What is the difference between ?? and =?? in Dart? - dart

In the code below to implement the Singleton design pattern, we approach two different ways.
One of them creates Singleton but the other creates an object each time we call it.
What's the difference between ?? and =?? in the code below written in dart?
class ExampleStateByDefinition extends ExampleStateBase {
static ExampleStateByDefinition? _instance;
ExampleStateByDefinition._internal() {
initialText = 'A new "ExampleStateByDefinition" instance has been created.';
stateText = initialText;
print(stateText);
}
static ExampleStateByDefinition? getState() {
return _instance ?? ExampleStateByDefinition._internal(); //here we use ??
}
}
The above code creates an object each time we call it, so let us look at another variant:
class ExampleStateByDefinition extends ExampleStateBase {
static ExampleStateByDefinition? _instance;
ExampleStateByDefinition._internal() {
initialText = 'A new "ExampleStateByDefinition" instance has been created.';
stateText = initialText;
print(stateText);
}
static ExampleStateByDefinition? getState() {
_instance ??= ExampleStateByDefinition._internal(); //Here we use ??=
return _instance;
}
}
The above code implements Singleton by definition in Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software

The ??= operator is a compound assignment operator.
Just like target += 1 is equivalent to target = target + 1 (but with target only evaluated once, if it's a complicated expression),
target ??= expression is equivalent to target = target ?? expression (but with target only evaluated once and the assignment not even happening if target is non-null).
So, the difference is that the first code probably doesn't work, the second one does.
The code:
return _instance ?? ExampleStateByDefinition._internal();
checks whether _instance is non-null, and if so, it returns the value of _instance. If it is null, it evaluates and returns ExampleStateByDefinition._internal().
No-where in that does it assign to _instance. So, _instance is always going to be null, and the code is probably failing to do what it intended to do—caching a value.
The code:
_instance ??= ExampleStateByDefinition._internal();
return _instance;
or its more streamlined version:
return _instance ??= ExampleStateByDefinition._internal();
will also check if _instance is null and return its value if it isn't.
If _instance is null, it also evaluates ExampleStateByDefinition._internal();, and then it assigns it to _instance, and returns the value.
The next time you come around, _instance will be non-null, and the lazy caching works.

Both ?? and ??= are null-aware operators.
Difference
The difference between the two operators is that the former only evaluates an expression while the latter also assigns the result of the expression.
This is why your first sample returns a new instance each time since you never assign it to your static variable.
??
Use ?? when you want to evaluate and return an expression IFF another expression resolves to null.
The following expression:
exp ?? otherExp;
Is similar to this expression:
((x) => x == null ? otherExp : x)(exp);
??=
Use ??= when you want to assign a value to an object IFF that object is null. Otherwise, return the object.
The following expression:
obj ??= value;
Is similar to this expression:
((x) => x == null ? obj = value : x)(obj);
See Null-aware operators in Dart for reference.

Based on dart tour.
To assign only if the assignment to the variable is null we use ??= operation.
expr1 ?? expr2 if expr1 is not null, return its value; otherwise, evaluates and return the value of expr2.
Cause ?? operation evaluates each time we call the object, it creates a new object.

Related

+ isn't defined for the type 'Object

I keep getting this error => "The operator '+' isn't defined for the type 'Object'. (view docs). Try defining the operator '+'."
How could I define it?
import 'dart:math';
bool isArmstrongNumber(int number) {
var numberString = number.toString();
return number ==
numberString.split("").fold(0,
(prev, curr) => prev! + pow(int.parse(curr), numberString.length));
}
main() {
var result = isArmstrongNumber(153);
print(result);
}
fold in Dart can have some problems when it comes to automatically determine what type it should return and handle. In these cases, we need to manually enter the type like this (fold<int>()):
import 'dart:math';
bool isArmstrongNumber(int number) {
final numberString = number.toString();
return number ==
numberString.split("").fold<int>(
0,
(prev, curr) =>
prev + pow(int.parse(curr), numberString.length).toInt(),
);
}
void main() {
final result = isArmstrongNumber(153);
print(result); // true
}
I also fixed a problem where pow returns num which is a problem. In this case, we can safely just cast it to int without issues.
Details about this problem with fold
The problem here is that Dart tries to guess the generic of the fold based on the expected returned type of the method. Since the == operator expects an Object to compare against, fold will also expect to just return Object and the generic ends up being fold<Object>.
This is not a problem for the first parameter since int is an Object. But it becomes a problem with your second argument where you expect an int object and not Object since Object does not have the + operator.

How do I initialize non-nullable members in a constructor body?

I've created my class in Dart this way, but I'm getting the Non-nullable instance field 'text' must be initialized. Try adding an initializer expression, or add a field initializer in this constructor, or mark it 'late'. I would like to know if there's a way to do it in a 'Python' style where this kind of class creation is possible, thank you in advance.
class Lexer {
String _text;
int _pos;
String _current_char;
Lexer(String text) {
this._text = text;
this._pos = -1;
this._current_char = '';
this.advance();
}
void advance() {
this._pos++;
this._current_char = this._pos < this._text.length ? this._text[this._pos] : '';
}
}
class Lexer {
String _text;
int _pos;
String _current_char;
This declares several members with type String. Since they are declared as String and not as String?, these members are non-nullable; they are not allowed to ever be null. (This is part of the new null-safety feature from Dart 2.12.)
Dart initializes objects in two phases. When the constructor's body runs, Dart expects all member variables to already be initialized. Because your members are non-nullable and haven't been initialized to non-null values yet, this is an error. The error message explains what you can do:
Non-nullable instance field 'text' must be initialized. Try adding an initializer expression, or add a field initializer in this constructor, or mark it 'late'.
Use initializer expressions. This means using an initializer list:
Lexer(String text)
: _text = text,
_pos = -1,
_current_char = '' {
advance();
}
Note that if you're initializing members with a construction parameter of the same name, you can use shorthand:
Lexer(this._text)
: _pos = -1,
_current_char = '' {
advance();
}
Adding field initializers. This means initializing members inline in the class declaration.
class Lexer {
String _text = '';
int _pos = -1,
String _current_char = '';
Marking your members as late. This means that you promise that the variables will be initialized before anything attempts to use them.
class Lexer {
late String _text;
late int _pos,
late String _current_char;
Making your members nullable, which allows them to be implicitly null by default:
class Lexer {
String? _text;
int? _pos,
String? _current_char;
However, that will require that all accesses explicitly check that the members aren't null before using them.
You also might want to read: Dart assigning to variable right away or in constructor?

Using an 'is' expression when the right-hand operand is a variable?

I am trying to write a function that takes two arguments: givenType and targetType. If these two arguments match, I want givenType to be returned, otherwise null.
For this objective, I am trying to utilize Dart's is expression (maybe there is a better way to go about it, I am open to suggestions). Initially, I thought it would be as simple as writing this:
matchesTarget(givenType, targetType) {
if (givenType is targetType) {
return givenType;
}
return null;
}
But this produces an error:
The name 'targetType' isn't a type and can't be used in an 'is'
expression. Try correcting the name to match an existing
type.dart(type_test_with_non_type)
I tried looking up what satisfies an is expression but cannot seem to find it in the documentation. It seems like it needs its right-hand operand to be known at compile-time (hoping this is wrong, but it does not seem like I can use a variable), but if so, how else can I achieve the desired effect?
I cant guess the purpose of the function (or the scenario where it would be used, so if you can clarify it would be great). First of all, I don't know if you are passing "types" as arguments. And yes, you need to specify in compile time the right hand argument of the is function.
Meanwhile, if you are passing types, with one change, you can check if the types passed to your function at runtime.
matchesTarget(Type givenType, Type targetType) {
print('${givenType.runtimeType} ${targetType.runtimeType}');
if (givenType == targetType) {
return givenType;
}
return null;
}
main(){
var a = int; //this is a Type
var b = String; //this is also a Type
print(matchesTarget(a,b)); //You are passing different Types, so it will return null
var c = int; //this is also a Type
print(matchesTarget(a,c)); //You are passing same Types, so it will return int
}
But if you are passing variables, the solution is pretty similar:
matchesTarget(givenVar, targetVar) {
print('${givenVar.runtimeType} ${targetVar.runtimeType}');
if (givenVar.runtimeType == targetVar.runtimeType) {
return givenVar.runtimeType;
}
return null;
}
main(){
var a = 10; //this is a variable (int)
var b = "hello"; //this is also a variable (String)
print(matchesTarget(a,b)); //this will return null
var c = 12; //this is also a variable (int)
print(matchesTarget(a,c)); //this will return int
}
The Final Answer
matchesTarget(givenVar, targetType) {
print('${givenVar.runtimeType} ${targetType}');
if (givenVar.runtimeType == targetType) {
return givenVar;
}
return null;
}
main(){
var a = 10; //this is a variable (int)
var b = String; //this is a type (String)
print(matchesTarget(a,b)); //this will return null because 'a' isnt a String
var c = int; //this is also a type (int)
print(matchesTarget(a,c)); //this will return the value of 'a' (10)
}
The as, is, and is! operators are handy for checking types at runtime.
The is operator in Dart can be only used for type checking and not checking if two values are equal.
The result of obj is T is true if obj implements the interface specified by T. For example, obj is Object is always true.
See the below code for an example of how to use the is operator
if (emp is Person) {
// Type check
emp.firstName = 'Bob';
}
Even the error message that you're getting says that
The name 'targetType' isn't a type and can't be used in an 'is'
expression.
So the bottomline is that you can use is only for checking if a variable or value belongs to a particular data type.
For checking equality, you can use the == operator if comparing primitive types, or write your own method for comparing the values. Hope this helps!

Why does `if (var = null)` compile in dart?

I've recently came across this question How do I solve the 'Failed assertion: boolean expression must not be null' exception in Flutter
where the problem comes from a should be invalid code that gets treated as valid.
This code can be summarized as :
int stuff;
if (stuff = null) { // = instead of ==
}
But why does this code compiles ? As the following will not.
int stuff;
if (stuff = 42) {
}
With the following compile error :
Conditions must have a static type of 'bool'.
So I'd expect out of consistency that if (stuff = null) to gives the same error.
null is a valid value for a bool variable in Dart, at least until Dart supports non-nullable types.
bool foo = null;
or just
bool foo;
is valid.
Therefore in the first case there is nothing wrong from a statical analysis point of view.
In the 2nd case the type int is inferred because of the assignment, which is known to not be a valid boolean value.
bool foo = 42;
is invalid.
When you say var stuff; with no initial value it is giving stuff a static type of dynamic. Since dyamic might be a bool, it's legal to assign null to a variable of type dynamic, and it's legal to use a possibly null bool in a conditional, the compiler doesn't flag this. When you say int stuff; the compiler knows that stuff could not be a bool. The reported error in that case is cause by the static type of stuff, not the assignment to null.
Edit: Got the real answer from someone who knows how to read the spec.
The static type of an assignment expression is the right hand side of the assignment. So the expression stuff = null has the static type of Null which is assignable to bool.
The reasoning is that the value of an assignment is the right hand side, so it makes sense to also use it's type. This allows expressions like:
int foo;
num bar;
foo = bar = 1;
Commonly assignment operation returns the value that it assigns.
int a = 0;
print(a = 3);//Prints 3
So,
When stuff = null,
'stuff = null' returns null. if statement needs a boolean .null is a sub-Type of boolean.
if(null){}
is valid
When stuff = 42,
'stuff = 42' returns 42. if statement needs a boolean .42 is not a sub-Type of boolean.
if(42){}
is not valid

Use question mark operator when calling method on possible null value?

I have a varible containing an object which might be null. When trying to call a method I have to check for null. I want the result to be false if the variable is null. What is considered good and readable style to to this?
e.g.
class MyClass {
bool boolMethod() {
return true;
}
}
void main() {
MyClass mc = new MyClass();
MyClass mcnull = null;
bool val1 = mc?.boolMethod();
bool val1null = mcnull?.boolMethod();
bool val2 = mc != null && mc.boolMethod();
bool val2null = mcnull != null && mcnull.boolMethod();
}
Especially when used in if-statements I consider the first version much more readable:
if (mc?.boolMethod())...
versus
if (mc != null && mc.boolMethod())...
But IntelliJ gives me the hint The value of the '?.' operator can be 'null' which isn't appropriate as an operand of a locaical operator. (null_aware_in_logical_operator). Ok - this is right because when the variable is null then I use the null as a boolean value. But it's ok in my case and I try to avoid suppressing warnings.
What is the suggested way? Other ideas?
I think a common pattern is
bool val1 = (mc?.boolMethod() ?? false);
The parens aren't required here but if such expressions are embedded into more complex expressions they are often necessary to get the expected behavior because of the low priority of ??

Resources