I am learning Dart, and I can't understand the logic behind this code if anyone can help:
Function applyMultiplier(num multiplier) {
return (num value) {
return value * multiplier;
};
}
final triple = applyMultiplier(3);
print(triple(6)); //output 18
There is an anonymous function inside a named function.
We assigned a function to a variable.
What I don't understand is how did we pass from triple to value. I can't understand the logic behind.
Well, the function applyMultiplier takes a num as argument and returns a function that itself returns the value it is given multiplied by another multiplier. final tripple = applyMultiplier(3) stores this function that is returned from applyMultiplier in the variable triple. Because the variable triple then stores a function it can also be used like a function.
Related
I can't understand how the closure works in Dart. Why does BMW stay? This explanation causes my neurons to overheat. A lexical closure is a functional object that has access to variables from its lexical domain. Even if it is used outside of its original scope.
`void main() {
var car = makeCar('BMW');
print(makeCar);
print(car);
print(makeCar('Tesla'));
print(car('Audi'));
print(car('Nissan'));
print(car('Toyota'));
}
String Function(String) makeCar(String make) {
var ingane = '4.4';
return (model) => '$model,$ingane,$make';
}`
Console
Closure 'makeCar'
Closure 'makeCar_closure'
Closure 'makeCar_closure'
Audi,4.4,BMW
Nissan,4.4,BMW
Toyota,4.4,BMW
Calling car('Audi') is equal to calling (makeCar('BMW'))('Audi');
A lexical closure is a functional object that has access to variables from its lexical domain. Even if it is used outside of its original scope.
in simple english:
String make will stay valid as long as the returned function is not out of scope because the returned function has reference to String make.
In essence, you "inject" information needed for the newly created function. Your car knows that make is "BMW"
I think I figured it out. Here is an example where I left comments. Maybe it will help someone.
void main() {
var pr = funkOut(10); // assign a reference to an object instance
// of the Function class to the pr variable. pr is a closure because
// it is assigned a reference to an instance that contains a lexical
// environment (int a) and an anonymous function from this environment.
// 10 transfer to a
print(pr(5)); // 5 transfer to b //15
print(pr(10)); // 10 transfer to b //20
pr = funkOut(20);// 20 transfer to a
print(pr(5)); // 5 transfer to b //25
print(pr); // Closure: (int) => int
}
Function funkOut(int a) {
return (int b) => a + b;
}
Will following code be executed atomically?
const int oldId = id.exchange((id.load()+1) % maxId);
Where id is std::atomic<int>, and maxId is some integer value.
I searched google and stackoverflow for std::atomic modulo increment. And I found some topics but I can't find clear answer how to do that properly.
In my case even better would be to use:
const int newId = id.exchange((++id) % maxId);
But I am still not sure if it will be executed atomically.
No, this is not atomic, because the load() and the exchange() are separate operations, and nothing is preventing id from getting updated after the load, but before the exchange. In that case your exchange would write a value that has been calculated based on a stale input, so you end up with a missed update.
You can implement a modulo increment using a simple compare_exchange loop:
int val = id.load();
int newVal = (val + 1) % maxId;
while (!id.compare_exchange_weak(val, newVal) {
newVal = (val + 1) % maxId;
}
If the compare_exchange fails it performs a reload and populates val with the updated value. So we can re-calculate newVal and try again.
Edit:
The whole point of the compare-exchange-loop is to handle the case that between the load and the compare-exchange somebody might change id. The idea is to:
load the current value of id
calculate the new value
update id with our own value if and only if the value currently stored in id is the same one as we read in 1. If this is the case we are done, otherwise we restart at 1.
compare_exchange is allows us to perform the comparison and the conditional update in one atomic operation. The first argument to compare_exchange is the expected value (the one we use in our comparison). This value is passed by reference. So when the comparison fails, compare_exchange automatically reloads the current value and updates the provided variable (in our case val).
And since Peter Cordes pointed out correctly that this can be done in a do-while loop to avoid the code duplication, here it is:
int val = id.load();
int newVal;
do {
newVal = (val + 1) % maxId;
} while (!id.compare_exchange_weak(val, newVal);
Functions in Dart are first-class objects, allowing you to pass them to other objects or functions.
void main() {
var shout = (msg) => ' ${msg.toUpperCase()} ';
print(shout("yo"));
}
This made me wonder if there was a way to modify a function a run time, just like an object, prior to passing it to something else. For example:
Function add(int input) {
return add + 2;
}
If I wanted to make the function a generic addition function, then I would do:
Function add(int input, int increment) {
return add + increment;
}
But then the problem would be that the object I am passing the function to would need to specify the increment. I would like to pass the add function to another object, with the increment specified at run time, and declared within the function body so that the increment cannot be changed by the recipient of the function object.
The answer seems to be to use a lexical closure.
From here: https://dart.dev/guides/language/language-tour#built-in-types
A closure is a function object that has access to variables in its
lexical scope, even when the function is used outside of its original
scope.
Functions can close over variables defined in surrounding scopes. In
the following example, makeAdder() captures the variable addBy.
Wherever the returned function goes, it remembers addBy.
/// Returns a function that adds [addBy] to the
/// function's argument.
Function makeAdder(int addBy) {
return (int i) => addBy + i;
}
void main() {
// Create a function that adds 2.
var add2 = makeAdder(2);
// Create a function that adds 4.
var add4 = makeAdder(4);
assert(add2(3) == 5);
assert(add4(3) == 7);
}
In the above cases, we pass 2 or 4 into the makeAdder function. The makeAdder function uses the parameter to create and return a function object that can be passed to other objects.
You most likely don't need to modify a closure, just the ability to create customized closures.
The latter is simple:
int Function(int) makeAdder(int increment) => (int value) => value + increment;
...
foo(makeAdder(1)); // Adds 1.
foo(makeAdder(4)); // Adds 2.
You can't change which variables a closure is referencing, but you can change their values ... if you an access the variable. For local variables, that's actually hard.
Mutating state which makes an existing closure change behavior can sometimes be appropriate, but those functions should be very precise about how they change and where they are being used. For a function like add which is used for its behavior, changing the behavior is rarely a good idea. It's better to replace the closure in the specific places that need to change behavior, and not risk changing the behavior in other places which happen to depend on the same closure. Otherwise it becomes very important to control where the closure actually flows.
If you still want to change the behavior of an existing global, you need to change a variable that it depends on.
Globals are easy:
int increment = 1;
int globalAdder(int value) => value + increment;
...
foo(globalAdd); // Adds 1.
increment = 2;
foo(globalAdd); // Adds 2.
I really can't recommend mutating global variables. It scales rather badly. You have no control over anything.
Another option is to use an instance variable to hold the modifiable value.
class MakeAdder {
int increment = 1;
int instanceAdd(int value) => value + increment;
}
...
var makeAdder = MakeAdder();
var adder = makeAdder.instanceAdd;
...
foo(adder); // Adds 1.
makeAdder.increment = 2;
foo(adder); // Adds 2.
That gives you much more control over who can access the increment variable. You can create multiple independent mutaable adders without them stepping on each other's toes.
To modify a local variable, you need someone to give you access to it, from inside the function where the variable is visible.
int Function(int) makeAdder(void Function(void Function(int)) setIncrementCallback) {
var increment = 1;
setIncrementCallback((v) {
increment = v;
});
return (value) => value + increment;
}
...
void Function(int) setIncrement;
int Function(int) localAdd = makeAdder((inc) { setIncrement = inc; });
...
foo(localAdd); // Adds 1.
setIncrement(2);
foo(localAdd); // Adds 2.
This is one way of passing back a way to modify the local increment variable.
It's almost always far too complicated an approach for what it gives you, I'd go with the instance variable instead.
Often, the instance variable will actually represent something in your model, some state which can meaningfully change, and then it becomes predictable and understandable when and how the state of the entire model changes, including the functions referring to that model.
Using partial function application
You can use a partial function application to bind arguments to functions.
If you have something like:
int add(int input, int increment) => input + increment;
and want to pass it to another function that expects to supply fewer arguments:
int foo(int Function(int input) applyIncrement) => applyIncrement(10);
then you could do:
foo((input) => add(input, 2); // `increment` is fixed to 2
foo((input) => add(input, 4); // `increment` is fixed to 4
Using callable objects
Another approach would be to make a callable object:
class Adder {
int increment = 0;
int call(int input) => input + increment;
}
which could be used with the same foo function above:
var adder = Adder()..increment = 2;
print(foo(adder)); // Prints: 12
adder.increment = 4;
print(foo(adder)); // Prints: 14
I've been trying to use libtooling to rename classes in source, and have hit a snag wrt function returns: there doesn't seem to be an API to get the source extent of just the return type.
I could hack it by assuming the return type is before the function id, but this doesn't handle trailing return types in C++11.
Does anyone have a better suggestion?
Thanks!
// simplified example replacing only value type returns
virtual void run(const ast_matchers::MatchFinder::MatchResult& Result) {
SourceManager& src = *result_.SourceManager;
const FunctionDecl* const function =
result_.Nodes.getDeclAs<FunctionDecl>("function");
CharSourceRange range = Lexer::makeFileCharRange(
CharSourceRange::getTokenRange(function->getLocStart(),
function->getLocation.getLocWithOffset(-1)),
src, LangOptions());
_replace->insert(Replacement(src, range, "newClass));
}
I've created a custom google spreadsheet function via the script editor that calculates pace. I call the function in my spreadsheet via
=pace(00:33:00,10,km)
and the logic for the function is
function pace(time, dist, unit)
{
return pace(time.getHours(),time.getMinutes(),time.getSeconds(), dist, unit);
}
function pace(hrs,mins,secs,dist,unit)
{
var d = dist;
if(unit=="m"||unit="M")
d = dist*1.609344;
var minutes = 60*hrs+mins+secs/60.0;
var pace = minutes/d;
return pace;
}
but when the function is executed all i get is
error: Invalid assignment left-hand side.
I think the logic is correct and the issue is related to the publication status of the script?
H,
It seems you are missing and equal sign in the second argument to your if statement.
if(unit=="m"||unit=="M")