Scenario:
I have x number of classes. Lets say 10; Each class does different UI Functions. When a user loads a file, that extension tells the program the classname to load; but it's in the form of a string.
Is there anyway to pass a string off as a classname? Something to the effect of.
var classname = "Booger";
var nose = new classname(){ //classname really means "Booger"
//Do Operation
}
You can reflect a type by name using var t = Type.from_name(classname);, however, this works on all types, including enums and structs and it might be the type Type.INVALID. You should probably do some checks, like t.is_a(typeof(MyParentClass)).
You can then instantiate a copy using var obj = Object.new(t);. The whole thing would look like:
var classname = "Booger";
var t = Type.from_name(classname);
if (t.is_a(typeof(MyParentClass)))
return Object.new(t);
else
return null;
It's also worth noting that the run-time type names have the namespace prepended, so you might want to do "MyNs" + classname. You can check in either the generated C or doing typeof(MyClass).name().
I've had the same problem as the OP in regards to getting an assertion error against null. If you take a look at the Glib documentation (in C) it mentions you have to register your class by actually specifying the class name first before you can actually use a string representation of your class name.
In other words you have to use your class first BEFORE you can instantiate a copy of your class with Glib.Type.from_name ("ClassName").
You can use your class first by instantiating a class instance or by getting type information for your class.
var type = typeof (MyClass);
var type_from_string = Type.from_name ("MyClass");
Furthermore, when you use Object.new to create a class there are two things you need to be aware of:
1) You need to cast the return value to get your specific class or base class.
var instance_of_my_class = Object.new (type) as MyClass;
2) Constructors for your class will no longer be called (I don't why). You will need to use the GObject style constructor inside your class:
construct {
pizza = 5;
}
Related
I'm just starting to learn kotlin and ran into a problem:
I have a Person class that has two fields
-age (Int data type)
-name (data type String)
there is also a oldUp function where I pass a Person object and increment the object's age field by 10.
Before the end of the program ** I want to display the age of the object that was passed to oldUp **
However, age is not shown.
my code:
class Person(var name: String, var age: Int){
}
fun growOld(human: Person){
human.age+=10
}
fun main(args: Array<String>) {
var human = Person("Kitty",6)
growOld(human)
println(human)
}
If you want to print the age, you can just write: println(human.age).
In your example it might be cleaner to add the growOld method to your class so you can call it on the object. For example:
class Person(var name: String, var age: Int){
fun growOld() {
this.age += 10
}
}
fun main() {
var human = Person("Kitty", 6)
println(human.age) // prints 6
human.growOld()
println(human.age) // prints 16
println(human.name) // prints Kitty
}
The problem is you're trying to print the human object itself. Under the hood, this calls its toString() method - every class has one of these, because it's defined on the type all classes derive from. If you don't override it and provide a nice way to "pretty print" your object, it'll use the default implementation, which is basically a reference to the object in memory.
A lot of classes you use have a nice toString() implementation, e.g. if you print a List you get ["something", "that", "looks", "like", "this"]. But that behaviour needed to be coded in - and you need to do that for your Person class too!
So you can override the default implementation like this:
override fun toString(): String {
// return a String here
}
override means you're taking an existing function and writing your own version of it to use instead - if this doesn't match an existing function you can override, you'll get an error. You'll also get an error if you don't use the override keyword for a function that looks exactly like an existing one in a supertype - it's just to make sure you don't accidentally do the wrong thing. In IntelliJ you can do Ctrl+O to override existing functions if you like.
So you could do something like this:
// inside your Person class
override fun toString(): String {
return "Name: $name, age: $age"
}
and then when you use it in a print statement, or in a string (like "Details: $person" or val details = "Details: " + person) it will call that toString() method and get the string you produced.
Another way to approach this is to use a data class:
data class Person(var name: String, var age: Int)
A data class is a special kind of class where all your "data" goes in the constructor (as properties, either val or var), and then you get some boilerplate stuff for free which uses those properties (and only those properties). Things like an equals() and hashCode() implementation that uses that data - and the relevant thing here, it gives you a toString() implementation that pretty prints name and age. Try it out!
Data classes can be really handy for simple data objects like you have here - but in normal classes, overriding toString() yourself is the general way of doing things. And you can still override a data class's toString if you want - sometimes you might want a more complex representation, or nice formatting, or you might want to only include some properties and ignore others. You're in control of how it prints itself!
And if you just want to print the age property, or print anything at all using the data in your object, then you just need to do what Robin's answer says. You don't need a toString() implementation at all for that (and since this is how you usually use objects, often you won't need to write a toString for your own classes at all)
I am using Nomin for mapping tasks. As taken from the documentation of Nomin it should be able to map fields with the same name by itself in case automapping has been activated. When activating it, it causes an infinite loop exception.
I have the following:
mappingFor a: CoinsOnMarketPlace, b: Coin
// automap() // when deactivated it works fine, when activated infinite loop
a.coin.name = b.name
a.coin.rank = b.rank
a.priceUSD = b.priceUSD // Could be automapped
a.priceBTC = b.priceBTC // Could be automapped
...
Exception:
org.nomin.core.NominException: ./net/hemisoft/ccm/repository/coinmarketcap2coin.groovy: Recursive mapping rule a = b causes infinite loop!
One thing worth adding regarding your use case - this Recursive mapping rule a = b causes infinite loop! exception is thrown because you use groovy classes in your mapping rule. Nomin uses ReflectionIntrospector and what's important:
It performs getting/setting properties using accessor methods which are called through the Java reflection mechanism. ReflectionIntrospector uses supplied NamingPolicy instance to determine accessor methods. JbNamingPolicy is used by default, this implementation cerresponds the JavaBeans convention. Its InstanceCreator named ReflectionInstanceCreator instantiates objects using Class.newInstance().
Source: http://nomin.sourceforge.net/introspectors.html
A simple Groovy class like:
class Entity {
String name
String somethingElse
}
gets compiled to a Java class that implements GroovyObject providing following methods:
public interface GroovyObject {
Object invokeMethod(String var1, Object var2);
Object getProperty(String var1);
void setProperty(String var1, Object var2);
MetaClass getMetaClass();
void setMetaClass(MetaClass var1);
}
In this case ReflectionInstanceCreator combined with automap() resolves following mappings:
a.property = b.property
and
a = b
where a = b mapping comes from MetaClass getMetaClass() getter method I suppose, because there is no mapping like a.metaClass = b.metaClass resolved. a.property = b.property gets resolved because of Object getProperty(String var1) method.
Solution
This problem can be solved by specifying explicitly ExplodingIntrospector for your mapping script that:
It performs getting/setting properties using a class field immediately through through the Java reflection mechanism and may be useful in case when domain object don't provide accessors for their properties. Supplied instance creator is ReflectionInstanceCreator.
Source: http://nomin.sourceforge.net/introspectors.html
All you have to do is to add
introspector exploding
right below mappingFor a: ..., b: ... header. For example:
import mypackage.Entity
import mypackage.EntityDto
mappingFor a: Entity, b: EntityDto
introspector exploding
automap()
a.test2 = b.test1
Tested with two Groovy classes, worked like a charm. Hope it helps.
I am trying to use a string ('npcName') as a variable name. So far I have tried casting dialogMap into a DynamicAccess object, but it gives me the error 'Invalid array access' when I try this:
var npcName:String = 'TestNPC';
var casted = (cast Registry.dialogMap:haxe.DynamicAccess<Dynamic>);
var tempname = casted[root.npcName[0].message];
trace(tempname);
'dialogMap' is an empty map which I want to fill like so:
Registry.dialogMap['message'] = root.npcName[0].message;
How can I use npcName, a string, in the above line of code? Is there a way to transform the string into something usable? Any help would be appreciated.
The haxe.DynamicAccess doesn't have array access (like map[key]), but is an abstract type for working with anonymous structures that are intended to hold collections of objects by the string key. It is designed to work with map.get(key) and map.set(key). It is basically a nicer wrapper around Reflect.field and Reflect.setField and does some safety checks with Reflect.hasField.
var variable = "my_key";
var value = 123;
var dynamicMap = new haxe.DynamicAccess<Dynamic>();
dynamicMap.set(variable, value);
I'm noticing you are doing very much cast and dynamic, so untyped code, which is a bit of contradiction in a typed language. What is the actual type of dialogMap?
Not sure you are aware of it but, Haxe has its own maps, which are fully typed, so you don't need casts.
var map = new Map<String, Int>();
map[variable] = value;
I think this article helps understanding how to work with dynamic (untyped) objects.
Tip; for testing such small functionalities you can doodle around on the try.haxe site : http://try.haxe.org/#4B84E
Hope this helps, otherwise here is some relevant documentation:
http://api.haxe.org/haxe/DynamicAccess.html
https://haxe.org/manual/std-reflection.html
https://haxe.org/manual/types-dynamic.html
http://code.haxe.org/category/beginner/string-variable-reflection.html
How can I pass value from inherited class to base class using puppet?
You can see below a simplified code for my trials.
class executor::app($base_dir = "/usr/local",
$run_command = undef,
$prefix_naming = undef) {
}
class app1(
$base_dir = ::app1::params::base_dir,
$prefix_naming = "reader",
$run_command = " ") inherits executor::app{
}
OK, for starters lets assume you have these classes in module format. If not, then that should be the first order of business.
Second, avoid inheritance. There is almost always a better way to do it. Especially don't inherit across modules. About the only time I can think it's useful is for defaulting class parameters.
The base_dir on class app1 will not get the default unless the class inherits cea::params::base_dir (leading :: not needed). Again, across modules shouldn't be done. app1::params much better -- or just put in a sane default and eliminate the need to inherit parameters all together.
For your actual question, if you want to get a variable in another class you can just reference it. Keep in mind that puppet doesn't guarantee compile order so you should tell it to evaluate the other class first:
class executor::app {
Class['app1'] -> Class['executor::app']
$other_app_var = $app1::base_dir
}
Or throw this data in hiera and look up the value.
EDIT: Added a more complete example, which clarified the problem.
Some .NET attributes require a parameter of type Type. How does one declare these parameters in F#?
For example, in C# we can do this:
[XmlInclude(typeof(Car))]
[XmlInclude(typeof(Truck))]
class Vehicle { }
class Car : Vehicle { }
class Truck : Vehicle { }
But, in F# the following...
[<XmlInclude(typeof<Car>)>]
[<XmlInclude(typeof<Truck>)>]
type Vehicle() = class end
type Car() = inherit Vehicle()
type Truck() = inherit Car()
...results in a compiler error: This is not a constant expression or valid custom attribute value.
You should address a circular type dependency introduced by forward usage of types in attributes. The snippet below shows how this can be done in F#:
// Compiles OK
[<AttributeUsage(AttributeTargets.All, AllowMultiple=true)>]
type XmlInclude(t:System.Type) =
inherit System.Attribute()
[<XmlInclude(typeof<Car>)>]
[<XmlInclude(typeof<Truck>)>]
type Vehicle() = class end
and Car() = inherit Vehicle()
and Truck() = inherit Car()
Can you try putting together a more complete example that gives the error? I just quickly tried something similar and it works fine (in F# 3.0 in Visual Studio 2012):
type Car = C
type XmlInclude(typ:System.Type) =
inherit System.Attribute()
[<XmlInclude(typeof<Car>)>]
let foo = 0
I guess there is some tiny detail somewhere that confuses the F# compiler for some reason - but it should understand typeof (which is, in reality, a function) and allow its use in attributes.