This may be a duplicate but "as" is an INCREDABLY hard keyword to google, even S.O. ignores "as" as part of query.
So I'm wondering how to implement a class that supports "as" reflexively. For an example class:
class X {
private val
public X(def v) {
val=v
}
public asType(Class c) {
if (c == Integer.class)
return val as Integer
if(c == String.class)
return val as String
}
}
This allows something like:
new X(3) as String
to work, but doesn't help with:
3 as X
I probably have to attach/modify the "asType" on String and Integer somehow, but I feel any changes like this should be confined to the "X" class... Can the X class either implement a method like:
X fromObject(object)
or somehow modify the String/Integer class from within X. This seems tough since it won't execute any code in X until X is actually used... what if my first usage of X is "3 as X", will X get a chance to override Integer's asType before Groovy tries to call is?
As you say, it's not going to be easy to change the asType method for Integer to accept X as a new type of transformation (especially without destroying the existing functionality).
The best I can think of is to do:
Integer.metaClass.toX = { -> new X( delegate ) }
And then you can call:
3.toX()
I can't think how 3 as X could be done -- as you say, the other way; new X('3') as Integer is relatively easy.
Actually, you can do this:
// Get a handle on the old `asType` method for Integer
def oldAsType = Integer.metaClass.getMetaMethod( "asType", [Class] as Class[] )
// Then write our own
Integer.metaClass.asType = { Class c ->
if( c == X ) {
new X( delegate )
}
else {
// if it's not an X, call the original
oldAsType.invoke( delegate, c )
}
}
3 as X
This keeps the functionality out of the Integer type, and minimizes scope of the effect (which is good or bad depending on what you're looking for).
This category will apply asType from the Integer side.
class IntegerCategory {
static Object asType(Integer inty, Class c) {
if(c == X) return new X(inty)
else return inty.asType(c)
}
}
use (IntegerCategory) {
(3 as X) instanceof X
}
Related
I have below sample classes in my application:
class A {
Integer a
String b
Integer c = (a < 5) ? a+5 : a+10
}
class B {
void method1() {
A a = new A(a:4, b:"test")
log.print("c: ", a.c)
}
}
When my code is calling method1, then it outputs c = 14. but ideally it should 9.
How we can solve this without explicitly setting value for c?
Thanks in advance!
Not 100% sure of the question, and the example won't print anything as it will fail to add 5 to null, but an alternative might be to use the #Lazy annotation to defer creation of the value until such time as it is requested, ie:
class A {
Integer a
String b
#Lazy Integer c = { (a < 5) ? a+5 : a+10 }()
}
After it has been requested, it will keep this value, no matter how you change a and b (unless you change c yourself). From the question, I have no idea if this is what you want or not
class A {
Integer a
String b
def getC(){ (a < 5) ? a+5 : a+10 }
}
class B {
def method1() {
A a = new A(a:4, b:"test")
println("c: " + a.c)
}
}
new B().method1()
I am trying to retrieve the common items across two lists using Groovy. The following code works just fine, i.e the output from running this code is "DEBUG found in common Items : same". So far so good!
def list1 = ["same", "different"]
def list2 = ["same", "not the same"]
def commonItems = list1.intersect(list2)
for(int i=0; i < commonItems.size(); i++)
{
log.info("DEBUG found in common Items : " + commonItems[i])
}
I hit an issue when I try to apply the above principle to a list of objects - my issue is that the 'commonItems' list does NOT contain the single object I would expect, but is empty. Please note, my custom object 'ErrorWarningDetail' does override compareTo. Can someone see what I am doing wrong / make any suggestions? Thanks in advance!
First of all here is my custom class - note 'CompateTo' just checks the 'Code' field for now.
class ErrorWarningDetail implements Comparable
{
public String Code
public String Description
public String ErrorType
public String State
#Override
int compareTo(Object o) {
int result = Code <=> o.Code
result
}
}
Now here is the code that does the business. I would expect one object to be in 'commonItems' but it is infact empty - what am i doing wrong here? The output of running this is "DEBUG no common items"
def similarONE = new ErrorWarningDetail()
similarONE.Code = "100-1"
def similarTWO =new ErrorWarningDetail()
similarTWO.Code = "100-1"
def completelyDifferent = new ErrorWarningDetail()
completelyDifferent.Code = "697-2"
def List1 = []
def List2 = []
List1.add(similarONE)
List1.add(completelyDifferent)
List2.add(similarTwo)
def commonItems = list1.intersect(list2)
if (commonItems.size() == 0)
{
log.info("DEBUG no common items")
}
Implementing compareTo() is not enough in Java, you should be implementing equals/hashCode instead.
In Groovy there's a handy annotation for that. So, the script down below executes successfully:
import groovy.transform.EqualsAndHashCode
#EqualsAndHashCode( includes = [ 'code' ] )
class ErrorWarningDetail implements Comparable {
String code
String description
String errorType
String state
#Override
int compareTo(Object o) {
code <=> ( o?.code ?: '' )
}
}
def similarONE = new ErrorWarningDetail( code:"100-1" )
def similarTWO = new ErrorWarningDetail( code:"100-1" )
def completelyDifferent = new ErrorWarningDetail( code:"697-2" )
def list1 = [similarONE, completelyDifferent]
def list2 = [similarTWO]
def commonItems = list1.intersect list2
assert 1 == commonItems.size()
P.S. Please, DO NOT name fields starting with Capital letters!
The equals and hashCode are the methods utilized to determine object equality, so the intersect method would rely on those.
The compareTo method is utilized for sorting purposes.
Groovy has some convenient utilities for common tasks in the package groovy.transform
Below is the modified class with the annotations that makes it work as intended.
#EqualsAndHashCode(includes=["Code"])
#ToString(includeFields=true)
class ErrorWarningDetail implements Comparable
{
String Code
String Description
String ErrorType
String State
#Override
int compareTo(Object o) {
Code <=> o?.Code
}
}
I want convert string to Map in grails. I already have a function of string to map conversion. Heres the code,
static def StringToMap(String reportValues){
Map result=[:]
result=reportValues.replace('[','').replace(']','').replace(' ','').split(',').inject([:]){map,token ->
List tokenizeStr=token.split(':');
tokenizeStr.size()>1?tokenizeStr?.with {map[it[0]?.toString()?.trim()]=it[1]?.toString()?.trim()}:tokenizeStr?.with {map[it[0]?.toString()?.trim()]=''}
map
}
return result
}
But, I have String with comma in the values, so the above function doesn't work for me. Heres my String
[program_type:, subsidiary_code:, groupName:, termination_date:, effective_date:, subsidiary_name:ABC, INC]
my function returns ABC only. not ABC, INC. I googled about it but couldnt find any concrete help.
Generally speaking, if I have to convert a Stringified Map to a Map object I try to make use of Eval.me. Your example String though isn't quite right to do so, if you had the following it would "just work":
// Note I have added '' around the values.
String a = "[program_type:'', subsidiary_code:'', groupName:'', termination_date:'', effective_date:'', subsidiary_name:'ABC']"
Map b = Eval.me(a)
// returns b = [program_type:, subsidiary_code:, groupName:, termination_date:, effective_date:, subsidiary_name:ABC]
If you have control of the String then if you can create it following this kind of pattern, it would be the easiest solution I suspect.
In case it is not possible to change the input parameter, this might be a not so clean and not so short option. It relies on the colon instead of comma values.
String reportValues = "[program_type:, subsidiary_code:, groupName:, termination_date:, effective_date:, subsidiary_name:ABC, INC]"
reportValues = reportValues[1..-2]
def m = reportValues.split(":")
def map = [:]
def length = m.size()
m.eachWithIndex { v, i ->
if(i != 0) {
List l = m[i].split(",")
if (i == length-1) {
map.put(m[i-1].split(",")[-1], l.join(","))
} else {
map.put(m[i-1].split(",")[-1], l[0..-2].join(","))
}
}
}
map.each {key, value -> println "key: " + key + " value: " + value}
BTW: Only use eval on trusted input, AFAIK it executes everything.
You could try messing around with this bit of code:
String tempString = "[program_type:11, 'aa':'bb', subsidiary_code:, groupName:, termination_date:, effective_date:, subsidiary_name:ABC, INC]"
List StringasList = tempString.tokenize('[],')
def finalMap=[:]
StringasList?.each { e->
def f = e?.split(':')
finalMap."${f[0]}"= f.size()>1 ? f[1] : null
}
println """-- tempString: ${tempString.getClass()} StringasList: ${StringasList.getClass()}
finalMap: ${finalMap.getClass()} \n Results\n finalMap ${finalMap}
"""
Above produces:
-- tempString: class java.lang.String StringasList: class java.util.ArrayList
finalMap: class java.util.LinkedHashMap
Results
finalMap [program_type:11, 'aa':'bb', subsidiary_code:null, groupName:null, termination_date:null, effective_date:null, subsidiary_name:ABC, INC:null]
It tokenizes the String then converts ArrayList by iterating through the list and passing each one again split against : into a map. It also has to check to ensure the size is greater than 1 otherwise it will break on f[1]
I'd like to recover type information using reflection. I have
public Foo(object coll, string tValue)
{
var x = col1 as IList;
if (x != null)
x.Action();
var y = col1 as IDictionary;
if (y != null)
y.Action();
}
But would like to have
public Foo(object coll, string tValue)
{
var x = col1 as IList<TValue>;
if (x != null)
x.Action();
var y = col1 as IDictionary<int, TValue>;
if (y != null)
y.Action();
}
Is it possible to arrive at and use generic interfaces instead of the old-school non-generic collection interfaces, given only the contained class name?
Once the local variable type is established, I'd like to avoid paying the reflection and dynamic invocation penalties when looping over the collection.
Another example, maybe clearer:
var list = new Dictionary<int, MyObject>();
list.Add(100, new MyObject());
object listObject = list;
var x = listObject as IDictionary<int, dynamic>;
if (x != null)
{
foreach (var entry in x)
{
Console.WriteLine(entry.Key);
Console.WriteLine(entry.Value);
}
}
x is null...
I'm not sure if you intend to call a method on generic collection for every item in the collection or if you just want the values from the generic collection.
For your third block of code, you could continue to use the non-generic interface and use an enumerator.
var x = listObject as IDictionary;
if (x != null)
{
var en = x.GetEnumerator();
while(en.MoveNext())
{
Console.WriteLine(en.Key);
Console.WriteLine(en.Value);
}
}
If you intend to call a method without knowing the exact generic types for the generic IList or IDictionary, then you'll have to use MethodInfo.Invoke. Cache the MethodInfo outside of the loop for a small performance boost.
CreateDelegate would be faster, but you'll need to know the exact generic types. You could get around that with expression trees, but the amount of code to maintain might not be worth the performance gain. Check out MagicMethod in Jon Skeets article
Making reflection fly and exploring delegates
Does C# 4.0 allow optional out or ref arguments?
No.
A workaround is to overload with another method that doesn't have out / ref parameters, and which just calls your current method.
public bool SomeMethod(out string input)
{
...
}
// new overload
public bool SomeMethod()
{
string temp;
return SomeMethod(out temp);
}
If you have C# 7.0, you can simplify:
// new overload
public bool SomeMethod()
{
return SomeMethod(out _); // declare out as an inline discard variable
}
(Thanks #Oskar / #Reiner for pointing this out.)
As already mentioned, this is simply not allowed and I think it makes a very good sense.
However, to add some more details, here is a quote from the C# 4.0 Specification, section 21.1:
Formal parameters of constructors, methods, indexers and delegate types can be declared optional:
fixed-parameter:
attributesopt parameter-modifieropt type identifier default-argumentopt
default-argument:
= expression
A fixed-parameter with a default-argument is an optional parameter, whereas a fixed-parameter without a default-argument is a required parameter.
A required parameter cannot appear after an optional parameter in a formal-parameter-list.
A ref or out parameter cannot have a default-argument.
No, but another great alternative is having the method use a generic template class for optional parameters as follows:
public class OptionalOut<Type>
{
public Type Result { get; set; }
}
Then you can use it as follows:
public string foo(string value, OptionalOut<int> outResult = null)
{
// .. do something
if (outResult != null) {
outResult.Result = 100;
}
return value;
}
public void bar ()
{
string str = "bar";
string result;
OptionalOut<int> optional = new OptionalOut<int> ();
// example: call without the optional out parameter
result = foo (str);
Console.WriteLine ("Output was {0} with no optional value used", result);
// example: call it with optional parameter
result = foo (str, optional);
Console.WriteLine ("Output was {0} with optional value of {1}", result, optional.Result);
// example: call it with named optional parameter
foo (str, outResult: optional);
Console.WriteLine ("Output was {0} with optional value of {1}", result, optional.Result);
}
There actually is a way to do this that is allowed by C#. This gets back to C++, and rather violates the nice Object-Oriented structure of C#.
USE THIS METHOD WITH CAUTION!
Here's the way you declare and write your function with an optional parameter:
unsafe public void OptionalOutParameter(int* pOutParam = null)
{
int lInteger = 5;
// If the parameter is NULL, the caller doesn't care about this value.
if (pOutParam != null)
{
// If it isn't null, the caller has provided the address of an integer.
*pOutParam = lInteger; // Dereference the pointer and assign the return value.
}
}
Then call the function like this:
unsafe { OptionalOutParameter(); } // does nothing
int MyInteger = 0;
unsafe { OptionalOutParameter(&MyInteger); } // pass in the address of MyInteger.
In order to get this to compile, you will need to enable unsafe code in the project options. This is a really hacky solution that usually shouldn't be used, but if you for some strange, arcane, mysterious, management-inspired decision, REALLY need an optional out parameter in C#, then this will allow you to do just that.
ICYMI: Included on the new features for C# 7.0 enumerated here, "discards" is now allowed as out parameters in the form of a _, to let you ignore out parameters you don’t care about:
p.GetCoordinates(out var x, out _); // I only care about x
P.S. if you're also confused with the part "out var x", read the new feature about "Out Variables" on the link as well.
No, but you can use a delegate (e.g. Action) as an alternative.
Inspired in part by Robin R's answer when facing a situation where I thought I wanted an optional out parameter, I instead used an Action delegate. I've borrowed his example code to modify for use of Action<int> in order to show the differences and similarities:
public string foo(string value, Action<int> outResult = null)
{
// .. do something
outResult?.Invoke(100);
return value;
}
public void bar ()
{
string str = "bar";
string result;
int optional = 0;
// example: call without the optional out parameter
result = foo (str);
Console.WriteLine ("Output was {0} with no optional value used", result);
// example: call it with optional parameter
result = foo (str, x => optional = x);
Console.WriteLine ("Output was {0} with optional value of {1}", result, optional);
// example: call it with named optional parameter
foo (str, outResult: x => optional = x);
Console.WriteLine ("Output was {0} with optional value of {1}", result, optional);
}
This has the advantage that the optional variable appears in the source as a normal int (the compiler wraps it in a closure class, rather than us wrapping it explicitly in a user-defined class).
The variable needs explicit initialisation because the compiler cannot assume that the Action will be called before the function call exits.
It's not suitable for all use cases, but worked well for my real use case (a function that provides data for a unit test, and where a new unit test needed access to some internal state not present in the return value).
Use an overloaded method without the out parameter to call the one with the out parameter for C# 6.0 and lower. I'm not sure why a C# 7.0 for .NET Core is even the correct answer for this thread when it was specifically asked if C# 4.0 can have an optional out parameter. The answer is NO!
For simple types you can do this using unsafe code, though it's not idiomatic nor recommended. Like so:
// unsafe since remainder can point anywhere
// and we can do arbitrary pointer manipulation
public unsafe int Divide( int x, int y, int* remainder = null ) {
if( null != remainder ) *remainder = x % y;
return x / y;
}
That said, there's no theoretical reason C# couldn't eventually allow something like the above with safe code, such as this below:
// safe because remainder must point to a valid int or to nothing
// and we cannot do arbitrary pointer manipulation
public int Divide( int x, int y, out? int remainder = null ) {
if( null != remainder ) *remainder = x % y;
return x / y;
}
Things could get interesting though:
// remainder is an optional output parameter
// (to a nullable reference type)
public int Divide( int x, int y, out? object? remainder = null ) {
if( null != remainder ) *remainder = 0 != y ? x % y : null;
return x / y;
}
The direct question has been answered in other well-upvoted answers, but sometimes it pays to consider other approaches based on what you're trying to achieve.
If you're wanting an optional parameter to allow the caller to possibly request extra data from your method on which to base some decision, an alternative design is to move that decision logic into your method and allow the caller to optionally pass a value for that decision criteria in. For example, here is a method which determines the compass point of a vector, in which we might want to pass back the magnitude of the vector so that the caller can potentially decide if some minimum threshold should be reached before the compass-point judgement is far enough away from the origin and therefore unequivocally valid:
public enum Quadrant {
North,
East,
South,
West
}
// INVALID CODE WITH MADE-UP USAGE PATTERN OF "OPTIONAL" OUT PARAMETER
public Quadrant GetJoystickQuadrant([optional] out magnitude)
{
Vector2 pos = GetJoystickPositionXY();
float azimuth = Mathf.Atan2(pos.y, pos.x) * 180.0f / Mathf.PI;
Quadrant q;
if (azimuth > -45.0f && azimuth <= 45.0f) q = Quadrant.East;
else if (azimuth > 45.0f && azimuth <= 135.0f) q = Quadrant.North;
else if (azimuth > -135.0f && azimuth <= -45.0f) q = Quadrant.South;
else q = Quadrant.West;
if ([optonal.isPresent(magnitude)]) magnitude = pos.Length();
return q;
}
In this case we could move that "minimum magnitude" logic into the method and end-up with a much cleaner implementation, especially because calculating the magnitude involves a square-root so is computationally inefficient if all we want to do is a comparison of magnitudes, since we can do that with squared values:
public enum Quadrant {
None, // Too close to origin to judge.
North,
East,
South,
West
}
public Quadrant GetJoystickQuadrant(float minimumMagnitude = 0.33f)
{
Vector2 pos = GetJoystickPosition();
if (minimumMagnitude > 0.0f && pos.LengthSquared() < minimumMagnitude * minimumMagnitude)
{
return Quadrant.None;
}
float azimuth = Mathf.Atan2(pos.y, pos.x) * 180.0f / Mathf.PI;
if (azimuth > -45.0f && azimuth <= 45.0f) return Quadrant.East;
else if (azimuth > 45.0f && azimuth <= 135.0f) return Quadrant.North;
else if (azimuth > -135.0f && azimuth <= -45.0f) return Quadrant.South;
return Quadrant.West;
}
Of course, that might not always be viable. Since other answers mention C# 7.0, if instead what you're really doing is returning two values and allowing the caller to optionally ignore one, idiomatic C# would be to return a tuple of the two values, and use C# 7.0's Tuples with positional initializers and the _ "discard" parameter:
public (Quadrant, float) GetJoystickQuadrantAndMagnitude()
{
Vector2 pos = GetJoystickPositionXY();
float azimuth = Mathf.Atan2(pos.y, pos.x) * 180.0f / Mathf.PI;
Quadrant q;
if (azimuth > -45.0f && azimuth <= 45.0f) q = Quadrant.East;
else if (azimuth > 45.0f && azimuth <= 135.0f) q = Quadrant.North;
else if (azimuth > -135.0f && azimuth <= -45.0f) q = Quadrant.South;
else q = Quadrant.West;
return (q, pos.Length());
}
(Quadrant q, _) = GetJoystickQuadrantAndMagnitude();
if (q == Quadrant.South)
{
// Do something.
}
What about like this?
public bool OptionalOutParamMethod([Optional] ref string pOutParam)
{
return true;
}
You still have to pass a value to the parameter from C# but it is an optional ref param.
void foo(ref int? n)
{
return null;
}