I use Piece class as Map's key.
But when this code ran, error occured Uncaught exception:
C.JSNull_methods.$indexSet is not a function.
class Piece {
int type;
Piece(this.type);
}
void main() {
Map<Piece, int> hand;
hand[Piece(5)] = 5;
if (hand.containsKey(Piece(5))) {
print("contains");
}
print('${hand[Piece(5)]}');
}
In dart-lang, how can I use class as Map's key?
First, the error you got has nothing to do with using types as keys but are before you never initialize the hand variable. So you need to do this:
Map<Piece, int> hand = {};
Now, you will not get the exception but your code will properly not work as expected since hand.containsKey(Piece(5)) will return false and print('${hand[Piece(5)]}') will return null.
This is because the map Map<Piece, int> are not using the Type as key but instead objects of the type Piece. So if we take your code here:
Map<Piece, int> hand = {};
hand[Piece(5)] = 5;
if (hand.containsKey(Piece(5))) {
print("contains");
}
print('${hand[Piece(5)]}');
You are here creating a new object instance of the Piece type each type you are writing "Piece(5)". Since each of this objects will be a separate instance of a Piece then you will not receive the value 5 you have saved because the value 5 has been saved for a different object than you are requesting.
There are multiple solutions for that and I don't know which one are the best for you. But the simple solution in this case is to either only creating one instance of Piece and reuse that:
void main() {
Map<Piece, int> hand = {};
final piece = Piece(5);
hand[piece] = 5;
if (hand.containsKey(piece)) {
print("contains");
}
print('${hand[piece]}');
}
Or make a const constructor for your Piece class so instances with the same arguments are made into the same object. This solution requires that the int type are final since you cannot edit a const constructed object (since it is constant):
class Piece {
final int type;
const Piece(this.type);
}
void main() {
Map<Piece, int> hand = {};
hand[const Piece(5)] = 5;
if (hand.containsKey(const Piece(5))) {
print("contains");
}
print('${hand[const Piece(5)]}');
}
Note that you need to prefix you object instantiation with const like "const Piece(5)" each time you want a instance where you are sure it will returns the same object for the same arguments.
Related
I am trying to understand the rational behind using writeByte(3) in the write method in Hive TypeAdapter.
Please consider the class:
#HiveType()
class Person{
#HiveField(0)
String name;
#HiveField(1)
int age;
}
In the TypeAdapter below It is easy to understand the read method, since it is just reads sequentially each field.
However, I'm trying to figure out why the same mechanism does not apply to the write, instead of using ..writeByte(...) just before each field. And, what is the meaning of the first ..writeByte(2)?
class PersonAdapter extends TypeAdapter<Person> {
#override
Person read(BinaryReader reader) {
var numOfFields = reader.readByte();
var fields = <int, dynamic>{
for (var i = 0; i < numOfFields; i++) reader.readByte(): reader.read(),
};
return Trips()
..name = fields[0] as String
..age = fields[1] as int;
}
#override
void write(BinaryWriter writer, Person obj) {
writer
..writeByte(2) // Why this here? (sometimes I see writeByte(3) !! )
..writeByte(0)
..write(obj.name)
..writeByte(1)
..write(obj.age);
}
}
Thanks for any clarification.
I know nothing about Hive but if you take a look at the builder which create this write method you can see the following:
String buildWrite() {
var code = StringBuffer();
code.writeln('writer');
code.writeln('..writeByte(${getters.length})');
for (var field in getters) {
var value = _convertIterable(field.type, 'obj.${field.name}');
code.writeln('''
..writeByte(${field.index})
..write($value)''');
}
code.writeln(';');
return code.toString();
}
https://github.com/hivedb/hive/blob/59ad5403593283233d922f62f76832c64fa33a3b/hive_generator/lib/src/class_builder.dart#L122
So based on this we can conclude the first writeByte is the length of getters. The next one is the index of the first getter (0) following by the value and next getter (1) with value and so on.
This makes sense since the protocol properly needs to know how many fields it can expect to get.
I'm working on a library, and I have a implementation pattern users are required to follow:
class MyView extends LibView {
static Foo f = Foo();
#override
void render(){
use(f); // f should be static, otherwise things not work correctly
}
}
I would like to tell the compiler that, if someone ever does this, it's incorrect:
class MyView {
Foo f = Foo(); // Error: Foo can only be used in Static field.
...
}
Anyone know if this is possible? I find it really hard to find good docs on these sorta of language details when it comes to dart.
[EDIT] Since the "why" question always comes up, imagine something like:
class ViewState{
Map<int, Object> props = {};
}
ViewState _state = ViewState();
class View {
View(this.state);
ViewState state;
static int _key1 = getRandomInt();
void render(){
print(state(_key1))
}
}
// These should both print the same value off of state since the 'random' int is cached
View(_state);
View(_state);
If the key's were not static, everything would compile fine, but they would not print the same results.
What you properly need are a singleton which can be created in different ways in Dart. One way is to use a factory constructor like this:
class Foo {
static final Foo _instance = Foo._();
factory Foo() => _instance;
// Private constructor only used internally
Foo._();
}
void main() {
final a = Foo();
final b = Foo();
print(identical(a, b)); // true
}
By doing it like this, there will only be one instance of Foo which are then shared each time an instance are asked for. The instance are also first created the first time it is asked for since static variables in Dart are lazy and only initialized when needed.
I just want to do the functional equivalent of
int someUniqueKey = 0, or MyViewEnums.someUniqueKey but do it with a typed object rather than a int/enym, like: Object<Foo> someUniqueKey = Object<Foo>(). In order for this to work with Objects, it needs to be static. It's similar to how int someUniqueKey = random.nextInt(9999) would have to be static in order to be used as a key that all instances could share. That way keys are auto-managed and unique, and people don't need to assign int's, strings, or whatever. It also has the advantage of letting me use the type later for compile time checks.
bool prop = getPropFromRef(_prop1Ref); //Will throw error prop1Ref is not Ref<bool>
I think I've figured out something that does the trick using darts package-level methods.
class Ref<T> {}
// Re-use existing ref if it already exists
Ref<T> getRef<T>(Ref<T> o) => o ?? Ref<T>();
class RefView {}
// In some other package/file:
class MyView extends RefView {
static Ref<bool> prop1Ref = getRef(prop1Ref);
static Ref<int> prop2Ref = getRef(prop2Ref);
}
This will make sure that prop1 and prop2 have the same values across all instances of MyView and it will throw an error if these are not static (since you can not pass an instance field before Constructor)
This still has the downside of a potential hard to spot error:
class MyView extends RefView {
static Ref<bool> prop1 = getRef(prop1);
static Ref<bool> prop2 = getRef(prop1); // passing prop1 to prop2's getRef, and they have the same<T>, compiler will miss it
}
But I think it might be preferable than having this potential error:
class MyView extends RefView {
//Both of these will fail silently, keys will change for each instance of MyView
Ref<bool> prop1 = getRef(prop1);
Ref<bool> prop2 = getRef(prop2);
}
I would like to pass a primitive (int, bool, ...) by reference. I found a discussion about it (paragraph "Passing value types by reference") here: value types in Dart, but I still wonder if there is a way to do it in Dart (except using an object wrapper) ? Any development ?
The Dart language does not support this and I doubt it ever will, but the future will tell.
Primitives will be passed by value, and as already mentioned here, the only way to 'pass primitives by reference' is by wrapping them like:
class PrimitiveWrapper {
var value;
PrimitiveWrapper(this.value);
}
void alter(PrimitiveWrapper data) {
data.value++;
}
main() {
var data = new PrimitiveWrapper(5);
print(data.value); // 5
alter(data);
print(data.value); // 6
}
If you don't want to do that, then you need to find another way around your problem.
One case where I see people needing to pass by reference is that they have some sort of value they want to pass to functions in a class:
class Foo {
void doFoo() {
var i = 0;
...
doBar(i); // We want to alter i in doBar().
...
i++;
}
void doBar(i) {
i++;
}
}
In this case you could just make i a class member instead.
No, wrappers are the only way.
They are passed by reference. It just doesn't matter because the "primitive" types don't have methods to change their internal value.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but maybe you are misunderstanding what "passing by reference" means? I'm assuming you want to do something like param1 = 10 and want this value to still be 10 when you return from your method. But references aren't pointers. When you assign the parameter a new value (with = operator), this change won't be reflected in the calling method. This is still true with non-primitive types (classes).
Example:
class Test {
int val;
Test(this.val);
}
void main() {
Test t = new Test(1);
fn1(t);
print(t.val); // 2
fn2(t);
print(t.val); // still 2, because "t" has been assigned a new instance in fn2()
}
void fn1(Test t) {
print(t.val); // 1
t.val = 2;
}
void fn2(Test t) {
t = new Test(10);
print(t.val); // 10
}
EDIT
I tried to make my answer more clear, based on the comments, but somehow I can't seem to phrase it right without causing more confusion. Basically, when someone coming from Java says "parameters are passed by reference", they mean what a C/C++ developer would mean by saying "parameters are passed as pointers".
As dart is compiled into JavaScript, I tried something that works for JS, and guess what!? It worked for dart!
Basically, what you can do is put your value inside an object, and then any changes made on that field value inside that function will change the value outside that function as well.
Code (You can run this on dartpad.dev)
main() {
var a = {"b": false};
print("Before passing: " + a["b"].toString());
trial(a);
print("After passing: " + a["b"].toString());
}
trial(param) {
param["b"] = true;
}
Output
Before passing: false
After passing: true
One of the way to pass the variables by reference by using the values in List. As arrays or lists are Pass by reference by default.
void main() {
List<String> name=['ali' ,'fana'];
updatename(name);
print(name);
}
updatename(List<String> name){
name[0]='gufran';
}
Try this one, This one of the simplest way to pass by reference.
You can use ValueNotifier
And, you can pass it as ValueListenable to classes or methods that needs to know up-to-date value, but should not edit it:
class Owner {
final theValue = ValueNotifier(true);
final user = User(theValue);
...
}
class User {
final ValueListeneble<bool> theValue;
User(this.theValue);
...
}
It provides more functionality than actually needed, but solves the problem.
If ValueNotifier + ValueListenable do not work for you (you want to make sure the client does not listen to every change of the value, or your package is pure Dart package and thus cannot reference Flutter libraries), use a function:
class Owner {
int _value = 0;
int getValue() => _value;
void increase() => _value++;
}
void main() {
final owner = Owner();
int Function() obtainer = owner.getValue;
print(obtainer());
owner.increase();
print(obtainer());
}
Output will be:
0
1
This approach has memory usage related downside: the obtainer will hold the reference to the owner, and this, even if owner is already not referenced, but obtainer is still reachable, owner will be also reachable
and thus will not be garbage collected.
If you do not want the downside, pass the smaller container than the entire owner:
import 'package:flutter/foundation.dart';
class ListenableAsObtainer<T> implements ValueObtainer<T> {
ListenableAsObtainer(this._listenable);
final ValueListenable<T> _listenable;
#override
T get value => _listenable.value;
}
class FunctionAsObtainer<T> implements ValueObtainer<T> {
FunctionAsObtainer(this._function);
final T Function() _function;
#override
T get value => _function();
}
class ValueAsObtainer<T> implements ValueObtainer<T> {
ValueAsObtainer(this.value);
#override
T value;
}
/// Use this interface when the client needs
/// access to the current value, but does not need the value to be listenable,
/// i.e. [ValueListenable] would be too strong requirement.
abstract class ValueObtainer<T> {
T get value;
}
The usage of FunctionAsObtainer will still result in holding the owner from garbage collection, but two other options will not.
Just to make it clear:
void main() {
var list1 = [0,1,2];
var modifiedList1 = addMutable(list1, 3);
var list2 = [0,1,2];
var modifiedList2 = addImmutable(list2, 3);
print(list1);
print(modifiedList1);
print(list2);
print(modifiedList2);
}
List<int> addMutable(List<int> list, int element){
return list..add(element);
}
List<int> addImmutable(List<int> list, int element){
return [...list, element];
}
Output:
[0, 1, 2, 3]
[0, 1, 2, 3]
[0, 1, 2]
[0, 1, 2, 3]
All variables are passed by value. If a variable contains a primitive (int, bool, etc.), that's it. You got its value. You can do with it whatever you want, it won't affect the source value. If a variable contains an object, what it really contains is a reference to that object.
The reference itself is also passed by value, but the object it references is not passed at all. It just stayed where it was. This means that you can actually make changes to this very object.
Therefore, if you pass a List and if you .add() something to it, you have internally changed it, like it is passed by reference. But if you use the spread operator [...list], you are creating a fresh new copy of it. In most cases that is what you really want to do.
Sounds complicated. Isn't really. Dart is cool.
I want to create a private variable but I cannot.
Here is my code:
void main() {
var b = new B();
b.testB();
}
class A {
int _private = 0;
testA() {
print('int value: $_private');
_private = 5;
}
}
class B extends A {
String _private;
testB() {
_private = 'Hello';
print('String value: $_private');
testA();
print('String value: $_private');
}
}
When I run this code, I get the following result:
String value: Hello
int value: Hello
Breaking on exception: type 'int' is not a subtype of type 'String' of 'value'.
Also I not get any error or warnings when editing this source code.
How can I create a private variable in Dart?
From Dart documentation:
Unlike Java, Dart doesn’t have the keywords public, protected, and private. If an identifier starts with an underscore _, it’s private to its library.
Libraries not only provide APIs, but are a unit of privacy: identifiers that start with an underscore _ are visible only inside the library.
A few words about libraries:
Every Dart app is a library, even if it doesn’t use a library directive. The import and library directives can help you create a modular and shareable code base.
You may have heard of the part directive, which allows you to split a library into multiple Dart files.
Dart documentation "libraries-and-visibility"
Privacy in Dart exists at the library, rather than the class level.
If you were to put class A into a separate library file (eg, other.dart), such as:
library other;
class A {
int _private = 0;
testA() {
print('int value: $_private'); // 0
_private = 5;
print('int value: $_private'); // 5
}
}
and then import it into your main app, such as:
import 'other.dart';
void main() {
var b = new B();
b.testB();
}
class B extends A {
String _private;
testB() {
_private = 'Hello';
print('String value: $_private'); // Hello
testA();
print('String value: $_private'); // Hello
}
}
You get the expected output:
String value: Hello
int value: 0
int value: 5
String value: Hello
In dart '_' is used before the variable name to declare it as private. Unlike other programming languages, here private doesn't mean it is available only to the class it is in, private means it is accessible in the library it is in and not accessible to other libraries. A library can consists of multiple dart files as well using part and part of. For more information on Dart libraries, check this.
The top answer as of now is definitely correct.
I'll try to go into more detail in this answer.
I'll answer the question, but lead with this: That's just not how Dart is intended to be written, partly because library-private members make it easier to define operators like ==. (Private variables of a second object couldn't be seen for the comparison.)
Now that we've got that out of the way, I'll start out by showing you how it's meant to be done (library-private instead of class-private), and then show you how to make a variable class-private if you still really want that. Here we go.
If one class has no business seeing variables on another class, you might ask yourself whether they really belong in the same library:
//This should be in a separate library from main() for the reason stated in the main method below.
class MyClass {
//Library private variable
int _val = 0;
int get val => _val;
set val(int v) => _val = (v < 0) ? _val : v;
MyClass.fromVal(int val) : _val = val;
}
void main() {
MyClass mc = MyClass.fromVal(1);
mc.val = -1;
print(mc.val); //1
//main() MUST BE IN A SEPARATE LIBRARY TO
//PREVENT MODIFYING THE BACKING FIELDS LIKE:
mc._val = 6;
print(mc.val); //6
}
That should be good. However if you really want private class data:
Though you technically aren't allowed to create private variables, you could emulate it using the following closure technique. (HOWEVER, you should CAREFULLY consider whether you really need it and whether there is a better, more Dart-like way to do what you're trying to accomplish!)
//A "workaround" that you should THINK TWICE before using because:
//1. The syntax is verbose.
//2. Both closure variables and any methods needing to access
// the closure variables must be defined inside a base constructor.
//3. Those methods require typedefs to ensure correct signatures.
typedef int IntGetter();
typedef void IntSetter(int value);
class MyClass {
IntGetter getVal;
IntSetter setVal;
MyClass.base() {
//Closure variable
int _val = 0;
//Methods defined within constructor closure
getVal = ()=>_val;
setVal = (int v) => _val = (v < 0) ? _val : v;
}
factory MyClass.fromVal(int val) {
MyClass result = MyClass.base();
result.setVal(val);
return result;
}
}
void main() {
MyClass mc = MyClass.fromVal(1);
mc.setVal(-1); //Fails
print(mc.getVal());
//On the upside, you can't access _val
//mc._val = 6; //Doesn't compile.
}
So yeah. Just be careful and try to follow the language's best-practices and you should be fine.
EDIT
Apparently there's a new typedef syntax that's preferred for Dart 2. If you're using Dart 2 you should use that. Or, even better, use inline function types.
If you use the second, it will be less verbose, but the other problems remain.
Have been seeing the term "Expando" used recently with Dart. Sounds interesting. The API did not provide much of a clue to me.
An example or two could be most helpful!
(Not sure if this is related, but I am most anxious for a way to add methods (getters) and/or variables to a class. Hoping this might be a key to solving this problem. (hint: I am using the Nosuchmethod method now and want to be able to return the value of the unfound method.))
Thanks in advance,
_swarmii
Just to clarify the difference between expando and maps: as reported in the groups, expando has weak references.
This means that a key can be garbage collected even if it's still present in the expando (as long as there are no other references to it).
For all other intents and purposes it's a map.
Expandos allow you to associate objects to other objects. One very useful example of this is an HTML DOM element, which cannot itself be sub-classed. Let's make a top-level expando to add some functionality to an element - in this case a Function signature given in the typedef statement:
typedef CustomFunction(int foo, String bar);
Expando<CustomFunction> domFunctionExpando = new Expando<CustomFunction>();
Now to use it:
main(){
// Assumes dart:html is imported
final myElement = new DivElement();
// Use the expando on our DOM element.
domFunctionExpando[myElement] = someFunc;
// Now that we've "attached" the function to our object,
// we can call it like so:
domFunctionExpando[myElement](42, 'expandos are cool');
}
void someFunc(int foo, String bar){
print('Hello. $foo $bar');
}
I played with it a little bit. Here's what I've got.
import 'dart:html';
const String cHidden = 'hidden';
class ExpandoElement {
static final Expando<ExpandoElement> expando =
new Expando<ExpandoElement>("ExpandoElement.expando");
final Element element;
const ExpandoElement._expand(this.element);
static Element expand(Element element) {
if (expando[element] == null)
expando[element] = new ExpandoElement._expand(element);
return element;
}
// bool get hidden => element.hidden; // commented out to test noSuchMethod()
void set hidden(bool hidden) {
if (element.hidden = hidden)
element.classes.add(cHidden);
else
element.classes.remove(cHidden);
}
noSuchMethod(InvocationMirror invocation) => invocation.invokeOn(element);
}
final Expando<ExpandoElement> x = ExpandoElement.expando;
Element xquery(String selector) => ExpandoElement.expand(query(selector));
final Element input = xquery('#input');
void main() {
input.classes.remove(cHidden);
assert(!input.classes.contains(cHidden));
input.hidden = true;
assert(x[input].hidden); // Dart Editor warning here, but it's still true
assert(!input.classes.contains(cHidden)); // no effect
input.hidden = false;
assert(!x[input].hidden); // same warning, but we'll get input.hidden via noSuchMethod()
assert(!input.classes.contains(cHidden));
x[input].hidden = true;
assert(input.hidden); // set by the setter of ExpandoElement.hidden
assert(input.classes.contains(cHidden)); // added by the setter
assert(x[input].hidden);
assert(x[input].classes.contains(cHidden)); // this is input.classes
x[input].hidden = false;
assert(!input.hidden); // set by the setter
assert(!input.classes.contains(cHidden)); // removed by the setter
assert(!x[input].hidden);
assert(!x[input].classes.contains(cHidden));
// confused?
assert(input is Element);
assert(x[input] is! Element); // is not
assert(x[input] is ExpandoElement);
assert(x is Expando<ExpandoElement>);
}