I need a modifiable collection like a List or a Set to be passed as a parameter. Using Iterable doesn't guarantee this argument to have methods like add or remove.
Example method:
void foo(Iterable bar) {
bar.add(); // The method 'add' isn't defined for the type 'Iterable'.
}
Is there a class / interface for (modifiable) collections which guarantees those methods? If not, why?
There is not a modifiable type. Very early (before Dart 1) we had some other types in our hierarchy, but we decided to avoid including them because things were getting a bit too complex.
I still wish we'd shipped a List interface without the mutation members. 🤷
Related
I have this method
#override
Response<BodyType> convertResponse<BodyType, SingleItemType>(
Response response) {
final Response dynamicResponse = super.convertResponse(response);
final BodyType customBody =
_convertToCustomObject<SingleItemType>(dynamicResponse.body);
return dynamicResponse.replace<BodyType>(body: customBody);
}
What does it mean <BodyType> and <BodyType, SingleItemType> in this method?
These are called generics in Dart (in fact, they are called the same in other similar programming languages).
The main idea behind generics is that you could reuse the same code without relying on a specific data/return type. Imagine List in Dart. You could have a list of integers (List<int>), a list of strings (List<String>), a list of your custom objects (List<CustomType>) - the type is not hardcoded and it could be adjusted based on your needs.
Also, you could say that it would be easier just to use dynamic or Object types that would cover most of these cases. However, generics brings you type safety, and the method type itself becomes a parameter.
Here is the official documentation about generics.
I need to implement an abstract class function, which own a an specific data type. But I need inside my logic layer to make the attribute which is going to be passed as a dynamic data type. But when i Pass it to the function, i am sure that its data type will be as needed. So, i type (product.value.pickedImages) as ListOf5) . But it does an Exception.
The Abstract Class Code Is:
Future<Either<FireStoreServerFailures, List<String>>> uploadProductImages(
{required ListOf5<File> images});
The Implementation Code Is:
Future<Option<List<String>>> _uploadImagesToFirestorage() async {
return await productRepo
.uploadProductImages(
images: (product.value.pickedImages) as ListOf5<File>) // Exception
}
The Exception Is:
The argument type 'ListOf5 < dynamic>' can't be assigned to the
parameter type 'ListOf5 < File>'.
You are trying to cast the List from List<dynamic> to List<String>.
Instead, you should cast each item, using something like this:
void main() {
List<dynamic> a = ['qwerty'];
print(List<String>.from(a));
}
Not sure about the implementation of this ListOf5 though...
The cast (product.value.pickedImages) as ListOf5<File> fails.
It fails because product.value.pickedImages is-not-a ListOf5<File>, but instead of ListOf5<dynamic> (which may or may not currently contain only File objects, but that's not what's being checked).
Unlike a language like Java, Dart retains the type arguments at run-time(it doesn't do "erasure"), so a ListOf5<dynamic> which contains only File objects is really different from a ListOf5<File> at run-time.
You need to convert the ListOf5<dynamic> to a ListOf5<File>.
How to do that depends on the type ListOf5, which I don't know.
For a normal List, the two most common options are:
(product.value.pickedImages).cast<File>(). Wraps the existing list and checks on each read that you really do read a File. It throws if you ever read a non-File from the original list. Perfectly fine if you'll only read the list once.
List<File>.of(product.value.pickedImages). Creates a new List<File> containing the values of product.value.pickedImages, and throws if any of the values are not File objects. Requires more memory (because it copies the list), but fails early in case there is a problem, and for small lists, the overhead is unlikely to be significant. If you read the resulting list many times, it'll probably be more efficient overall.
If the ListOf5 class provides similar options, you can use those. If not, you might have to build a new ListOf5 manually, casting each element of the existing ListOf5<dynamic> yourself.
(If the ListOf5 class is your own, you can choose to add such functionality to the class).
i added map(), reduce() and where(qlint : string) to a Spring4D fork of mine.
While i was programming these functions, i found out that there is a differnce in the behaviour of the lists, when they are created in different ways.
If i create them with TList<TSomeClass>.create the objects in the enumerables are of the type TSomeClass.
If i create them with TCollections.CreateList<TSomeClass> the objects in the enumerables are of the type TObject.
So the question is:
Is there a downside by using TList<TSomeClass>.create ?
Or in other words: Why should i use TCollections.CreateList<TSomeClass> ?
btw: with TCollections.CreateList i got a TObjectList and not a TList. So it should be called TCollections.CreateObjectList... but that's another story.
Depending on the compiler version many of the Spring.Collections.TCollections.Create methods are applying what the compiler is unable to: folding the implementation into only a very slim generic class. Some methods are doing that from XE on, some only since XE7 ( GetTypeKind intrinsic function makes it possible to do the type resolution at compile time - see the parameterless TCollections.CreateList<T> for example).
This greatly reduces the binary size if you are creating many different types of IList<T> (where T are classes or interfaces) because it folds them into TFolded(Object|Interface)List<T>. However via the interface you are accessing the items as what you specified them and also the ElementType property returns the correct type and not only TObject or IInterface. On Berlin it adds less than 1K for every different object list while it would add around 80K if the folding is not applied due to all the internal classes involved for the different operations you can call on an IList<T>.
As for TCollections.CreateList<T> returning an IList<T> that is backed by a TFoldedObjectList<T> when T is a class that is completely as designed. Since the OwnsObject was passed as False it has the exact same behavior as a TList<T>.
The Spring4D collections are interface based so it does not matter what class is behind an interface as long as it behaves accordingly to the contract of the interface.
Make sure that you only carry the lists around as IList<T> and not TList<T> - you can create them both ways (with the benefits I mentioned before when using the TCollections methods). In our own application some places are still using the constructor of the classes while many other places are using the static methods from Spring.Collections.TCollections.
BTW:
I saw the activity in your fork and imo there is no need to implement Map/Reduce because that is already there. Since the Spring4D collections are modelled after .NET they are called Select and Aggregate (see Spring.Collections.TEnumerable). They are not available on IEnumerable<T> directly though because interfaces must not have generic parameterized methods.
Suppose I want my class to do things on attribute access. I can of course do that in setters and getters:
class Foo {
set bar (v) {
// do stuff
}
}
However, if I want to attach the same behavior to multiple attributes, I'd have to explicitly define the same setters and getters for every one of them. (The use case I have in mind is an observable, i.e. a class that knows when its attributes are being changed).
What I'd like to do is something like:
class Foo {
var bar = new AttributeWithAccessBehavior();
}
Python does this with descriptors - what is the closest thing in Dart?
AFAIK there isn't anything with getter/setter syntax that you can reuse.
You could assign a function to a field, that you can access using call notation (), but you have to be careful to call the function instead of overriding the field assignment.
A similar but more powerful alternative are classes that can emulate functions (see https://www.dartlang.org/articles/emulating-functions/)
A class that has a call method can be used like a method.
This is similar to assigned functions mentioned above but in addition you can store state information.
If you implement actual getter/setter you can of course delegate to whatever you want, but that is obviously not what you are looking for.
For the use case you mentioned, there is the observe package.
I have no idea how exactly it solves the problem, but it works quite well.
I have my main form. Form_Main
It creates two instances of two classes.
Candle_Data : TCandle_Data;
Indicator_2700 : TIndicator_2700;
In order for Indicator_2700 to properly compute its values it must have access to the candle data in the obect Candle_Data from inside one of its methods. Thus how can Indicator_2700 access data inside Candle_Data? Does Form_Main have to pass it as a argument at Constructor time?
Both Class declarations are in their own unit file.
You could use any of the following (non-exhaustive) methods:
Pass the object reference as a parameter to any methods that need it. Of course you need to get hold of Candle_Data so the suitability of this approach really depends who the caller is.
Pass the Candle_Data object reference to the constructor of the other object and then store it in a private member field.
Make the object reference a public property of the single instance of the main form and access it that way.
We don't really have enough information to advise you which is best but the starting point is always to prefer parameters and local variables over global state.
TIndicator_2700 could have a property to link it to the instance of TCandle_Data that is relevant to its own instance or you should supply it as an argument to the method that needs to access the data.
You could certainly pass the TCandle_Data instance into the constructor of Indicator_2700, and store a reference within the resulting instance until you needed it.
Both class declarations are in their own unit file.
That suggests that both have nothing to do with the other. But still you want one to have knowledge about the other. It sounds like a little design mixup, but that doesn't need to be the case.
There are multiple solutions, here are three of them, each with its own purpose:
Place both classes in the same unit, only if both classes have a common theme/subject (e.g. TCar and TAirplane in the unit Transport),
Use one unit in the other unit, only if both units represent different subjects, but one may depend on the other (e.g. unit Transport uses unit Fuel: TCar needs TDiesel, but TDiesel doesn't need a TCar). This only works one-way. Delphi prevents using in both ways with a compiler error: "Circular unit reference to 'Fuel'". The only workaround is to use the second unit in the implementation section, but that usually is considered a big nono.
Declare a new base-class in a new unit, only if the base-class has a common subject, but the final descendants do not (e.g. TFuel is used by all transportation classes like TCar, TAirplane and THorse, but TFood (a descendant of TFuel) is only used by THorse and TPerson).
As for how to link both classes together, see the already given answers.