I decided to start a new project to get into hacklang, and after fixing some if the problems I initially ran into transitioning from php habits, I ran into the following errors:
Unbound name: str_replace
Unbound name: empty
Doing some research I found that this is due to using 'legacy' php which isn't typechecked, and will error with //strict.
That's fine and all, empty() was easy enough to replace, however str_replace() is a bit more difficult.
Is there an equivalent function that will work with //strict? Or at least something similar.
I'm aware that I could use //decl but I feel like that defeats the purpose in my case.
Is there at least any way to tell which functions are implemented in hack and which are not in the documentation as I couldn't find one?
For reference (though it isn't too relevant to the question itself), here is the code:
<?hh //strict
class HackMarkdown {
public function parse(string $content) : string {
if($content===null){
throw new RuntimeException('Empty Content');
}
$prepared = $this->prepare($content);
}
private function prepare(string $contentpre) : Vector<string>{
$contentpre = str_replace(array("\r\n","\r"),"\n",$contentpre);
//probably need more in here
$prepared = Vector::fromArray(explode($contentpre,"\n"));
//and here
return $prepared;
}
}
You don't need to change your code at all. You just need to tell the Hack tools about all the inbuilt PHP functions.
The easiest way to do this is to download this folder and put it somewhere in your project. I put it in a hhi folder in the base of my project. The files in there tell Hack about all the inbuilt PHP functions.
Most of them don't have type hints, which can lead to Hack thinking the return type of everything is mixed instead of the actual return, that is actually correct in most cases as, for example, str_replace can return either a string or a bool. However, it does stop the "unbound name" errors, which is the main reason for adding them.
Related
I've seen a bunch of questions related to this subject, but none of them offers anything that would be an acceptable solution (please, no loading external Groovy scripts, no calling to sh step etc.)
The operation I need to perform is a oneliner, but pipeline limitations made it impossible to write anything useful in that unter-language...
So, here's minimal example:
#NonCPS
def encodeProperties(Map properties) {
properties.collect { k, v -> "$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 code using AutoMapper 3.2.1.0 that uses the method ToNullSafeString().
I upgraded the NUGet package to 4.1.1.0, and I can no longer find the method in their package.Does anyone know the recommended approach to replacing the function? Is there a new construct that is functionally equivalent? If so, I cannot figure what it is. Nor can I find any mention of why it was removed.
This question has actually been answered pretty well in a couple of comments below it. For completeness, here are a couple of actual implementations of solutions.
Short answer
Probably both the simplest and the best solution: Replace all instances of .ToNullSafeString() with ?.ToString(). This does the same, but uses functionality built into newer versions of .Net instead of relying on an external extension method.
Alternative answer
If you've got a bunch of calls to the ToNullSafeString() method from the earlier version Automapper, and for some reason or other you can't or don't want to go through all your code and edit it away right now, you can use this instead.
Add the following class to your project, and make sure it can be reached from any classes that previously called the Automapper-method. Those calls will then automatically point to this instead.
public static class NullSafeStringHelper
{
public static string ToNullSafeString(this object value)
{
return value?.ToString();
}
}
I'm fairly new to Golang; previously used Python.
I am having difficult time to apply bufio in the object.
type fout struct {
filename string
fo File
bfo Writer
}
func (a *fout) init() {
a.fo,_:=os.Open(a.filename)
a.bfo:=bufio.NewWriter(fo)
}
Basically, I like to create objects; each will have it's filename, and bufio will be used.
Can anyone help me please?
Thank you
Few things in the code sample:
Every use of a name from another package needs to be prefixed with the package name--so fo File has to be fo *os.File.
You normally declare *bufio.Writer and *os.File as pointers (see the bufio and file docs at http://golang.org/pkg)
You want plain =, not :=, for assigning to attributes like a.fo and a.bfo.
Don't throw away errors, particularly if you're used to exceptions, or you'll have impossible-to-debug problems. (For a trivial script for learning you can if err != nil { panic(err) }, but for real use, you almost always want to return them.)
It could also help to review the tour, pick up some tricks/advice from the various talks and blog posts, maybe walk through Go By Example (I admit I haven't persionally used it but sounds like it could be useful when getting started), look at some open-source Go code (projects on Github, the stdlib, anything), and run through the surprisingly readable spec once you're at the level where you want to know how the language really works.
I am wondering if there is a way to ignore certain TypeScript errors upon compilation?
I basically have the same issues most people with large projects have around using the this keyword, and I don't want to put all my classes methods into the constructor.
So I have got an example like so:
TypeScript Example
Which seems to create perfectly valid JS and allows me to get around the this keyword issue, however as you can see in the example the typescript compiler tells me that I cannot compile that code as the keyword this is not valid within that scope. However I don't see why it is an error as it produces okay code.
So is there a way to tell it to ignore certain errors? I am sure given time there will be a nice way to manage the this keyword, but currently I find it pretty dire.
== Edit ==
(Do not read unless you care about context of this question and partial rant)
Just to add some context to all this to show that I'm not just some nut-job (I am sure a lot of you will still think I am) and that I have some good reasons why I want to be able to allow these errors to go through.
Here are some previous questions I have made which highlight some major problems (imo) with TypeScript current this implementation.
Using lawnchair with Typescript
Issue with child scoping of this in Typescript
https://typescript.codeplex.com/discussions/429350 (And some comments I make down the bottom)
The underlying problem I have is that I need to guarantee that all logic is within a consistent scope, I need to be able to access things within knockout, jQuery etc and the local instance of a class. I used to do this with the var self = this; within the class declaration in JavaScript and worked great. As mentioned in some of these previous questions I cannot do that now, so the only way I can guarantee the scope is to use lambda methods, and the only way I can define one of these as a method within a class is within the constructor, and this part is HEAVILY down to personal preference, but I find it horrific that people seem to think that using that syntax is classed as a recommended pattern and not just a work around.
I know TypeScript is in alpha phase and a lot will change, and I HOPE so much that we get some nicer way to deal with this but currently I either make everything a huge mess just to get typescript working (and this is within Hundreds of files which I'm migrating over to TypeScript ) or I just make the call that I know better than the compiler in this case (VERY DANGEROUS I KNOW) so I can keep my code nice and hopefully when a better pattern comes out for handling this I can migrate it then.
Also just on a side note I know a lot of people are loving the fact that TypeScript is embracing and trying to stay as close to the new JavaScript features and known syntax as possible which is great, but typescript is NOT the next version of JavaScript so I don't see a problem with adding some syntactic sugar to the language as people who want to use the latest and greatest official JavaScript implementation can still do so.
The author's specific issue with this seems to be solved but the question is posed about ignoring errors, and for those who end up here looking how to ignore errors:
If properly fixing the error or using more decent workarounds like already suggested here are not an option, as of TypeScript 2.6 (released on Oct 31, 2017), now there is a way to ignore all errors from a specific line using // #ts-ignore comments before the target line.
The mendtioned documentation is succinct enough, but to recap:
// #ts-ignore
const s : string = false
disables error reporting for this line.
However, this should only be used as a last resort when fixing the error or using hacks like (x as any) is much more trouble than losing all type checking for a line.
As for specifying certain errors, the current (mid-2018) state is discussed here, in Design Meeting Notes (2/16/2018) and further comments, which is basically
"no conclusion yet"
and strong opposition to introducing this fine tuning.
I think your question as posed is an XY problem. What you're going for is how can I ensure that some of my class methods are guaranteed to have a correct this context?
For that problem, I would propose this solution:
class LambdaMethods {
constructor(private message: string) {
this.DoSomething = this.DoSomething.bind(this);
}
public DoSomething() {
alert(this.message);
}
}
This has several benefits.
First, you're being explicit about what's going on. Most programmers are probably not going to understand the subtle semantics about what the difference between the member and method syntax are in terms of codegen.
Second, it makes it very clear, from looking at the constructor, which methods are going to have a guaranteed this context. Critically, from a performance, perspective, you don't want to write all your methods this way, just the ones that absolutely need it.
Finally, it preserves the OOP semantics of the class. You'll actually be able to use super.DoSomething from a derived class implementation of DoSomething.
I'm sure you're aware of the standard form of defining a function without the arrow notation. There's another TypeScript expression that generates the exact same code but without the compile error:
class LambdaMethods {
private message: string;
public DoSomething: () => void;
constructor(message: string) {
this.message = message;
this.DoSomething = () => { alert(this.message); };
}
}
So why is this legal and the other one isn't? Well according to the spec: an arrow function expression preserves the this of its enclosing context. So it preserves the meaning of this from the scope it was declared. But declaring a function at the class level this doesn't actually have a meaning.
Here's an example that's wrong for the exact same reason that might be more clear:
class LambdaMethods {
private message: string;
constructor(message: string) {
this.message = message;
}
var a = this.message; // can't do this
}
The way that initializer works by being combined with the constructor is an implementation detail that can't be relied upon. It could change.
I am sure given time there will be a nice way to manage the this keyword, but currently I find it pretty dire.
One of the high-level goals (that I love) in TypeScript is to extend the JavaScript language and work with it, not fight it. How this operates is tricky but worth learning.
I've recently started working on a non-trivial project in CoffeeScript and I'm struggling with how best to deal with registering exports etc. I'm writing it in a very 'pythonesque' manner, with individual files effectively being 'modules' of related classes and functions. What I'm looking for is the best way to define classes and functions locally AND in exports/window with as little repetition as possible.
At the moment, I'm using the following in every file, to save writing exports.X = X for everything in the file:
class module
# All classes/functions to be included in exports should be defined with `#`
# E.g.
class #DatClass
exports[name] = item for own name, item of module
I've also looked at the possibility of using a function (say, publish) that puts the passed class in exports/window depending on its name:
publish = (f) ->
throw new Error 'publish only works with named functions' unless f.name?
((exports ? window).namespace ?= {})[f.name] = f
publish class A
# A is now available in the local scope and in `exports.namespace`
# or `window.namespace`
This, however, does not work with functions as, as far as I know, they cannot be 'named' in CoffeeScript (e.g. f.name is always '') and so publish cannot determine the correct name.
Is there any method that works like publish but works with functions? Or any alternative ways of handling this?
It's an ugly hack but you can use the following :
class module.exports
class #foo
#bar = 3
And then :
require(...).foo.bar // 3
The old
(function (exports) {
// my code
exports.someLib = ...
})(typeof exports === "undefined" ? window : exports);
Is a neat trick that should do what you want.
If writing that wrapper boilerplate is a pain then automate it with a build script.
What I'm looking for is the best way to define classes and functions locally AND in exports/window with as little repetition as possible.
It's impossible to do something like
exports.x = var x = ...;
without writing x twice in JavaScript (without resorting to black magicks, i.e. eval), and the same goes for CoffeeScript. Bummer, I know, but that's how it is.
My advice would be to not get too hung up on it; that kind of repetition is common. But do ask yourself: "Do I really need to export this function or variable and make it locally available?" Cleanly decoupled code doesn't usually work that way.
There's an exception to the "no named functions" rule: classes. This works: http://jsfiddle.net/PxBgn/
exported = (clas) ->
console.log clas.name
window[clas.name] = clas
...
exported class Snake extends Animal
move: ->
alert "Slithering..."
super 5