I tried to declare an enum inside the class and it gave me an error stating can't have enum inside a class. I wanted to know the reason why but I didn't find anything on the internet. Declaring enum inside a class is allowed by major languages why not dart?
Dart does not allow nested type declarations in general. You can only declare types at top-level. This includes classes, mixins, typedefs and enums.
I believe the original reason was that it was not necessary, and implementing it inadequately was worse than not doing allowing it at all.
There is nothing inherently preventing Dart from allowing static types declared inside other types. Obviously, if Dart allowed classes statically declared inside classes, it would allow in arbitrary nesting of classes, so it really is a matter of allowing zero, one or an infinite amount of nesting. Dart currently has "one'.
Still, it's something that can be easily remedied if deemed wort the effort and a higher priority than other language changes.
The other option is to have non static nested types. That's a much bigger can of worms, and probably not something that's going to happen any time soon, if ever.
Dart doesn't allow declaring of Enum inside the class as far as I know. I've made that error before and it took me a minute to figure out what was wrong with my code. Declare/setup your Enum before your class like so:
enum Gender {
male,
female,
}
/// Then declare your class next
class MyClass {
/// The rest of your code goes here, and you still have access to your enum
}
Related
One of the recommended ways of creating singletons in Java is to use an enum.
There are other ways of creating singletons in Dart, but with the new enhanced enums I got to wondering if this could be added to the list.
On a superficial level it seems possible:
enum Singleton {
instance();
const Singleton();
}
But would it really work to make a database helper or logger? Since the constructor needs to be constant, I don't think it would work, but am I missing a possible way of doing it?
As enums need a const constructor, they can contain no mutable fields.
Any functions declared inside the enum would need to be free of side-effects, and no more useful than top-level or static functions.
There's not much point to doing this. The Dart guidelines prefer top-level functions over classes containing only static members.
I tried to use method overloading in some dart code and quickly learned that overloading is not offered in dart.
My questions are: why is it not offered, and what is the recommended alternative? Is there a standard naming convention since methods that do the same thing but with different inputs must have different names?
Is it standard to use named parameters and then check that the caller has supplied enough information to complete the calculation?
Say I have a method that returns how much money someone makes in a year, called yearlyIncome.
In Java, I would create a method like this
double yearlyIncome(double hourlyRate, double hoursWorkedPerYear)
And maybe another method like this
double yearlyIncome(double monthlyRate, int monthsWorkedPerYear)
and so on. They're all used to calculate the same thing, but with different inputs. What's the best, standardized way to do this in dart?
Thanks so much in advance.
Function overloading is not supported in Dart at all.
Function overloading requires static types. Dart at its core is a dynamically typed language.
You can either use different names for the methods or optional named or unnamed parameters
// optional unnamed
void foo(int a, [String b]);
foo(5);
foo(5, 'bar');
// optional named
void foo(int a, {String b});
foo(5);
foo(5, b :'bar');
Optional parameters can also have default values. Optional named and unnamed parameters can not be used together (only one or the other for a single function)
In the case of a constructor you can use named constructors as an alternative
Dart did not support overloading originally because it was a much more dynamic language where the declared types did not have any semantic effect. That made it impossible to use static type based overload resolution.
Dart has since changed to be more statically type, and there is nothing fundamentally preventing Dart from adding overloading today, except that it would be a huge work and a huge change to the language. Or so I'd assume, because there isn't any obvious design that isn't either highly complicated or hugely breaking.
What you do instead in Dart is to use optional parameters. A method like:
String toString([int radix]);
effectively have two signatures: String Function() and String Function(int). It can act at both signatures.
There are definite limits to how far you can go with just optional parameters, because they still need to have exactly one type each, but that is the alternative that Dart currently provides. (Or use different names, but that's not overloading, you can do that in languages with overloading too).
Optional parameters is also one of the complications if we wanted to add overloading to the Dart language - would existing functions with optional parameters would count as multiple overloadings? If you declare a class like:
abstract class WithOverloading {
String toString();
String toString(int radix);
}
is that then the same signature as:
abstract class WithoutOverloading {
String toString([int radix]);
}
Probably not because you can tear off the latter and get one function with an optional parameter, and you might not be able to tear off both functions from the former and combine them into one function. Or maybe you can, that's why it's not a trivial design question how to include overloading into the existing Dart language.
In Swift, I have historically used extensions to extend closed types and provide handy, logic-less functionality, like animations, math extensions etc. However, since extensions are hard dependencies sprinkled all over your code-base, I always think three times before implementing something as an extension.
Lately, though, I have seen that Apple suggests using extensions to an even greater extent, e.g. implementing protocols as separate extensions.
That is, if you have a class A that implement protocol B, you end up with this design:
class A {
// Initializers, stored properties etc.
}
extension A: B {
// Protocol implementation
}
As you enter that rabbit-hole, I started seeing more extension-based code, like:
fileprivate extension A {
// Private, calculated properties
}
fileprivate extension A {
// Private functions
}
One part of me likes the building-blocks you get when you implement protocols in separate extensions. It makes the separate parts of the class really distinct. However, as soon as you inherit this class, you will have to change this design, since extension functions cannot be overridden.
I think the second approach is...interesting. Once great thing with it is that you do not have to annotate each private property and function as private, since you can specify that for the extension.
However, this design also splits up stored and non-stored properties, public and private functions, making the "logic" of the class harder to follow (write smaller classes, I know). That, together with the subclassing issues, makes me halt a bit on the porch of extension wonderland.
Would love to hear how the Swift community of the world looks at extensions. What do you think? Is there a silverbullet?
This is only my opinion, of course, so take what I'll write easy.
I'm currently using the extension-approach in my projects for few reasons:
The code is much more clean: my classes are never over 150 lines and the separation through extensions makes my code more readable and separated by responsibilities
This is usually what a class looks like:
final class A {
// Here the public and private stored properties
}
extension A {
// Here the public methods and public non-stored properties
}
fileprivate extension A {
// here my private methods
}
The extensions can be more than one, of course, it depends on what your class does. This is simply useful to organize your code and read it from the Xcode top bar
It reminds me that Swift is a protocol-oriented-programming language, not an OOP language. There is nothing you can't do with protocol and protocol extensions. And I prefer to use protocols for adding a security layer to my classes / struct. For example I usually write my models in this way:
protocol User {
var uid: String { get }
var name: String { get }
}
final class UserModel: User {
var uid: String
var name: String
init(uid: String, name: String) {
self.uid = uid
self.name = name
}
}
In this way you can still edit your uid and name values inside the UserModel class, but you can't outside since you'll only handle the User protocol type.
I use a similar approach, which can be described in one sentence:
Sort a type's responsibilities into extensions
These are examples for aspects I'm putting into individual extensions:
A type's main interface, as seen from a client.
Protocol conformances (i.e. a delegate protocol, often private).
Serialization (for example everything NSCoding related).
Parts of a types that live on a background thread, like network callbacks.
Sometimes, when the complexity of a single aspect rises, I even split a type's implementation over more than one file.
Here are some details that describe how I sort implementation related code:
The focus is on functional membership.
Keep public and private implementations close, but separated.
Don't split between var and func.
Keep all aspects of a functionality's implementation together: nested types, initializers, protocol conformances, etc.
Advantage
The main reason to separate aspects of a type is to make it easier to read and understand.
When reading foreign (or my own old) code, understanding the big picture is often the most difficult part of diving in. Giving a developer an idea of a context of some method helps a lot.
There's another benefit: Access control makes it easier not to call something inadvertently. A method that is only supposed to be called from a background thread can be declared private in the "background" extension. Now it simply can't be called from elsewhere.
Current Restrictions
Swift 3 imposes certain restrictions on this style. There are a couple of things that can only live in the main type's implementation:
stored properties
overriding func/var
overidable func/var
required (designated) initializers
These restrictions (at least the first three) come from the necessity to know the object's data layout (and witness table for pure Swift) in advance. Extensions can potentially be loaded late during runtime (via frameworks, plugins, dlopen, ...) and changing the type's layout after instances have been created would brake their ABI.
A modest proposal for the Swift team :)
All code from one module is guaranteed to be available at the same time. The restrictions that prevent fully separating functional aspects could be circumvented if the Swift compiler would allow to "compose" types within a single module. With composing types I mean that the compiler would collect all declarations that define a type's layout from all files within a module. Like with other aspects of the language it would find intra file dependencies automatically.
This would allow to really write "aspect oriented" extensions. Not having to declare stored properties or overrides in the main declaration would enable better access control and separation of concerns.
I hate it. It adds extra complexity and muddies the use of extensions, making it unclear on what to expect that people are using the extensions for.
If you're using an extension for protocol conformance, OK, I can see that, but why not just comment your code? How is this better? I don't see that.
I've always wondered on the topic of public, protected and private properties. My memory can easily recall times when I had to hack somebody's code, and having the hacked-upon class variables declared as private was always upsetting.
Also, there were (more) times I've written a class myself, and had never recognized any potential gain of privatizing the property. I should note here that using public vars is not in my habit: I adhere to the principles of OOP by utilizing getters and setters.
So, what's the whole point in these restrictions?
The use of private and public is called Encapsulation. It is the simple insight that a software package (class or module) needs an inside and an outside.
The outside (public) is your contract with the rest of the world. You should try to keep it simple, coherent, obvious, foolproof and, very important, stable.
If you are interested in good software design the rule simply is: make all data private, and make methods only public when they need to be.
The principle for hiding the data is that the sum of all fields in a class define the objects state. For a well written class, each object should be responsible for keeping a valid state. If part of the state is public, the class can never give such guarantees.
A small example, suppose we have:
class MyDate
{
public int y, m, d;
public void AdvanceDays(int n) { ... } // complicated month/year overflow
// other utility methods
};
You cannot prevent a user of the class to ignore AdvanceDays() and simply do:
date.d = date.d + 1; // next day
But if you make y, m, d private and test all your MyDate methods, you can guarantee that there will only be valid dates in the system.
The whole point is to use private and protected to prevent exposing internal details of your class, so that other classes only have access to the public "interfaces" provided by your class. This can be worthwhile if done properly.
I agree that private can be a real pain, especially if you are extending classes from a library. Awhile back I had to extend various classes from the Piccolo.NET framework and it was refreshing that they had declared everything I needed as protected instead of private, so I was able to extend everything I needed without having to copy their code and/or modify the library. An important take-away lesson from that is if you are writing code for a library or other "re-usable" component, that you really should think twice before declaring anything private.
The keyword private shouldn't be used to privatize a property that you want to expose, but to protect the internal code of your class. I found them very helpful because they help you to define the portions of your code that must be hidden from those that can be accessible to everyone.
One example that comes to my mind is when you need to do some sort of adjustment or checking before setting/getting the value of a private member. Therefore you'd create a public setter/getter with some logic (check if something is null or any other calculations) instead of accessing the private variable directly and always having to handle that logic in your code. It helps with code contracts and what is expected.
Another example is helper functions. You might break down some of your bigger logic into smaller functions, but that doesn't mean you want to everyone to see and use these helper functions, you only want them to access your main API functions.
In other words, you want to hide some of the internals in your code from the interface.
See some videos on APIs, such as this Google talk.
Having recently had the extreme luxury of being able to design and implement an object system from scratch, I took the policy of forcing all variables to be (equivalent to) protected. My goal was to encourage users to always treat the variables as part of the implementation and not the specification. OTOH, I also left in hooks to allow code to break this restriction as there remain reasons to not follow it (e.g., the object serialization engine cannot follow the rules).
Note that my classes did not need to enforce security; the language had other mechanisms for that.
In my opinion the most important reason for use private members is hiding implementation, so that it can changed in the future without changing descendants.
Some languages - Smalltalk, for instance - don't have visibility modifiers at all.
In Smalltalk's case, all instance variables are always private and all methods are always public. A developer indicates that a method's "private" - something that might change, or a helper method that doesn't make much sense on its own - by putting the method in the "private" protocol.
Users of a class can then see that they should think twice about sending a message marked private to that class, but still have the freedom to make use of the method.
(Note: "properties" in Smalltalk are simply getter and setter methods.)
I personally rarely make use of protected members. I usually favor composition, the decorator pattern or the strategy pattern. There are very few cases in which I trust a subclass(ing programmer) to handle protected variables correctly. Sometimes I have protected methods to explicitly offer an interface specifically for subclasses, but these cases are actually rare.
Most of the time I have an absract base class with only public pure virtuals (talking C++ now), and implementing classes implement these. Sometimes they add some special initialization methods or other specific features, but the rest is private.
First of all 'properties' could refer to different things in different languages. For example, in Java you would be meaning instance variables, whilst C# has a distinction between the two.
I'm going to assume you mean instance variables since you mention getters/setters.
The reason as others have mentioned is Encapsulation. And what does Encapsulation buy us?
Flexibility
When things have to change (and they usually do), we are much less likely to break the build by properly encapsulating properties.
For example we may decide to make a change like:
int getFoo()
{
return foo;
}
int getFoo()
{
return bar + baz;
}
If we had not encapsulated 'foo' to begin with, then we'd have much more code to change. (than this one line)
Another reason to encapsulate a property, is to provide a way of bullet-proofing our code:
void setFoo(int val)
{
if(foo < 0)
throw MyException(); // or silently ignore
foo = val;
}
This is also handy as we can set a breakpoint in the mutator, so that we can break whenever something tries to modify our data.
If our property was public, then we could not do any of this!
There's this dichotomy in the way we can create classes in f# which really bothers me. I can create classes using either an implicit format or an explicit one. But some of the features that I want are only available for use with the implicit format and some are only available for use with the explicit format.
For example:
I can't use let inline* (or let alone) inside an explicitly defined class.
The only way (that I know) to define immutable public fields (not properties*) inside an implicitly defined class is the val bla : bla syntax.
But there's a redundancy here. Since I'll end up with two copy of the same immutable data, one private, one public (because in the implicit mode the constructor parameters persist throughout the class existence)
(Not so relevant) The need to use attributes for method overloading and for field's defaults is rather off putting.
Is there anyway I can work around this?
*For performance reasons
EDIT: Turns out I'm wrong about both points (Thanks Ganesh Sittampalam & MichaelGG).
While I can't use let inline in both implicit & explicit class definition, I can use member inline just fine, which I assume does the same thing.
Apparently with the latest F# there's no longer any redundancy since any parameters not used in the class body are local to the constructor.
Will be gone in the next F# release.
This might not help, but you can make members inline. "member inline private" works fine.
For let inline, you can work around by moving it outside the class and explicitly passing any values you need from inside the scope of the class when calling it. Since it'll be inlined, there'll be no performance penalty for doing this.