If I have a object like this:
class MyClass<K>{...
How I could check type of K? If was a variable was easy,
ex:
(myVar is Object)... //true | false
But in my case, this dont works:
(K is Object) // awalys false
You want == here. Using is is for comparing the type of variable, not a literal type.
This will only check if K is actually Object if you use K == Object. If you pass K as int for instance, it will not be considered to be an Object.
I recommend not using == for comparison of Type objects. It only checks exact equality, which might be useful in a few situations, but in plenty of situations you do want a subtype check.
You can get that subtype check using a helper function like:
bool isSubtype<S, T>() => <S>[] is List<T>;
Then you can check either isSubtype<K, Object> to check if K is a subtype of Object (which is true for everything except Null and types equivalent to Object?, but that can also be checked like null is! K), or isSubtype<Object, K> to check whether K is a supertype of Object.
It has the advantage that you can compare to any type, not just types you can write literals for. For example K == List only works for List<dynamic>. If you need to check whether K is a List<int>, you can do isSubtype<K, List<int>>.
You can get equivalence of types (mutual subtype), without requiring them to be the same type, by doing isSubtype in both directions. For example isSubtype<Object?, dynamic>() and isSubtype<dynamic, Object?>() are both true, but if K is Object? then K == dynamic is false.
Related
There seems to be a difference between these two checks:
if not object then
if type(object) == "nil" then
However I really don't understand the difference.
if type is "nil", shouldn't a not object then also work?
Lua, like many other dynamically typed languages, has the concept of "truthy" and "falsy", where boolean expressions can handle more values than just actual booleans.
Each non-boolean value has a specific meaning attached when used in a boolean expression. Specifically:
nil and false are "falsy"
everything else is "truthy"
That is why (not nil) == (not false), but type(nil) ~= type(false), because not x is a boolean expression that coerces x to truthy/falsy, while type() checks the actual type.
I have two int values in Dart, test them equals or not with == previously, it was fine. Now I have to test if first one is greater or equals to the second one, so I changed == to >= instinctively, but it seems Dart was not happy with me doing that
I double checked documentation of Dart, >= should work to test greater or equals operation
IMO, in the end, if >= has something wrong, then the same should come to ==
You are comparing two different operators which comes from different part of the Dart language. The == operator is defined on Object:
https://api.dart.dev/stable/2.15.1/dart-core/Object/operator_equals.html
Which needs to be able to compare every type of object including null. The reason why the == operator does not have Object? as input parameter is because of the following detail in the Dart Language Specification (page 167) under the section "Equality":
Evaluation of an equality expression ee of the form e1 == e2 proceeds as follows:
The expression e1 is evaluated to an object o1.
The expression e2 is evaluated to an object o2.
If either o1 or o2 is the null object (17.4), then ee evaluates to true if both o1 and o2 are the null object and to false otherwise. Otherwise,
evaluation of ee is equivalent to the method invocation o1.==(o2)
...
https://dart.dev/guides/language/specifications/DartLangSpec-v2.10.pdf
So based on third rule, the language itself will make sure that null values are compared correctly and therefore the Object.== method will never see a null object as its input.
The other operator is >= and comes (in your case) from num which int extends from:
https://api.dart.dev/stable/2.15.1/dart-core/num/operator_greater_equal.html
And is specified to accept only num (so int or double) which are a non-nullable type (null is therefore not allowed).
You are then trying to call the num.>= operator with the result from values?.length. This is a problem since values is nullable and can therefore potentially be null. And when you use the ?. operator, you are saying that if values are null, don't care calling .lenght but instead just return null.
So the type of values?.length ends up being int? which is not compatible with num.
There is a linter rule which verifies that one don't check for null equality in the overridden == operator.
The rule is here.
I understand this rule but can't see how it is realized technically.
It seems that Dart itself makes some implicit check on other != null and == returns false in this case. Is this correct?
In other languages, e.g. Java, one needs to explicitly add this check in the overridden equals.
Second question is why then it does not check automatically on the type of other as well. Why it is ok to spare me as a programmer from checking on null, but I still need to check if other is Person? Are there cases when one overrides == and checks there for some other type then the type of that class?
The linter rule implementation is simple, it just checks whether you compare the argument of operator == to null.
The reason you don't need to is that e1 == e2 in Dart is defined to first evaluate e1 and e2 to a value, then give a result early if one or both of the values is null, and only otherwise it calls the operator== method on the value of e1.
So, when that method is called, you know for certain that the argument is not null.
The reason the == operator doesn't do more checks before calling the operator== method is that there are examples where that would be wrong.
In particular, int and double can be equal to each other. Having instances of different classes potentially being equal to each other is more common that you'd think (proxies, mocks, wrappers, Cartesian point vs polar point, int vs double).
The other check you could potentially do early is to say that an object is equal to itself, so if (identical(this, other)) return true;, but there is one counter-example forced upon the language: NaN, aka. double.nan. That particular "value" is not equal to itself (which breaks the reflexivity requirement for ==, but is specified that way by the IEEE-754 standard which is what the CPUs implement natively).
If not for NaN, the language would probably have checked for identity before calling operator== too.
It seems that Dart itself makes some implicit check on other != null and == returns false in this case. Is this correct?
Yes.
Second question is why then it does not check automatically on the type of other as well. Why it is ok to spare me as a programmer from checking on null, but I still need to check if other is Person? Are there cases when one overrides == and checks there for some other type then the type of that class?
It's less common, but there can be cases where you might want to allow a different type on the right-hand-side of the equality. For example, the left-hand-side and right-hand-side might be easily convertible to each other or to a common type. Imagine that you created, say, a Complex number class and that you wanted Complex(real: 4.0, imaginary: 0.0) == 4 to be true.
From the doc:
no class can be equivalent to [null]
Meaning, when other is Person is true, then other != null is also true. This is because:
The null object is the sole instance of the built-in class Null.
(https://dart.dev/guides/language/spec)
So every instance check against any type but Null will return false for null:
class A {}
void main() {
final x = null;
final a = A();
print(x is Null); // true
print(x is A); // false
print(a is Null); // false
print(a is A); // true
}
In some Julia code when can see conditional expression such as
if val !== nothing
dosomething()
end
where val is a variable of type Union{Int,Nothing}
What is the difference between conditons val !== nothing and val != nothing?
First of all, it is generally advisable to use isnothing to compare if something is nothing. This particular function is efficient, as it is soley based on types (#edit isnothing(nothing)):
isnothing(::Any) = false
isnothing(::Nothing) = true
(Note that nothing is the only instance of the type Nothing.)
In regards to your question, the difference between === and == (and equally !== and !=) is that the former checks whether two things are identical whereas the latter checks for equality. To illustrate this difference, consider the following example:
julia> 1 == 1.0 # equal
true
julia> 1 === 1.0 # but not identical
false
Note that the former one is an integer whereas the latter one is a floating point number.
What does it mean for two things to be identical? We can consult the documentation of the comparison operators (?===):
help?> ===
search: === == !==
===(x,y) -> Bool
≡(x,y) -> Bool
Determine whether x and y are identical, in the sense that no program could distinguish them. First the types
of x and y are compared. If those are identical, mutable objects are compared by address in memory and
immutable objects (such as numbers) are compared by contents at the bit level. This function is sometimes
called "egal". It always returns a Bool value.
Sometimes, comparing with === is faster than comparing with == because the latter might involve a type conversion.
Any way to declare a new variable in F# without assigning a value to it?
See Aidan's comment.
If you insist, you can do this:
let mutable x = Unchecked.defaultof<int>
This will assign the absolute zero value (0 for numeric types, null for reference types, struct-zero for value types).
It would be interesting to know why the author needs this in F# (simple example of intended use would suffice).
But I guess one of the common cases when you may use uninitialised variable in C# is when you call a function with out parameter:
TResult Foo<TKey, TResult>(IDictionary<TKey, TResult> dictionary, TKey key)
{
TResult value;
if (dictionary.TryGetValue(key, out value))
{
return value;
}
else
{
throw new ApplicationException("Not found");
}
}
Luckily in F# you can handle this situation using much nicer syntax:
let foo (dict : IDictionary<_,_>) key =
match dict.TryGetValue(key) with
| (true, value) -> value
| (false, _) -> raise <| ApplicationException("Not Found")
You can also use explicit field syntax:
type T =
val mutable x : int
I agree with everyone who has said "don't do it". However, if you are convinced that you are in a case where it really is necessary, you can do this:
let mutable naughty : int option = None
...then later to assign a value.
naughty <- Some(1)
But bear in mind that everyone who has said 'change your approach instead' is probably right. I code in F# full time and I've never had to declare an unassigned 'variable'.
Another point: although you say it wasn't your choice to use F#, I predict you'll soon consider yourself lucky to be using it!
F# variables are by default immutable, so you can't assign a value later. Therefore declaring them without an initial value makes them quite useless, and as such there is no mechanism to do so.
Arguably, a mutable variable declaration could be declared without an initial value and still be useful (it could acquire an initial default like C# variables do), but F#'s syntax does not support this. I would guess this is for consistency and because mutable variable slots are not idiomatic F# so there's little incentive to make special cases to support them.