I'm trying to pass a Class reference and instantiate it in a function. This doesn't work:
function foo(myClassRef:Class):Void {
var myVar = new myClassRef();
}
foo(MyClass);
It gives Unexpected (.
Is this possible in Haxe 3?
Class has a Type Parameter, so if you're going to accept a class as an argument, you need to specify a type parameter.
Accept any class:
function foo(myClassRef:Class<Dynamic>):Void {
var myVar = Type.createInstance( myClassRef, [constructorArg1, constructorArg2....] );
trace( Type.typeof(myVar) );
}
Accept only "sys.db.Object" class or sub classes:
function foo(myClassRef:Class<sys.db.Object>):Void {
var myVar = Type.createInstance( myClassRef, [] );
trace( Type.typeof(myVar) );
}
Haxe 3 also allows generic functions:
#:generic function foo<T:Dynamic>(t:Class<T>) {
var myVar = new T();
trace( Type.typeof(myVar) );
}
Here you declare the function to be generic, which means that for each different type parameter, a different version of the function will be compiled. You accept Class, where T is the type parameter - in this case, dynamic, so it will work with any class. Finally, using generic functions let's you write new T(), which may seem a more natural syntax, and there may be performance benefits on some platforms.
It is possible in Haxe3 and Haxe2
function foo<T>(myClassRef:T):Void {
var myVar = new T();
}
Note: Haxe3 class (where foo is implemented) must be #:generic if you want new T() to work.
Haxe2 is another story:
function foo<T>(myClassRef:Class<T>):Void {
var myVar = Type.createEmptyInstance(Type.getClass(myClassRef));
}
Related
Class constructor initializes and create objects/functions in a class. If I'm using functions, how would I initialize a function within the function?
This is the simple class
export default class MainProcess{
constructor() {
this.isReady = false
this.init()
}
init() {
this.setupApplicationMenu()
this.initWindowManager()
this.getIcons()
}
}
how can I initiate a MainPRocess Function?
While I'm not entirely sure I understand the question, I think you're asking "How can I create a function in a way that's similar to how I'm used to writing classes, but without using the class keyword?" Here's an example of that:
function Example () {
this.value = 10;
// instance method
this.print = function () {
console.log(this.value);
}
}
// static method
Example.printHello = function () {
console.log('hello world');
}
const example1 = new Example();
example1.print(); // 10
example1.value = 20;
example1.print(); //20
console.log(Object.getPrototypeOf(example1).constructor.name); // "Example"
const example2 = new Example();
example2. print(); //10
Example.printHello(); // "hello world"
Functions are part of the class. Classes are a grouping of functions(methods) and data(as properties). These functions are used to modify properties.
In the above example, you created a class MainProcess with some functions. However, functions defined in the init method is not present. The compiler will throw an error.
constructor is a special method used to create an object with that class.
If I'm using functions, how would I initialize a function within the
function?
It seems you are mixing two concepts function constructors in JS and Classes which are introduced later. Class is nothing, but a syntactic sugar on function constructor. JS is a prototype-based language.
difference b/w function and function constructor?
Functions created with the Function constructor do not create closures to their creation contexts; they always are created in the global scope. When running them, they will only be able to access their own local variables and global ones, not the ones from the scope in which the Function constructor was created. This is different from using Global_Objects/eval with code for a function expression.
var x = 10;
function createFunction1() {
var x = 20;
return new Function('return x;'); // this |x| refers global |x|
}
function createFunction2() {
var x = 20;
function f() {
return x; // this |x| refers local |x| above
}
return f;
}
var f1 = createFunction1();
console.log(f1()); // 10
var f2 = createFunction2();
console.log(f2()); // 20
I highly recommend you first understand the how JS has implemented class in it.
I have two files: index.ts and A.ts
A.ts:
export default class {
do() {
console.log(someVar);
}
}
index.ts:
import A from './A';
function printIt(param) {
let someVar = param;
let a = new A();
a.do();
}
printIt('wow'); // Console output: wow
printIt('123'); // Console output: 123
Is it real to declare someVar for A.ts from index.ts without wrapping A class?
I know that Node.JS wrappes all modules in (function (exports, require, module, __filename, __dirname, process, global) { }: How to change the Node.js module wrapper?
I tried to make a custom require function and pass my var like an argument. But I don't understand how can I make own require function in TypScript. Are there any ideas?
The scope of variables depends on where they are defined, not where they are called. this is on purpose, so you do not accidentally call on variables you did not know about being in the same scope as your function's invocation.
You must explicitly tell the code you want to pass this new variable into it, either just like Lux showed, or through passing it to the function like:
export default class {
do(someVar) {
console.log(someVar);
}
}
function printIt(param) {
let someVar = param;
let a = new A();
a.do(someVar);
}
what you're trying to do is akin to having everything be a global variable.
if you MUST do this (you shouldn't), there is one way you can.
export default class {
do() {
console.log(global.someVar);
}
}
function printIt(param) {
global.someVar = param;
let a = new A();
a.do();
}
There's many reasons why you do not want to do global variables, here are some
Edits after clarification:
So the "this" keyword inside of a module refers to the module's global scope, so I tried the following snippet:
// modA.js
const moduleContext = this
class ExportedClass {
printer() {
console.log(moduleContext.someVar)
}
}
module.exports = { ExportedClass }
//modB.js
let A = require("./modA")
A.someVar = "hello world"
let obj = new A.ExportedClass()
obj.printer()
and it seems the context was removed, the same thing with ES6 imports using mjs files, what did Work however is this:
//modA.js
function printer() {
console.log(this.someVar)
}
module.exports = { printer }
//modB.js
let A = require("./modA")
A.someVar = "hello world"
A.printer()
it seems moduleContext points to the old module context object, and the new imported module has a different context object.
This still seems like a bad idea though, you're better off structuring your code so that you export a constructing function, that takes whatever needs to be "global" for that scope, and sets it inside.
What are you trying to do? The seperation for module is on purpose, so the scope of everything remains.
Next, you have a typo: it should probably be let a = new A(); not let a = new A;.
But why dont you just pass the variable as an argument to the constructor of your A class?
export default class {
someVar: string;
constructor(someVar) {
this.someVar = someVar;
}
do() {
console.log(this.someVar);
}
}
now you can just do
function printIt(param) {
let someVar = param;
let a = new A(someVar);
a.do();
}
Problem
Is there a way in Typescript to define a type that is only a string literal, excluding string itself?
Note that I am not talking about a certain list of string literal; for which, a simple union of "Value1" | "Value2", or an enum type would work. I am talking about any string literal, but not string itself.
Example Code
type OnlyStringLiterals = ...; // <--- what should we put here?
const v1: OnlyStringLiterals = "hi"; // should work
const v2: OnlyStringLiterals = "bye"; // should work
// and so should be for any single string value assigned
// But:
const v3: OnlyStringLiterals = ("red" as string); // should NOT work -- it's string
Use Case
I am doing Branding on the types in my code, and I am passing a brand name, as a template, to my parent class. See the code below:
abstract class MyAbstractClass<
BRAND_T extends string,
VALUE_T = string
> {
constructor(private readonly _value: VALUE_T) { }
getValue(): VALUE_T { return this._value; }
private _Brand?: BRAND_T; // required to error on the last line, as intended!
}
class FirstName extends MyAbstractClass<"FirstName"> {
}
class AdminRole extends MyAbstractClass<"AdminRole"> {
}
class SubClassWithMissedName extends MyAbstractClass<string> {
// I want this to error! ........................ ^^^^^^
}
function printName(name: FirstName) {
console.log(name.getValue());
}
const userFirstName = new FirstName("Alex");
const userRole = new AdminRole("Moderator");
printName(userRole); // Already errors, as expected
Playground Link
I want to make sure every subclass is passing exactly a string literal, and not just string to the parent class.
I found an answer that works for my use case, but is not the most reusable one. Just sharing it anyway.
Thought Process
I believe it's not possible to have one solid type to represent what I wanted, because I cannot even think what will show up in VS Code if I hover over it!
However, to my knowledge, there is a function-style checking in Typescript for types that you can pass a type in and expect a type back, and finally assign a value to it to see if it goes through.
Type-checking using a Generic Type and a follow-up assignment
Using this technique I am thinking about the following template type:
type TrueStringLiterals<T extends string> = string extends T ? never : true;
const v1 = "hi";
const check1: TrueStringLiterals<typeof v1> = true; // No error :-)
const v2 = "bye";
const check2: TrueStringLiterals<typeof v2> = true; // No error :-)
const v3 = ("red" as string);
const check3: TrueStringLiterals<typeof v3> = true; // Errors, as expected!
Playground Link
Easier in an already-passed Generic Type
Also, in my use case, I am doing:
abstract class MyAbstractClass<
BRAND_T extends (string extends BRAND_T ? never : string),
VALUE_T = string
> {
...
Playground Link
... which works like a charm!
You can create utility type which will allow only on subset of string:
type SubString<T> = T extends string ?
string extends T ? never
: T
: never
const makeSubStr = <T extends string>(a: SubString<T>) => a
const a = makeSubStr('strLiteral')
const b = makeSubStr('strLiteral' as string) // error
const c: string = 'elo I am string'
const d = makeSubStr(c) // error
const e: SubString<"red"> = ("red" as string); // error
This type will also return never if something is not a string, in your answer TrueStringLiterals will not take this case into consideration and pass it through.
The other answers don't catch the case where the provided type parameter is a union of literal strings. If this shall be explicitly avoided, as could be read from the OPs question, the following solution, based on the other two can be used:
type UnUnion<T, S> = T extends S ? ([S] extends [T] ? T : never) : never;
type NotUnion<T> = UnUnion<T, T>;
type LiteralString<T extends string> = string extends T ? never : NotUnion<T>;
where UnUnion uses the fact that if T is a union, say 'a' | 'b', the union is distributed over the rest of the type expression.
(['a'|'b'] extends ['a'] ? ... ) | (['a'|'b'] extends ['b'] ? ...)
If T is a union, none of these can hold and all the parts turn into never.
NotUnion reduces this to have just one generic parameter and LiteralString just uses its result in case its parameter is not extendable by string.
Playground Link
I'd like to submit an answer from a similar question I recently asked, that is far more simple than the examples given so far:
type SpecificString<S extends Exclude<string, S>> = S
let test1: SpecificString<"a" | "b" | "c"> // okay
let test2: SpecificString<string> // error
//guaranteed to work where `Exclude<string, T>` wouldn't
let test3: Exclude<SpecificString<"a" | "1">, "1">
test3 = "a" // okay
test3 = "1" // error
Basically how this works:
Exclude<string, "any string literal"> ==> resolves to string
Exclude<string, string> ==> resolves to never
You can call this F-bounded quantification if you like I guess.
The very simple module that I've created to test the viability of this endeavor. Here is the beginning of SPServerApp.ts:
class SPServerApp {
public AllUsersDict: any;
public AllRoomsDict: any;
constructor () {
this.AllUsersDict = {};
this.AllRoomsDict = {};
}
}
module.exports = SPServerApp();
Then in my app, I have this require statement:
var serverapp = require('./SPServerApp');
I then try to access one of the dictionaries like so:
serverapp.AllUsersDict.hasOwnProperty(nickname)
But get the error:
TypeError: Cannot read property 'hasOwnProperty' of undefined
Can anybody see what I am doing wrong here?
Thanks, E.
The problem is that you forgot the 'new' keyword when calling the constructor. The line should read:
module.exports = new SPServerApp();
If you don't use new your constructor will be treated as a normal function and will just return undefined (since you did not return anything explicitly). Also 'this' will not point to what you expect within the constructor.
Omitting new in Node is actually quite common. But for this to work you have to explicitly guard against new-less calls in the constructor like so:
constructor () {
if (! (this instanceof SPServerApp)) {
return new SPServerApp();
}
this.AllUsersDict = {};
this.AllRoomsDict = {};
}
BTW, in TypeScript you can also use module syntax. The TS compiler will translate this into the export/require statements. With ES6 style modules your example would look like this:
export class SPServerApp {
public AllUsersDict: any;
public AllRoomsDict: any;
constructor () {
this.AllUsersDict = {};
this.AllRoomsDict = {};
}
}
export var serverapp = new SPServerApp();
In your other TS file you just import:
import { serverapp } from './SPServerApp';
serverapp.AllUsersDict.hasOwnProperty('something');
JavaScript allows functions to be treated as objects--if you first define a variable as a function, you can subsequently add properties to that function. How do you do the reverse, and add a function to an "object"?
This works:
var foo = function() { return 1; };
foo.baz = "qqqq";
At this point, foo() calls the function, and foo.baz has the value "qqqq".
However, if you do the property assignment part first, how do you subsequently assign a function to the variable?
var bar = { baz: "qqqq" };
What can I do now to arrange for bar.baz to have the value "qqqq" and bar() to call the function?
It's easy to be confused here, but you can't (easily or clearly or as far as I know) do what you want. Hopefully this will help clear things up.
First, every object in Javascript inherits from the Object object.
//these do the same thing
var foo = new Object();
var bar = {};
Second, functions ARE objects in Javascript. Specifically, they're a Function object. The Function object inherits from the Object object. Checkout the Function constructor
var foo = new Function();
var bar = function(){};
function baz(){};
Once you declare a variable to be an "Object" you can't (easily or clearly or as far as I know) convert it to a Function object. You'd need to declare a new Object of type Function (with the function constructor, assigning a variable an anonymous function etc.), and copy over any properties of methods from your old object.
Finally, anticipating a possible question, even once something is declared as a function, you can't (as far as I know) change the functionBody/source.
There doesn't appear to be a standard way to do it, but this works.
WHY however, is the question.
function functionize( obj , func )
{
out = func;
for( i in obj ){ out[i] = obj[i]; } ;
return out;
}
x = { a: 1, b: 2 };
x = functionize( x , function(){ return "hello world"; } );
x() ==> "hello world"
There is simply no other way to acheive this,
doing
x={}
x()
WILL return a "type error". because "x" is an "object" and you can't change it. its about as sensible as trying to do
x = 1
x[50] = 5
print x[50]
it won't work. 1 is an integer. integers don't have array methods. you can't make it.
Object types are functions and an object itself is a function instantiation.
alert([Array, Boolean, Date, Function, Number, Object, RegExp, String].join('\n\n'))
displays (in FireFox):
function Array() {
[native code]
}
function Boolean() {
[native code]
}
function Date() {
[native code]
}
function Function() {
[native code]
}
function Number() {
[native code]
}
function Object() {
[native code]
}
function RegExp() {
[native code]
}
function String() {
[native code]
}
In particular, note a Function object, function Function() { [native code] }, is defined as a recurrence relation (a recursive definition using itself).
Also, note that the answer 124402#124402 is incomplete regarding 1[50]=5. This DOES assign a property to a Number object and IS valid Javascript. Observe,
alert([
[].prop="a",
true.sna="fu",
(new Date()).tar="fu",
function(){}.fu="bar",
123[40]=4,
{}.forty=2,
/(?:)/.forty2="life",
"abc".def="ghi"
].join("\t"))
displays
a fu fu bar 4 2 life ghi
interpreting and executing correctly according to Javascript's "Rules of Engagement".
Of course there is always a wrinkle and manifest by =. An object is often "short-circuited" to its value instead of a full fledged entity when assigned to a variable. This is an issue with Boolean objects and boolean values.
Explicit object identification resolves this issue.
x=new Number(1); x[50]=5; alert(x[50]);
"Overloading" is quite a legitimate Javascript exercise and explicitly endorsed with mechanisms like prototyping though code obfuscation can be a hazard.
Final note:
alert( 123 . x = "not" );
alert( (123). x = "Yes!" ); /* ()'s elevate to full object status */
Use a temporary variable:
var xxx = function()...
then copy all the properties from the original object:
for (var p in bar) { xxx[p] = bar[p]; }
finally reassign the new function with the old properties to the original variable:
bar = xxx;
var A = function(foo) {
var B = function() {
return A.prototype.constructor.apply(B, arguments);
};
B.prototype = A.prototype;
return B;
};
NB: Post written in the style of how I solved the issue. I'm not 100% sure it is usable in the OP's case.
I found this post while looking for a way to convert objects created on the server and delivered to the client by JSON / ajax.
Which effectively left me in the same situation as the OP, an object that I wanted to be convert into a function so as to be able to create instances of it on the client.
In the end I came up with this, which is working (so far at least):
var parentObj = {}
parentObj.createFunc = function (model)
{
// allow it to be instantiated
parentObj[model._type] = function()
{
return (function (model)
{
// jQuery used to clone the model
var that = $.extend(true, null, model);
return that;
})(model);
}
}
Which can then be used like:
var data = { _type: "Example", foo: "bar" };
parentObject.createFunc(data);
var instance = new parentObject.Example();
In my case I actually wanted to have functions associated with the resulting object instances, and also be able to pass in parameters at the time of instantiating it.
So my code was:
var parentObj = {};
// base model contains client only stuff
parentObj.baseModel =
{
parameter1: null,
parameter2: null,
parameterN: null,
func1: function ()
{
return this.parameter2;
},
func2: function (inParams)
{
return this._variable2;
}
}
// create a troop type
parentObj.createModel = function (data)
{
var model = $.extend({}, parentObj.baseModel, data);
// allow it to be instantiated
parentObj[model._type] = function(parameter1, parameter2, parameterN)
{
return (function (model)
{
var that = $.extend(true, null, model);
that.parameter1 = parameter1;
that.parameter2 = parameter2;
that.parameterN = parameterN;
return that;
})(model);
}
}
And was called thus:
// models received from an AJAX call
var models = [
{ _type="Foo", _variable1: "FooVal", _variable2: "FooVal" },
{ _type="Bar", _variable1: "BarVal", _variable2: "BarVal" },
{ _type="FooBar", _variable1: "FooBarVal", _variable2: "FooBarVal" }
];
for(var i = 0; i < models.length; i++)
{
parentObj.createFunc(models[i]);
}
And then they can be used:
var test1 = new parentObj.Foo(1,2,3);
var test2 = new parentObj.Bar("a","b","c");
var test3 = new parentObj.FooBar("x","y","z");
// test1.parameter1 == 1
// test1._variable1 == "FooVal"
// test1.func1() == 2
// test2.parameter2 == "a"
// test2._variable2 == "BarVal"
// test2.func2() == "BarVal"
// etc
Here's easiest way to do this that I've found:
let bar = { baz: "qqqq" };
bar = Object.assign(() => console.log("do something"), bar)
This uses Object.assign to concisely make copies of all the the properties of bar onto a function.
Alternatively you could use some proxy magic.
JavaScript allows functions to be
treated as objects--you can add a
property to a function. How do you do
the reverse, and add a function to an
object?
You appear to be a bit confused. Functions, in JavaScript, are objects. And variables are variable. You wouldn't expect this to work:
var three = 3;
three = 4;
assert(three === 3);
...so why would you expect that assigning a function to your variable would somehow preserve its previous value? Perhaps some annotations will clarify things for you:
// assigns an anonymous function to the variable "foo"
var foo = function() { return 1; };
// assigns a string to the property "baz" on the object
// referenced by "foo" (which, in this case, happens to be a function)
foo.baz = "qqqq";
var bar = {
baz: "qqqq",
runFunc: function() {
return 1;
}
};
alert(bar.baz); // should produce qqqq
alert(bar.runFunc()); // should produce 1
I think you're looking for this.
can also be written like this:
function Bar() {
this.baz = "qqqq";
this.runFunc = function() {
return 1;
}
}
nBar = new Bar();
alert(nBar.baz); // should produce qqqq
alert(nBar.runFunc()); // should produce 1