks for the help.
To solve this issue, I simply needed to remove the () from the code. That is, the new code looks like:
var myClass:Class = getDefinitionByName("myPackage.MyClass") as Class;
myClass["myProperty"]; // This works.
The Answer of Alex will indeed works properly, but only if you have the String written properly. Else you get this error thrown at you: TypeError: Error #1006: value is not a function. To avoid this you could try test if the property or method is defined before using it. Like so:
if(myClass["myProperty"] != undefined)
{
...
}
Anyhow, in your specific example you are requesting a getter, and that's why you had to remove the () from your source. If you would be needing a method, I would also recommend you to save the method as a function:
var myFunction: Function = myClass["theFunction"];
And then to use either the call or the apply methods.
myFunction.call(null, myParam);
IF you are interested in studying all the methods that an Object has and comparing them to a String. Consider also:
var child:Sprite = new Sprite();
var description:XML = describeType(child);
var methodList: XMLList = description.descendants('method');
The attributes of a <method/> node are:
name: The name of the method.
declaredBy: The class that contains the method definition.
returnType: The data type of the method's return value.
I hope this helps out, let me know if you found it useful.
I ran into a problem today when trying to set a field using FieldInfo.SetValue() passing a DynamicObject as the second argument. In my case, the field is a Guid and the DynamicObject should be able to convert itself to a one (using TryConvert) but it fails with an ArgumentException.
Some code that shows the problem:
// Simple impl of a DynamicObject to prove point
public class MyDynamicObj : DynamicObject
{
public override bool TryConvert(ConvertBinder binder, out object result)
{
result = null;
// Support converting this to a Guid
if (binder.Type == typeof(Guid))
{
result = Guid.NewGuid();
return true;
}
return false;
}
}
public class Test
{
public Guid MyField;
}
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
dynamic myObj = new MyDynamicObj();
// This conversion works just fine
Guid guid = myObj;
var test = new Test();
var testField = typeof(Test).GetField("MyField");
// This, however, fails with:
// System.ArgumentException
// Object of type 'ConsoleApplication1.MyDynamicObj' cannot be converted to type 'System.Guid'.
testField.SetValue(test, myObj);
}
}
I'm not very familiar with the whole dynamicness of C# 4, but this felt to me like something that should work.. What am I doing wrong? Is there another way of doing this?
No, this shouldn't work - because the dynamic portion ends where your code ends. The compiler is calling a method with a signature of
void SetValue(Object obj, Object value)
That method call is dynamic, but it's just going to end up passing in a reference to the instance of MyDynamicObj. The call is resolved at execution time, but nothing in SetValue knows anything about the dynamic nature of the object whose reference you're passing in.
Basically you need to perform the dynamic part (the conversion in this case) in your code - the bit that involves the C# 4 compiler doing all its tricks. You've got to perform that conversion, and then you can call SetField.
To put it another way - it's a bit like calling SetField with a field of type XName, but passing in a string. Yes, there's a conversion from string to XName, but it's not SetField's job to work that out. That's the compiler's job.
Now, you can get this to work by making the compiler do some of the work, but you still need to do some with reflection:
static void Main(string[] args)
{
dynamic myObj = new MyDynamicObj();
var test = new Test();
var testField = typeof(Test).GetField("MyField");
var method = typeof(Program)
.GetMethod("Convert", BindingFlags.Static | BindingFlags.NonPublic);
method = method.MakeGenericMethod(testField.FieldType);
object converted = method.Invoke(null, new object[] {myObj});
testField.SetValue(test, converted);
}
static T Convert<T>(dynamic input)
{
return input;
}
You need an explicit cast to invoke the TryConvert:
testField.SetValue(test, (Guid)myObj);
Not sure if this is what you need though. Maybe there's some way to reflectively say ((DynamicObject)myObj).TryConvert(/*reflected destination type here*/, result)
Other attempts that failed, some of them require things like a certain interface be implemented, so they basically don't make use of TryConvert but maybe an alternative way to accomplish what you want:
Type secondType = testField.FieldType;
TypeConverter tc = TypeDescriptor.GetConverter(typeof(MyDynamicObj));
object secondObject = tc.ConvertTo(myObj,typeof( Guid));
//var secondObject = Convert.ChangeType(myObj, secondType);//Activator.CreateInstance(secondType);
//secondObject = myObj;
testField.SetValue(test, secondObject);