I am making a simple debugger window in ActionScript for myself where I can add and remove variables I want to track. I was to be able to add variables to the list by just doing something like
DebuggerMonitor.trackVar(variable).
My question is, is there any way I can turn "variable" itself (the name, not the value) into a String to be added into a text field?
Depending on how "intelligent" your debugger should be, you could just pass the name along:
DebuggerMonitor.trackVar( variable, "variable" );
since obviously, when used in a context like this, the name should be known at the time you are writing the program.
You can also do some reflection magic to get instance variable names, but it won't work for temp variables (their names are dropped at compilation time):
public function getVariableName( instance:*, match:* ):String {
var typeDescription:XML = describeType( instance );
var variables:XMLList = typeDescription..variable;
var accessors:XMLList = typeDescription..accessor;
for each(var variable:XML in variables)
if(matchesXMLName( instance, variable, match ))
return variable.#name;
for each(var accessor:XML in accessors)
if(matchesXMLName( instance, accessor, match ))
return accessor.#name;
return "No name found.";
}
private function matchesXMLName( instance:*, xml:XML, match:* ):Boolean {
return match == instance[xml.#name.toString()];
}
var varName:String = getVariableName ( myObject, variable );
Using reflections like this will also be quite costly, if used often - you will have to think of a way to cache the type descriptions.
I recommend you check out the as3commons reflections package - there is a lot of useful functionality in there...
Short answer - No :(
You can access the type name but not individual instance names, as these are lost at run-time.
There is a confusion caused by the keyword 'var' because it is used to create several types of bindings.
Lexical bindings (the keyword 'var' was used inside a function).
Dynamic bindings (the keyword 'var' was used to declare a class' field).
Lexical bindings are interpreted by the compiler at compile time as addresses of the registers of the registers space occupied by the function. The names given to lexical bindings perish at this time and it is not possible to restore them at runtime - therefore you can't get the "name" of the variable.
Dynamic bindings are a kind of "public API" of the objects that declare them, they may be accessed from the code that was not compiled together with the code that created them, this is why, for the purpose of reflection the names of these bindings are stored in compiled code. However, ActionScript has no way of referencing LHS values, so you cannot, even if you know the name of the variable and the object declaring it, pass it to another function. But you can look it up in the debugger or by calling describeType on the object declaring the variable. Note that describeType will not show information on private variables even if you are calling it from the scope of the object in question.
Related
I am aware that a variable can be dynamically typed with the def keyword in Groovy. But I have also noticed that in some circumstances it can be left out, such as when defining method parameters, eg func(p1, p2) instead of func(def p1, def p2). The latter form is discouraged.
I have noticed that this is extendable to all code - anytime you want to define a variable and set its value, eg var = 2 the def keyword can be safely left out. It only appears to be required if not instantiating the variable on creation, ie. def var1 so that it can be instantiated as a NullObject.
Is this the only time def is useful? Can it be safely left out in all other declarations, for example, of classes and methods?
Short answer: you can't. There are some use cases where skipping the type declaration (or def keyword) works, but it is not a general rule. For instance, Groovy scripts allow you to use variables without specific type declaration, e.g.
x = 10
However, it works because groovy.lang.Script class implements getProperty and setProperty methods that get triggered when you access a missing property. In this case, such a variable is promoted to be a global binding, not a local variable. If you try to do the same on any other class that does not implement those methods, you will end up getting groovy.lang.MissingPropertyException.
Skipping types in a method declaration is supported, both in dynamically compiled and statically compiled Groovy. But is it useful? It depends. In most cases, it's much better to declare the type for a better readability and documentation purpose. I would not recommend doing it in the public API - the user of your API will see Object type, while you may expect some specific type. It shows that this may work if your intention is to receive any object, no matter what is its specific type. (E.g. a method like dump(obj) could work like that.)
And last but not least, there is a way to skip type declaration in any context. You can use a final keyword for that.
class Foo {
final id = 1
void bar(final name) {
final greet = "Hello, "
println greet + name + "!"
}
}
This way you can get a code that compiles with dynamic compilation, as well as with static compilation enabled. Of course, using final keyword prevents you from re-assigning the variable, but for the compiler, this is enough information to infer the proper type.
For more information, you can check a similar question that was asked on SO some time ago: Groovy: "def" keyword vs concrete type
in Groovy it plays an important role in Global and Local variable
if the variable name is same with and without def
def is considered local and without def its global
I have explained here in detail https://stackoverflow.com/a/45994227/2986279
So if someone use with and without it will make a difference and can change things.
I am attempting to use the Roslyn SDK and StackExchange.Precompilation (thank you!) to implement aspect-oriented programming in C#6. My specific problem right now is, starting with an IdentifierNameSyntax instance, I want to find the "member type" (method, property, field, var, etc.) that the identifier refers to. (How) can this be done?
Background:
The first proof-of-concept I am working on is some good old design-by-contract. I have a NonNullAttribute which can be applied to parameters, properties, or method return values. Along with the attribute there is a class implementing the StackExchange.Precompilation.ICompileModule interface, which on compilation will insert null checks on the marked parameters or return values.
This is the same idea as PostSharp's NonNullAttribute, but the transformation is being done on one of Roslyn's syntax trees, not on an already compiled assembly. It is also similar to Code Contracts, but with a declarative attribute approach, and again operating on syntax trees not IL.
For example, this source code:
[return: NonNull]
public string Capitalize([NonNull] string text) {
return text.ToUpper();
}
will be transformed into this during precompilation:
[return: NonNull]
public string Capitalize([NonNull] string text) {
if (Object.Equals(text, null))
throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(text));
var result = text.ToUpper();
if (Object.Equals(result, null))
throw new PostconditionFailedException("Result cannot be null.");
return result;
}
(PostconditionFailedException is a custom exception I made to compliment ArgumentException for return values. If there is already something like this in the framework please let me know.)
For properties with this attribute, there would be a similar transformation, but with preconditions and postconditions implemented separately in the set and get accessors, respectively.
The specific reason I need to find the "member type" of an identifier here is for an optimization on implementing postconditions. Note in the post-compilation sample above, the value that would have been returned is stored in a local variable, checked, and then the local is returned. This storage is necessary for transforming return statements that evaluate a method or complex expression, but if the returned expression is just a field or local variable reference, creating that temporary storage local is wasteful.
So, when the return statement is being scanned, I first check if the statement is of the form ReturnKeyword-IdentifierSyntaxToken-SemicolonToken. If so, I then need to check what that identifier refers to, so I avoid that local variable allocation if the referent is a field or var.
Update
For more context, check out the project this is in reference to on GitHub.
You'll need to use SemanticModel.GetSymbolInfo to determine the symbol an identifier binds to.
Use SemanticModel.GetTypeInfo.Type to obtain the TypeInfo and use it to explore the Type
I have a Groovy script that lets the user define some dynamic properties and methods and later executes a user-defined closure. A script would look like this:
// init properties and methods dynamically at runtime
context.prop1 = "Some test value"
context.method1 = { String input ->
"exec " + input.toUpperCase()
}
// "this" is set to the context variable from above
run {
println method1( prop1 )
}
So in the beginning of the script, a context is initialized with user-defined properties (e.g. prop1) and methods (e.g. method1). The context is then used as this pointer in the run closure. I have achieved this by dynamically extending the meta class of the context and setting the context as delegate of the run closure (with DELEGATE_FIRST as resolves strategy).
Currently I am struggling at type checking. Before executing the run closure, I would like to check if method1 really expects prop1. I have looked into the DelegatesTo annotation, but that doesn't seem to work for dynamically extended objects. I have also played with the AST, but since my knowledge on that topic is limited, I haven't come up with a solution. If what I want to achieve is possible, any pointers in the right direction would be greatly appreciated.
You want to add a method to a context at runtime and then type check this before execution of that method.
Type checking is done at compile time. That is before anything of your program is executed. There is normally no chance this can ever check anything that will only happen at runtime, unless you have a way to statically declare it and give the compiler the power to do the check. But this means normally, you will have to do static compilation.
One way would be to use type checking extensions, but I think in your case that might be overkill. A more simple way would be to use extension modules. And the most simple way would be to use custom script base class.
But for any of these solution you will need static compilation to really have type checking, same for DelegatesTo (which is more used in combination with extension modules). For a type checked DSL a mix of type checking extensions and extension modules can work very well. But you will of course loose more dynamic features of the language and some simplicity.
Can a variable be named with a string or character array, in any language? Basically I want something like:
Var_String = "varname"
Var_String as double
And then I could fill the double varname.
If it helps im trying to make a program that can declare variables on the fly, while running. Even if thats not possible, I am open to workarounds even if they're impractical, although I would prefer that workarounds be in VB6, C++, or PHP, because I know those languages already, but they dont have to be.
Javascript is completely capable of declaring variable names on the fly. A javascript object can be treated "associatively" as a dictionary. Observe:
var testyObject = function()
{
Awesome = "hello";
};
var myObject = new testyObject();
alert(myObject.Awesome); // creates an alert window that says hello
alert(myObject['Awesome']); // the same as above
myObject[myObject.Awesome] = "woo!"; // We just created a property on the object with the name "hello"
alert(myObject.hello); // creates an alert window that says "woo!"
I also believe you can add them to your immediate scope rather than as properties on other objects by using this["whatever you want it named"] = "woo!"; but I'm not certain, someone can correct me on that if such does not work.
You can read more about associative arrays at http://www.quirksmode.org/js/associative.html
The usual way to do something like this is called a hash. You store name/value pairs and given the name, can look up its value. You can generally define them to store any sort of object. In fact, in some languages, objects themselves are essentially hashes with a few extra properties.
You can find more information on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hash_table
I have seen variables like _ image and was wondering what _ meant?
It doesn't mean anything. It is rather a common naming convention for private member variables to keep them separated from methods and public properties. For example:
class Foo
{
private int _counter;
public int GetCounter()
{
return _counter;
}
public int SetCounter(int counter)
{
_counter = counter;
}
}
In most languages _ is the only character allowed in variable names besides letters and numbers. Here are some common use cases:
Separating words: some_variable
Private variables start with underscores: _private
Adding at the end to distinguish from a built-in name: filter_ (since filter is a built-in function)
By itself as an unused variable during looping: [0 for _ in range(n)]
Note that some people really don't like that last use case.
Some people use it to indicate that they are variables rather than (say) method names. Or to make it obvious that they're instance variables rather than local variables. Sometimes you see extra prefixes, e.g.
private int m_age; // Member (instance) variable
private static int g_maxAge; // Global (static) variable
It's just a convention. I was going to say "there's nothing magic about _" but that's not quite true - in some languages a double underscore is reserved for "special" uses. (The exact usage depends on the language of course.)
EDIT: Example of the double underscore rule as it applies to C#. From the C# 4 spec, section 2.4.2:
Identifiers containing two consecutive underscore characters (U+005F) are reserved for use by the implementation. For example, an implementation might provide extended keywords that begin with two underscores.
The underscore in variable names is completely optional. Many programmers use it to differentiate private variables - so instance variables will typically have an underscore prepended to the name. This prevents confusion with local variables.
_ usually means something private or internal. In C++ standard libraries all implementation specific variables must start with _.
Usually it separates class fields from the variables. To avoid using this in code constructions.
class MyClass {
private int _myIntField;
private void setMyIntField(int value2Set) {
_myIntField = value2Set;
}
}
Well Underscore character(_) begin with your variable name is discouraged but it is legal and some people use it to identify as an private variable and some for naming it in caching variable. Go through with this link too.
The use of two underscores (`__') in identifiers is reserved for the compiler's internal use according to the ANSI-C standard.
Underscores (`_') are often used in names of library functions (such as "_main" and "_exit"). In order to avoid collisions, do not begin an identifier with an underscore.
In most languages, it doesn't actually affect the functionality of the code, but is often used to denote reserved or internal names.
It is common in some languages to name your instance variable _image or image_ and then make the public method used to access it image().
Similarly, some names like __FILE__ are used in some languages to denote a special variable or constant created by the interpreter or compiler; such names are often reserved to encourage programmers to avoid using those names in their own programs in case the names are used in future versions of the language.
To avoid reserved keywords, or in reserved keywords, making them more easily avoided.
A single underscore is discouraged and reserved in JavaSE9.
Another use case (mainly in javascript) is when you need to assign the current instance this to a local variable we write as below
var _this = this;
If you need to create a local temporary object reference, to differentiate between the actual needed reference, we create as below
List<Employee> employeeList = new ArrayList<>();
for (Employee _employee : employeeList) {}
So if we follow this best practice, every time you see a variable with _ , we come to a conclusion that its being used to solve some business need at that particular method.
Basically it is telling that the developer should provide the definition . In short it defines it does not have any definition .