I used this:
Local<Value> argv[argc] = { String::New("hello world") };
But now I see the example on node.js website:
Local<Value> argv[argc] = { Local<Value>::New(String::New("hello world")) };
What does it mean? What's difference, when an dwhy I should use Local<Value> in addition to String::New()
Apparently, the node.js example in this case was wrong/inefficient.
https://github.com/joyent/node/commit/98aad77f466d9c36947f2cbb6d07b75009795ed2#commitcomment-5532648
jnardone added a note 2 hours ago
Was this just one of those things that was always wrong, or was there
an underlying v8 change that meant that this should change? The
additional Local::New always looked odd but I can't tell if something
buried inside v8 required this additional wrapper or not.
bnoordhuis added a note 7 minutes ago
It's cleanup. Creating a Local out of a Local is not
actively harmful but it's superfluous and slightly inefficient.
So, your first format is fine.
Related
The help text for require-atomic-updates talks exclusively about statements that both set and consume the same variable.
I have some old† code that looks something like this (I think I've included everything that is relevant):
var someFunction = async function someFunction () {
switch(someVariable) {
case 0:
if (maybe) {
await doSomething();
}
break;
case 1:
//similar to above
}
someVariable = 0; // Error detected on this line
return
}
var someVariable = 0;
someFunction is invoked during some event processing later, while someVariable can be adjusted by multiple code paths
As far as I can tell, the line on which the error is reported is an atomic update, it doesn't read the value or set the new value based on anything else.
I can't understand why eslint thinks there is a possible race-condition here?
The code has been functional for a long time now, so I'm happy to just disable the rule on this line to stop it complaining. But I'd like to understand the reason that eslint highlighted it.
† The original code was written long ago, but has been adjusted more recently to be async
If you upgraded to eslint 6.0.1 like I just did, you're encountering a recently introduced bug.
There are several open github issues referencing this bug, but the gist of it is that require-atomic-updates is currently broken.
I recommend downgrading eslint or disabling the rule as a workaround.
Bug reports on the issue here:
https://github.com/eslint/eslint/issues?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+require-atomic-updates
In compiling languages like C we have a preprocessor that can be used to skip parts of program without compiling them, effectively just excluding them from the source code:
#ifdef SHOULD_RUN_THIS
/* this code not always runs */
#endif
So that if SHOULD_RUN_THIS is not defined, then the code will never be run.
In node.js we don't have a direct equivalent of this, so the first thing I can imagine is
if (config.SHOULD_RUN_THIS) {
/* this code not always runs */
}
However in node there is no way to guarantee that config.SHOULD_RUN_THIS will never change, so if (...) check will be performed each time in vain.
What would be the most performant way to rewrite it? I can think of
a) create a separate function to allow v8-optimizations:
function f(args) {
if (config.SHOULD_RUN_THIS) {
/* this code not always runs */
}
}
// ...
f(args);
b) create a variable to store the function and set it to an empty function when not needed:
var f;
if (config.SHOULD_RUN_THIS) {
f = (args) => {
/* this code not always runs */
}
}
else {
f = function () {} // does nothing
}
// ...
f(args);
c) do not create a separate function, just leave it in place:
if (config.SHOULD_RUN_THIS) {
/* this code not always runs */
}
What is the most performant way? Maybe some other way...
i personally would adopt ...
if (config.SHOULD_RUN_THIS) {
require('/path/for/conditional/module');
}
the module code is only required where needed, otherwise it is not even loaded in memory let alone executed.
the only downside is that it is not readily clear which modules are being required since your require statements are not all positioned at the top of the file.
es6 modularity adopts this dynamic module request approach.
PS use of config like this is great since, you can for example, use an environment variable to determine your code path. Great when spinning up, for example, a bunch of docker containers that you want to behave differently depending on the env vars passed to the docker run statements.
apologies for this insight if you are not a docker fan :) apologies i am waffling now!
if you're looking for a preprocessor for your Javascript, why not use a preprocessor for your Javascript? It's node-compatible and appears to do what you need. You could also look into writing a plugin for Babel or some other JS mangling tool (or v8 itself!)
If you're looking for a way to do this inside the language itself, I'd avoid any optimizations which target a single engine like v8 unless you're sure that's the only place your code will ever run. Otherwise, as has been mentioned, try breaking out conditional code into a separate module so it's only loaded if necessary for it to run.
I've got a struct in a file that begins with this line:
// +build windows
Therefore it will only be built on Windows. However, the part of the application that initializes everything needs to check if it is running on Windows and if so, create an instance of the struct. I have no idea how to do this without breaking things on other platforms.
For example, if the file contains a function newWindowsSpecificThing() and I compile on Linux, the function won't exist because it is defined in a file that isn't being compiled. (And, of course, this will produce an error.)
How do I work around this dilemma?
I think your solution would be to have some method on your struct which is used on all platforms. Look at how the dir_*.go files work for the os package. The func (file *File) readdirnames(n int) (names []string, err error) is available on all platforms by providing it in dir_plan9.go, dir_unix.go and dir_windows.go.
For your problem, I'd take the same approach but with some generic method that does internal work. In your application logic you'd call that function and in your file_unix.go file you'd define that function to do nothing (empty body).
Somewhere you clearly have a function that calls newWindowsSpecificThing(). That should be in a Windows-specific file. If it were, then it wouldn't matter that it isn't available. The fact that you have something "check if it is running on Windows" suggests a if runtime.GOOS == "windows" statement somewhere. Rather than have that, move the entire if into a function that is defined in a Windows-specific file. You'll also need to define that function in a !windows file, which is fine.
As an example from my code, I have a function:
func Setup() *config {
var cfg *config
// setup portable parts of cfg
return PlatformSpecificSetup(cfg)
}
I then have a file marked // +build windows that defines PlatformSpecificSetup() one way, and another marked // +build !windows that defines it another. I never have to check runtime.GOOS and I never have to deal with undefined data types. The config struct itself is defined in those files, so it can have different fields for each platform (as long as they agree enough for Setup()). If I were being more careful, I could create a struct like:
type config struct {
// independent stuff
plat *platformConfig
}
And then just define platformConfig in each platform file, but in practice I've found that more trouble than it's worth.
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.
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.