I am just summarizing info about implementing a digital tree (Trie) in VBA. I am not asking how to do that so please do not post your solutions - my specific question regarding fixed-length Strings in class modules comes at the end of this post.
A Trie is all about efficiency and performance therefore most of other programming languages use a Char data type to represent members of TrieNodes. Since VBA does not have a Char datatype I was thinking about faking it and using a fixed-length String with 1 character.
Note: I can come up with a work-around to this ie. use Byte and a simple function to convert between Chr() and Asc() or an Enum, or delcare as a private str as String * 1 and take advantage of get/let properties but that's not the point. Stay tuned though because...
According to Public Statement on Microsoft Help Page you can't declare a fixed-length String variable in class modules.
I can't find any reasonable explanation for this constrain.
Can anyone give some insight why such a restriction applies to fixed-length Strings in class modules in VBA?
The VBA/VB6 runtime is heavily reliant on the COM system (oleaut32 et al) and this enforces some rules.
You can export a class flile between VB "stuff" but if you publish (or could theoretically publish) it as a COM object it must be able to describe a "fixed length string" in its interface description/type library so that say a C++ client can consume it.
A fixed length string is "special" because it has active behaviour, i.e. its not a dumb datatype, it behaves somewhat like a class; for example its always padded - if you assign to it it will have trailing spaces, in VBA the compiler adds generated code to get that behaviour. A C++ consumer would be unaware of the fixed-length nature of the string because the interface cant describe it/does not support a corresponding type (a String is a BSTR) which could lead to problems.
Strings are of type BSTR and like a byte array you would still lose the padding semantics if you used one of those instead.
Related
When to use which type of STRING in eiffel? I saw using READABLE_STRING_GENERAL and having to l_readable_string.out' to convert it to STRING`
READABLE_STRING_GENERAL is an ancestor of all variants of strings: mutable, immutable, 8-bit, 32-bit, so it can be used as a formal argument type when the feature can handle any string variant.
READABLE_STRING_32 is a good choice when the code handles Unicode, and can work with either mutable or immutable versions.
STRING_32 is a mutable Unicode variant. The code can change its value.
STRING is an alias for a string type that can either be STRING_8 or STRING_32. At the time of writing only a few libraries are adapted to handle the mapping of STRING to STRING_32. However, this mapping could become the default in the future to facilitate working with Unicode.
Regardless of the future, I would recommend using ..._STRING_32 to process strings. This way the code directly supports Unicode. The libraries are also updated in this direction. For example, io.put_string_32 can be used to print a Unicode string to the standard output (using the current locale).
Just as a follow-up (I know I am years late in posting anything).
I'm studying how to use the FIs and the lambda expressions and I was wondering if I could compare two objects but of a different type such as an Integer object and a String object. I've seen them, sometimes, being used interchangeably like a Char becoming and Integer or a CharSequence becoming a String. That made me think about comparing them since they all come from the Object superclass.
Thank you.
It's not entirely clear to me what you're asking here.
However, I would guess you saw a char being compared to an Integer when it was used to represent its Unicode value (cfr.: this question).
The relationship between String and CharSequence instead is that of a class implementing an interface (check this for more information)
I was just wondering why the string functions in Google Go are defined in a strings package as opposed to on the string data type itself. They could have easily done
func (s string) ToUpper() string {
}
instead of the current
func ToUpper(s string) string {
}
in the strings package.
My guess is that if you want to implement a custom version of ToUpper on a custom type that extends string (i.e., type MyString string), you have no way to access the builtin ToUpper anymore on that type, but I can't find any support on this.
The short answer is: "To keep the language simple."
Go as a language only allows methods to be defined on types that are in the same package, but because string (like other builtin types) is implemented in the language itself, there is no way to add methods to it, without complicating the language / compiler.
It's also partly, because of how Go was designed.
See this mail from Rob Pike (one of the creators of Go) for more information:
Go does not have methods on basic types because the designers of the
language did not want methods defined for basic types, in part because
of the knock-on effect they might have on interfaces. I believe we are
all still comfortable with that decision. Others may feel differently.
-rob
And this one too:
We simply didn't understand what the implications would be; there's
nothing to explain. Go was designed with caution.
In that vein, look at the size of the strings library. Making all that
functionality methods on the basic type would, as Andrew said,
complicate the language. Why complicate the language with such trivial
things when it can be achieved by a library, which is more
maintainable, easier to extend, and more flexible? The language is
much simpler the way things are.
-rob
string is one of the predeclared type in the builtin package.
Those functions in strings couldn't have been defined as method using a predeclared type as a receiver: that would have required to define a type alias (to the underlying type string, in order to attach methods to it).
A method declaration uses a receiver which has a Type, which in turn does not include any of the predeclared types (bool byte complex64 complex128 error float32 float64 int int8 int16 int32 int64 rune string uint uint8 uint16 uint32 uint64 uintptr).
Or (which is done here), one uses functions in a dedicated package 'strings'.
That seems coherent with the fact that the type string itself has no fields: its content doesn't have to "receive" the method, it can simply be used by a function.
Once I studied about the advantage of a string being immutable because of something to improve performace in memory.
Can anybody explain this to me? I can't find it on the Internet.
Immutability (for strings or other types) can have numerous advantages:
It makes it easier to reason about the code, since you can make assumptions about variables and arguments that you can't otherwise make.
It simplifies multithreaded programming since reading from a type that cannot change is always safe to do concurrently.
It allows for a reduction of memory usage by allowing identical values to be combined together and referenced from multiple locations. Both Java and C# perform string interning to reduce the memory cost of literal strings embedded in code.
It simplifies the design and implementation of certain algorithms (such as those employing backtracking or value-space partitioning) because previously computed state can be reused later.
Immutability is a foundational principle in many functional programming languages - it allows code to be viewed as a series of transformations from one representation to another, rather than a sequence of mutations.
Immutable strings also help avoid the temptation of using strings as buffers. Many defects in C/C++ programs relate to buffer overrun problems resulting from using naked character arrays to compose or modify string values. Treating strings as a mutable types encourages using types better suited for buffer manipulation (see StringBuilder in .NET or Java).
Consider the alternative. Java has no const qualifier. If String objects were mutable, then any method to which you pass a reference to a string could have the side-effect of modifying the string. Immutable strings eliminate the need for defensive copies, and reduce the risk of program error.
Immutable strings are cheap to copy, because you don't need to copy all the data - just copy a reference or pointer to the data.
Immutable classes of any kind are easier to work with in multiple threads, the only synchronization needed is for destruction.
Perhaps, my answer is outdated, but probably someone will found here a new information.
Why Java String is immutable and why it is good:
you can share a string between threads and be sure no one of them will change the string and confuse another thread
you don’t need a lock. Several threads can work with immutable string without conflicts
if you just received a string, you can be sure no one will change its value after that
you can have many string duplicates – they will be pointed to a single instance, to just one copy. This saves computer memory (RAM)
you can do substring without copying, – by creating a pointer to an existing string’s element. This is why Java substring operation implementation is so fast
immutable strings (objects) are much better suited to use them as key in hash-tables
a) Imagine StringPool facility without making string immutable , its not possible at all because in case of string pool one string object/literal e.g. "Test" has referenced by many reference variables , so if any one of them change the value others will be automatically gets affected i.e. lets say
String A = "Test" and String B = "Test"
Now String B called "Test".toUpperCase() which change the same object into "TEST" , so A will also be "TEST" which is not desirable.
b) Another reason of Why String is immutable in Java is to allow String to cache its hashcode , being immutable String in Java caches its hash code and do not calculate every time we call hashcode method of String, which makes it very fast as hashmap key.
Think of various strings sitting on a common pool. String variables then point to locations in the pool. If u copy a string variable, both the original and the copy shares the same characters. These efficiency of sharing outweighs the inefficiency of string editing by extracting substrings and concatenating.
Fundamentally, if one object or method wishes to pass information to another, there are a few ways it can do it:
It may give a reference to a mutable object which contains the information, and which the recipient promises never to modify.
It may give a reference to an object which contains the data, but whose content it doesn't care about.
It may store the information into a mutable object the intended data recipient knows about (generally one supplied by that data recipient).
It may return a reference to an immutable object containing the information.
Of these methods, #4 is by far the easiest. In many cases, mutable objects are easier to work with than immutable ones, but there's no easy way to share with "untrusted" code the information that's in a mutable object without having to first copy the information to something else. By contrast, information held in an immutable object to which one holds a reference may easily be shared by simply sharing a copy of that reference.
Visual C++ 2008 C runtime offers an operator 'offsetof', which is actually macro defined as this:
#define offsetof(s,m) (size_t)&reinterpret_cast<const volatile char&>((((s *)0)->m))
This allows you to calculate the offset of the member variable m within the class s.
What I don't understand in this declaration is:
Why are we casting m to anything at all and then dereferencing it? Wouldn't this have worked just as well:
&(((s*)0)->m)
?
What's the reason for choosing char reference (char&) as the cast target?
Why use volatile? Is there a danger of the compiler optimizing the loading of m? If so, in what exact way could that happen?
An offset is in bytes. So to get a number expressed in bytes, you have to cast the addresses to char, because that is the same size as a byte (on this platform).
The use of volatile is perhaps a cautious step to ensure that no compiler optimisations (either that exist now or may be added in the future) will change the precise meaning of the cast.
Update:
If we look at the macro definition:
(size_t)&reinterpret_cast<const volatile char&>((((s *)0)->m))
With the cast-to-char removed it would be:
(size_t)&((((s *)0)->m))
In other words, get the address of member m in an object at address zero, which does look okay at first glance. So there must be some way that this would potentially cause a problem.
One thing that springs to mind is that the operator & may be overloaded on whatever type m happens to be. If so, this macro would be executing arbitrary code on an "artificial" object that is somewhere quite close to address zero. This would probably cause an access violation.
This kind of abuse may be outside the applicability of offsetof, which is supposed to only be used with POD types. Perhaps the idea is that it is better to return a junk value instead of crashing.
(Update 2: As Steve pointed out in the comments, there would be no similar problem with operator ->)
offsetof is something to be very careful with in C++. It's a relic from C. These days we are supposed to use member pointers. That said, I believe that member pointers to data members are overdesigned and broken - I actually prefer offsetof.
Even so, offsetof is full of nasty surprises.
First, for your specific questions, I suspect the real issue is that they've adapted relative to the traditional C macro (which I thought was mandated in the C++ standard). They probably use reinterpret_cast for "it's C++!" reasons (so why the (size_t) cast?), and a char& rather than a char* to try to simplify the expression a little.
Casting to char looks redundant in this form, but probably isn't. (size_t) is not equivalent to reinterpret_cast, and if you try to cast pointers to other types into integers, you run into problems. I don't think the compiler even allows it, but to be honest, I'm suffering memory failure ATM.
The fact that char is a single byte type has some relevance in the traditional form, but that may only be why the cast is correct again. To be honest, I seem to remember casting to void*, then char*.
Incidentally, having gone to the trouble of using C++-specific stuff, they really should be using std::ptrdiff_t for the final cast.
Anyway, coming back to the nasty surprises...
VC++ and GCC probably won't use that macro. IIRC, they have a compiler intrinsic, depending on options.
The reason is to do what offsetof is intended to do, rather than what the macro does, which is reliable in C but not in C++. To understand this, consider what would happen if your struct uses multiple or virtual inheritance. In the macro, when you dereference a null pointer, you end up trying to access a virtual table pointer that isn't there at address zero, meaning that your app probably crashes.
For this reason, some compilers have an intrinsic that just uses the specified structs layout instead of trying to deduce a run-time type. But the C++ standard doesn't mandate or even suggest this - it's only there for C compatibility reasons. And you still have to be careful if you're working with class heirarchies, because as soon as you use multiple or virtual inheritance, you cannot assume that the layout of the derived class matches the layout of the base class - you have to ensure that the offset is valid for the exact run-time type, not just a particular base.
If you're working on a data structure library, maybe using single inheritance for nodes, but apps cannot see or use your nodes directly, offsetof works well. But strictly speaking, even then, there's a gotcha. If your data structure is in a template, the nodes may have fields with types from template parameters (the contained data type). If that isn't POD, technically your structs aren't POD either. And all the standard demands for offsetof is that it works for POD. In practice, it will work - your type hasn't gained a virtual table or anything just because it has a non-POD member - but you have no guarantees.
If you know the exact run-time type when you dereference using a field offset, you should be OK even with multiple and virtual inheritance, but ONLY if the compiler provides an intrinsic implementation of offsetof to derive that offset in the first place. My advice - don't do it.
Why use inheritance in a data structure library? Well, how about...
class node_base { ... };
class leaf_node : public node_base { ... };
class branch_node : public node_base { ... };
The fields in the node_base are automatically shared (with identical layout) in both the leaf and branch, avoiding a common error in C with accidentally different node layouts.
BTW - offsetof is avoidable with this kind of stuff. Even if you are using offsetof for some jobs, node_base can still have virtual methods and therefore a virtual table, so long as it isn't needed to dereference member variables. Therefore, node_base can have pure virtual getters, setters and other methods. Normally, that's exactly what you should do. Using offsetof (or member pointers) is a complication, and should only be used as an optimisation if you know you need it. If your data structure is in a disk file, for instance, you definitely don't need it - a few virtual call overheads will be insignificant compared with the disk access overheads, so any optimisation efforts should go into minimising disk accesses.
Hmmm - went off on a bit of a tangent there. Whoops.
char is guarenteed to be the smallest number of bits the architectural can "bite" (aka byte).
All pointers are actually numbers, so cast adress 0 to that type because it's the beginning.
Take the address of member starting from 0 (resulting into 0 + location_of_m).
Cast that back to size_t.
1) I also do not know why it is done in this way.
2) The char type is special in two ways.
No other type has weaker alignment restrictions than the char type. This is important for reinterpret cast between pointers and between expression and reference.
It is also the only type (together with its unsigned variant) for which the specification defines behavior in case the char is used to access stored value of variables of different type. I do not know if this applies to this specific situation.
3) I think that the volatile modifier is used to ensure that no compiler optimization will result in attempt to read the memory.
2 . What's the reason for choosing char reference (char&) as the cast target?
if type s has operator& overloaded then we can't get address using &s
so we reinterpret_cast the type s to primitive type char because primitive type char
doesn't have operator& overloaded
now we can get address from that
if in C then reinterpret_cast is not required
3 . Why use volatile? Is there a danger of the compiler optimizing the loading of m? If so, in what exact way could that happen?
here volatile is not relevant to compiler optimizing.
if type s have const or volatile or both qualifier(s) then
reinterpret_cast can't cast to char& because reinterpret_cast can't remove cv-qualifiers
so result is using <const volatile char&> for casting work from any combination