I want to use some data type created by me(they are created in another project) in a new xtext project.
For example if I have some classes like the following:
//java project
class A {
int a;
String b;
// getters & setters
void f(){...}
}
In the xtext project I would like to use them as a type for some variables, but I would also like to use the primitive types as well (string, int, boolean).
So in the test file after launching the java eclipse app, I could be able to use them as the following
variable t = new A();
t.f()
t.getB()...
Related
Should I get the following error:
class.dart:11:11: Error: The getter '_privateID' isn't defined for the class 'Y'.
- 'Y' is from 'class.dart'.
Try correcting the name to the name of an existing getter, or defining a getter or field named '_privateID'.
From the following code?
mixin.dart:
class Mixin {
static int _nextID = 0;
int publicID = _nextID++; // I only need one of these lines
int _privateID = _nextID++; // but this variable is inaccessible
}
class.dart:
import 'mixin.dart';
class X with Mixin {
void run() {
print(publicID); // no error here
}
}
class Y with Mixin {
void run() {
print(_privateID); // Error: _privateID not defined
}
}
void main() {
Y().run();
}
Or is this a bug? If it's not a bug, I'd like to understand why this behavior is reasonable.
When I instead define the mixin in the same file as the above classes, I get no error.
(Dart SDK 2.4.1.)
It is not a bug.
The private field is inherited, but you cannot access it because its name is private to a different library.
Dart's notion of "privacy" is library private names.
The name _privateID in the mixin.dart library introduces a library private name. This name is special in that it can only be written inside the same library.
If someone writes _privateID in a different library, it is a different name, one unique to that library instead.
It is as if private names includes the library URI of the library it is written in, so what you really declare is a name _privateID#mixin.dart.
When you try to read that field in class.dart, you write ._privateID, but because it is in a different library, what you really write is ._privateID#class.dart, a completely different name, and the classs does not have any declarations with that name.
So, if one class needs to access a private member of another class (or mixin, or anything), then the two needs to be declared in the same library, because otherwise they cannot even write the name of that variable.
That is why the code works if you write the mixin in the same library.
If you want to move the mixin to a separate file, but not necessarily a separate library, you can use a part file.
I'm making a project where there are separate source files/modules that add functions to a single Dictionary contained in a higher level file. However, I find that nothing in these source files evaluates on its own, even functions that take no arguments/code that isn't even inside a function.
As a result nothing is being added to the Dictionary. Is there a way to forcibly evaluate complete function calls in a module automatically? I'll give an example of what I'm trying to do:
Registry.fs:
let private functions = Dictionary<string, MessageHandler>()
let add type handler =
functions.Add(type, handler)
Handler1.fs:
Registry.add "type1" (fun m -> ....
)
Handler2.fs:
Registry.add "type2" (fun m -> ....
)
I believe you need to see this relevant topic. Loose method calls would get compiled as method calls inside of a static constructor for the enclosing type/module, when the F# code gets compiled to IL. This would roughly be equivalent to the following C# code, just to see the picture:
static class Handler1 {
static Handler1() {
// this is the static constructor
Registry.add "type1" ....
}
}
In .NET static constructors are not eagerly initialized1. This means, if you want to cause the .NET runtime to call the Handler1 static constructor, you need to access a static member of the type Handler1.
An example of using the type in a static context would be to
Expose a sufficiently accessible static member/method:
module Handler1 =
[<Literal>]
let Name = "Handler1"
Access that static member from your code, such as the main method:
[<EntryPoint>]
let main args =
printf Handler1.Name
The above line will force the .NET runtime to load the Handler1 type's static context, which will result in invoking the static constructor if the type is encoutered by your code for the first time. If your code never encounters a given type's static context (any static member or method), then it will never be initialized -- the static constructors will never get called.
This behaviour is by design of the .NET framework (and that is regardless of the chosen language -- C#, F#, VB, others -- they all compile to similar IL). The point is to not allocate unnecessary resources by types that are never actually used.
1 Until .NET 4, static type context was initialized when the given type was first encountered by the executing code, regardless if the user code is interacting with instace or static members of that type. After .NET 4, this slightly changed -- the static context is initialized only when the user code interacts with static members of the type.
I have the following C# method:
private static bool IsLink(string shortcutFilename)
{
var pathOnly = Path.GetDirectoryName(shortcutFilename);
var filenameOnly = Path.GetFileName(shortcutFilename);
var shell = new Shell32.Shell();
var folder = shell.NameSpace(pathOnly);
var folderItem = folder.ParseName(filenameOnly);
return folderItem != null && folderItem.IsLink;
}
I have tried converting this to F# as:
let private isLink filename =
let pathOnly = Path.GetDirectoryName(filename)
let filenameOnly = Path.GetFileName(filename)
let shell = new Shell32.Shell()
let folder = shell.NameSpace(pathOnly)
let folderItem = folder.ParseName(filenameOnly)
folderItem <> null && folderItem.IsLink
It however reports an error for the let shell = new Shell32.Shell() line, saying that new cannot be used on interface types.
Have I just made a silly syntactic mistake, or is there extra work needed to access COM from F#?
I don't know enough about the F# compiler but your comments makes it obvious enough. The C# and VB.NET compilers have a fair amount of explicit support for COM built-in. Note that your statement uses the new operator on an interface type, Shell32.Shell in the interop library looks like this:
[ComImport]
[Guid("286E6F1B-7113-4355-9562-96B7E9D64C54")]
[CoClass(typeof(ShellClass))]
public interface Shell : IShellDispatch6 {}
IShellDispatch6 is the real interface type, you can also see the IShellDispatch through IShellDispatch5 interfaces. That's versioning across the past 20 years at work, COM interface definitions are immutable since changing them almost always causes an undiagnosable hard crash at runtime.
The [CoClass] attribute is the important one for this story, that's what the C# compiler goes looking for you use new on a [ComImport] interface type. Tells it to create the object by creating an instance of Shell32.ShellClass instance and obtain the Shell interface. What the F# compiler doesn't do.
ShellClass is a fake class, it is auto-generated by the type library importer. COM never exposes concrete classes, it uses a hyper-pure interface-based programming paradigm. Objects are always created by an object factory, CoCreateInstance() is the workhorse for that. Itself a convenience function, the real work is done by the universal IClassFactory interface, hyper-pure style. Every COM coclass implements its CreateInstance() method.
The type library importer makes ShellClass look like this:
[ComImport]
[TypeLibType(TypeLibTypeFlags.FCanCreate)]
[ClassInterface(ClassInterfaceType.None)]
[Guid("13709620-C279-11CE-A49E-444553540000")]
public class ShellClass : IShellDispatch6, Shell {
// Methods
[MethodImpl(MethodImplOptions.InternalCall, MethodCodeType=MethodCodeType.Runtime), DispId(0x60040000)]
public virtual extern void AddToRecent([In, MarshalAs(UnmanagedType.Struct)] object varFile, [In, Optional, MarshalAs(UnmanagedType.BStr)] string bstrCategory);
// Etc, many more methods...
}
Lots of fire and movement, none of it should ever be used. The only thing that really matters is the [Guid] attribute, that provides the CLSID that CoCreateInstance() needs. It also needs the IID, the [Guid] of the interface, provided by the interface declaration.
So the workaround in F# is to create the Shell32.ShellClass object, just like the C# compiler does implicitly. While technically you can keep the reference in a ShellClass variable, you should strongly favor the interface type instead. The COM way, the pure way, it avoids this kind of problem. Ultimately it is the CLR that gets the job done, it recognizes the [ClassInterface] attribute on the ShellClass class declaration in its new operator implementation. The more explicit way in .NET is to use Type.GetTypeFromCLSID() and Activator.CreateInstance(), handy when you only have the Guid of the coclass.
I have the following grammar:
Model: declarations += Declaration* statements += Statement*;
Declaration: 'Declare' name=ID;
Statement: 'Execute' what=[Declaration];
With that I can write simple scripts like:
Declare step_forward
Declare turn_right
Declare turn_left
Execute step_forward
Execute turn_left
Execute step_forward
Now I want that the java program provides all declarations, so that the script only contains the Execute statements. I read about IGlobalScopeProvider which seems to be the right tool for the job, but I have no idea how to add my data to it, and how to make Xtext use it.
So, how can I provide declarations from external to my grammar?
Update
My goal was somewhat unclear, so I try to make it more concrete. I want to keep the declarations as simple java objects, for instance:
List<Move> declarations = Arrays.asList(
new Move("step_forward"),
new Move("turn_right"),
new Move("turn_left"));
and the script should be:
Execute step_forward
Execute turn_left
Execute step_forward
I'm not really sure what you are asking for. After thinking about it, I cand derive th following possible questions:
1.) You want to split your script into two files. File a will only contain your declarations and File b then will only contain Statements. But any 'what' attribute will hold a reference to the declarations of File a.
This works out of the box with your grammar.
2.) You have any Java source code which provides a class which defines, for example a 'Declare Interface', and you want the 'what' attribute to reference to this interface or to classes which implement this interface.
Updated answer You should use Xbase within your language. There you can define that your 'what' attribute references to any Java type using the Xtypes rule 'JvmTypeReference'. The modifications you have to within your grammar are not that difficult, I think it could look this:
// Grammar now inherits from the Xbase grammar
// instead of the common terminals grammar
grammar org.xtext.example.mydsl.MyDsl with org.eclipse.xtext.xbase.Xbase
generate myDsl "http://www.xtext.org/example/mydsl/MyDsl"
Model:
declarator=Declarator?
statements+=Statement*;
Declarator:
'Declare' name=ID;
Statement:
'Execute' what=JvmTypeReference;
The, you can refer to any Java type (Java API, any linked API, user-defined types) by adressing them with their qualified name. It would look like this:
Referring to JVM types look like this in an Xtext language. (Screenshot)
You can also validate whether the referenced JVM type is valid, e.g. implements a desired interface which I would define with one single, optional declarator in the model.
Referenced JVM type is checked whether it is a valid type. (Screenshot)
With Xbase it is very easy to infer a Java interface for this model element. Use the generated stub '...mydsl.MyDslJvmModelInferrer':
class MyDslJvmModelInferrer extends AbstractModelInferrer {
#Inject extension JvmTypesBuilder
#Inject extension TypeReferences
def dispatch void infer(Model element, IJvmDeclaredTypeAcceptor acceptor, boolean isPreIndexingPhase) {
acceptor.accept(
element.declaration.toInterface('declarator.' + element.declaration.name) [
members += it.toMethod("execute", TypesFactory.eINSTANCE.createJvmVoid.createTypeRef)[]
])
}
}
It derives a single interface, named individually with only one method 'execute()'.
Then, implement static checks like this, you should use the generated stub '...mydsl.validation.MyDslValidator' In my example it is very quick and dirty, but you should get the idea of it:
class MyDslValidator extends AbstractMyDslValidator {
#Check
def checkReferredType(Statement s) {
val declarator = (s.eContainer as Model).declaration.name
for (st : (s.what.type as JvmDeclaredType).superTypes) {
if (st.qualifiedName.equals('declarator.' + declarator)) {
return
}
}
(s.what.simpleName + " doesn't implement the declarator interface " + declarator).
warning(MyDslPackage.eINSTANCE.statement_What)
}
}
(I used the preferred Xtend programming language to implement the static checking!) The static check determines if the given JvmTypeReference (which is a Java class from your project) implements the declared interface. Otherwise it will introduce a warning to your dsl document.
Hopefully this will answer your question.
Next update: Your idea will not work that well! You could simply write a template with Xtend for that without using Xbase, but I cannot imagine how to use it in a good way. The problem is, I assume, you don't to generate the hole class 'Move' and the hole execution process. I have played around a little bit trying to generate usable code and seems to be hacky! Neverthess, here is my solution:
Xtext generated the stub '...mydsl.generator.MyDslGenerator' for you with the method 'void doGenerate'. You have to fill this method. My idea is the following: First, you generate an abstract and generic Executor class with two generic parameters T and U. My executor class then has an abstract method 'executeMoves()' with the return value T. If this should be void use the non-primitive 'Void' class. It holds your List, but of the generic type u which is defined as a subclass of a Move class.
The Move class will be generated, too, but only with a field to store the String. It then has to be derived. My 'MyDslGenerator' looks like that:
class MyDslGenerator implements IGenerator {
static var cnt = 0
override void doGenerate(Resource resource, IFileSystemAccess fsa) {
cnt = 0
resource.allContents.filter(typeof(Model)).forEach [ m |
fsa.generateFile('mydsl/execution/Move.java', generateMove)
fsa.generateFile('mydsl/execution/Executor' + cnt++ + '.java', m.generateExecutor)
]
}
def generateMove() '''
package mydsl.execution;
public class Move {
protected String s;
public Move(String s) {
this.s = s;
}
}
'''
def generateExecutor(Model m) '''
package mydsl.execution;
import java.util.List;
import java.util.Arrays;
/**
* The class Executor is abstract because the execution has to implemented somewhere else.
* The class Executor is generic because one does not know if the execution has a return
* value. If it has no return value, use the not primitive type 'Void':
* public class MyExecutor extends Executor_i<Void> {...}
*/
public abstract class Executor«cnt - 1»<T, U extends Move> {
#SuppressWarnings("unchecked")
private List<U> declarations = Arrays.<U>asList(
«FOR Statement s : m.statements»
(U) new Move("«s.what.name»")«IF !m.statements.get(m.statements.size - 1).equals(s)»,«ENDIF»
«ENDFOR»
);
/**
* This method return list of moves.
*/
public List<U> getMoves() {
return declarations;
}
/**
* The executor class has to be extended and the extending class has to implement this
* method.
*/
public abstract T executeMoves();
}'''
}
can I invoke Java functions from Rascal. I want to write RASCAL analyser, but want access CFG nodes by calling a java function. Is this possible in Rascal. To put it simply, can I wrap the existing java application and invoke it from RASCAL
Sure. It works as follows.
Treat your Rascal project in Eclipse as a Java project as well.
Add source code and libraries and make the stuff compile.
Learn about the pdb.values API (in particular IValueFactory)
In Rascal write something like this:
#javaClass{com.mypackage.MyClass}
java int myFunction(str arg);
Then in Java:
package com.mypackage;
public class MyClass {
private final IValueFactor vf;
public MyClass(IValueFactory vf) {
this.vf = vf;
}
IValue myFunction(IString x) {
return vf.integer(-1);
}
}