Let's say I have a CXXRecordDecl with only static members, all raised to external linkage:
struct S {
static constexpr int x = 10;
static constexpr int y = 20;
static void foo() {...}
};
The AST is as follow:
TranslatioUnitDecl
...
CXXRecordDecl struct S definition
-CXXRecordDecl implicit struct S
-VarDecl x
-IntegralLiteral 10
-VarDecl y
-IntegralLiteral 20
-CXXMethodDecl foo
...
I think due to the "static" data member, there is no FieldDecl in the CXXRecordDecl, there are 2 VarDecl instead. So how do I access the 2 VarDecl from CXXRecordDecl? There is no API function in CXXRecordDecl for that.
The only way I can think of is to use a RecursiveASTVisitor class and visit all decls. A VarDecl has boolean API functions isStaticDataMember() and isConstexpr() to help, great! But how do I know what is the parent class for these static VarDecl?
Any suggestion will be appreciated profoundly!
I think I found my own answer. There is a base class DeclContext for many block decls, including RecordDecl. This class has public member functions to iterate all the decls within the struct, look at decls_begin() and decls_end().
Related
class X extends Y {
X(int a, int b) : super(a,b);
}
Can someone give me an explanation about the syntax meaning of the colon :?
This feature in Dart is called "initializer list".
It allows you to initialize fields of your class, make assertions and call the super constructor.
This means that it is not the same as the constructor body. As I said, you can only initialize variables and only access static members. You cannot call any (non-static) methods.
The benefit is that you can also initialize final variables, which you cannot do in the constructor body. You also have access to all parameters that are passed to the constructor, which you do not have when initializing the parameters directly in the parentheses.
Additionally, you can use class fields on the left-hand of an assignment with the same name as a parameter on the right-hand side that refers to a parameter. Dart will automatically use the class field on the left-hand side.
Here is an example:
class X {
final int number;
X(number) : number = number ?? 0;
}
The code above assigns the parameter named number to the final field this.number if it is non-null and otherwise it assigns 0. This means that the left-hand number of the assignment actually refers to this.number. Now, you can even make an assertion that will never fail (and is redundant because of that, but I want to explain how everything works together):
class X {
final int number;
X(number): number = number ?? 0, assert(number != null);
}
Learn more.
It's ok to access non static member in initializer list.
class Point {
num x, y;
Point(this.x, this.y);
Point.origin(): this.x = 10, this.y = 10;
}
main() {
Point p = Point.origin();
print(p.x); // 10
}
I need clarity on how objects are declared and assigned a definition in F#.
What's happening in this code?
let service = {
new IService with
member this.Translate(_) = raise error }
My guess is we're creating an object that will implement some interface on the fly even though there is no actual class that's backing this object. Hence, we're removing the ceremony involved with creating an object by not having to declare a separate class to use it. In this case, we're minimizing the ceremony involved for implementing a mock object that could be used within a unit test.
Is my understanding accurate?
I tried to research my question and found the specification for F# 3.0 (Section - 6.3.8 Object Expressions)
6.3.8 Object Expressions An expression of the following form is an object expression: { new ty0 args-expropt object-members interface
ty1 object-members1 … interface tyn object-membersn } In the case
of the interface declarations, the object-members are optional and are
considered empty if absent. Each set of object-members has the form:
with member-defns endopt Lexical filtering inserts simulated $end
tokens when lightweight syntax is used. Each member of an object
expression members can use the keyword member, override, or default.
The keyword member can be used even when overriding a member or
implementing an interface.
For example:
let obj1 =
{ new System.Collections.Generic.IComparer<int> with
member x.Compare(a,b) = compare (a % 7) (b % 7) }
You can get a pretty good picture of what is happening behind the scenes if you look at the generated IL using a decompiler like ILSpy. For the example involving IComparer, it generates a hidden class, which implements the interface:
internal sealed class obj1#2 : IComparer<int> {
public obj1#2() : this() { }
int IComparer<int>.System-Collections-Generic-IComparer(int x, int y) {
int num = x % 7;
int num2 = y % 7;
if (num < num2) { return -1; }
return (num > num2) ? 1 : 0;
}
}
Inside the body of the method, it then creates a new instance:
IComparer<int> obj1 = new obj1#2();
Type Aliases do not provide compile-time type checking
Type aliases are very handy for shortening long type names. Type alias' are just syntatic sugar and are compiled into the aliased type at run-time, meaning two different aliases representing the same type can be used interchangeably without error:
type foo = int
type bar = int
let x : foo = 5
let y : bar = x
type foo = int
type bar = int
val x : foo = 5
val y : bar = 5
I understand why you wouldn't want to treat them as regular types with compile-time type enforcement. Still, in some scenarios, it would be very handy.
Sometimes, I need to differentiate between ints which represent different things
For example, I am importing some functions from a COM library that has several different kinds of values, but they are all represented as ints in my code:
[<DllImport(#"C:\API\COMAPI.dll", EntryPoint="Foobar")>]
extern int Foobar ( int hPool, int hServer )
In C, hPool is of type APIP and hServer and the function return type are both APIV:
typedef unsigned long API_INDEX; // index
typedef API_INDEX * APIV; // value handle
typedef void * APIP; // pool handle
I would like to represent these different types, representing different things, with different types that provide some compile-time type enforcement. That way, I can't accidentally pass an APIP to a function expecting an APIV.
Measures get me half-way there, but require a LOT of extra fluff
So far, the only solution I've found is to use measurements:
type [<Measure>] APIP
type [<Measure>] APIV
Unfortunately, it seems that measures cannot be added directly to externs:
[<DllImport(#"C:\API\COMAPI.dll", EntryPoint="Foobar")>]
extern int<APIV> _Foobar ( int<APIP> hPool, int<APIV> hServer )
error FS0010: Unexpected type application in extern declaration. Expected identifier or other token.
So I am having to write a wrapper function, resulting in a LOT of extra code:
[<DllImport(#"C:\API\COMAPI.dll", EntryPoint="Foobar")>]
extern int private _Foobar ( int hPool, int hServer )
let Foobar ( hPool : int<APIP> ) ( hServer : int<APIV> ) : APIV =
_Foobar( int hPool, int hServer ) |> LanguagePrimitives.Int32WithMeasure
Multiplied by dozens and dozens of imported functions, this is getting really bloated and tiresome.
Is there a more intuitive way to handle this, or am I stuck deciding between compile-time type checking and reasonably readable code?
I'm trying to hide my P/Invoke functions, like this one:
[<DllImport("kernel32.dll", SetLastError=true)>]
extern bool private CreateTimerQueueTimer(IntPtr& phNewTimer, nativeint TimerQueue, WaitOrTimerDelegate Callback, nativeint Parameter, uint32 DueTime, uint32 Period, ExecuteFlags Flags)
Strangely, though, the private gets ignored -- which is really annoying, because I want to hide all the unwieldy structs and enums associated with these functions.
I guess I could put everything in a private module, so it's not too big of a deal, but am I missing something?
This will do the job.
module a =
[<AbstractClass>]
type private NativeMethods() =
[<DllImport("kernel32.dll", EntryPoint="CreateTimerQueueTimer",
SetLastError=true)>]
static extern bool sCreateTimerQueueTimer( (* whatever *) )
static member CreateTimerQueueTimer = sCreateTimerQueueTimer
let usedInside = NativeMethods.CreateTimerQueueTimer
module b =
open a
// the next line fails to compile
let usedOutside = NativeMethods.CreateTimerQueueTimer( (* whatever *) )
Notes:
private class can be accessed only from the enclosing module, this is what you need, so just wrap the methods in a NativeMethods class;
You cannot set your extern method private since it wouldn't be accessible from the rest of module a;
extern member of a class is always private, so there's another method with same signature;
Finally, use EntryPoint to resolve naming.
I know virtually nothing about F#. I don’t even know the syntax, so I can’t give examples.
It was mentioned in a comment thread that F# can declare functions that can take parameters of multiple possible types, for example a string or an integer. This would be similar to method overloads in C#:
public void Method(string str) { /* ... */ }
public void Method(int integer) { /* ... */ }
However, in CIL you cannot declare a delegate of this form. Each delegate must have a single, specific list of parameter types. Since functions in F# are first-class citizens, however, it would seem that you should be able to pass such a function around, and the only way to compile that into CIL is to use delegates.
So how does F# compile this into CIL?
This question is a little ambiguous, so I'll just ramble about what's true of F#.
In F#, methods can be overloaded, just like C#. Methods are always accessed by a qualified name of the form someObj.MethodName or someType.MethodName. There must be context which can statically resolve the overload at compile-time, just as in C#. Examples:
type T() =
member this.M(x:int) = ()
member this.M(x:string) = ()
let t = new T()
// these are all ok, just like C#
t.M(3)
t.M("foo")
let f : int -> unit = t.M
let g : string-> unit = t.M
// this fails, just like C#
let h = t.M // A unique overload for method 'M' could not be determined
// based on type information prior to this program point.
In F#, let-bound function values cannot be overloaded. So:
let foo(x:int) = ()
let foo(x:string) = () // Duplicate definition of value 'foo'
This means you can never have an "unqualified" identifier foo that has overloaded meaning. Each such name has a single unambiguous type.
Finally, the crazy case which is probably the one that prompts the question. F# can define inline functions which have "static member constraints" which can be bound to e.g. "all types T that have a member property named Bar" or whatnot. This kind of genericity cannot be encoded into CIL. Which is why the functions that leverage this feature must be inline, so that at each call site, the code specific-to-the-type-used-at-that-callsite is generated inline.
let inline crazy(x) = x.Qux(3) // elided: type syntax to constrain x to
// require a Qux member that can take an int
// suppose unrelated types U and V have such a Qux method
let u = new U()
crazy(u) // is expanded here into "u.Qux(3)" and then compiled
let v = new V()
crazy(v) // is expanded here into "v.Qux(3)" and then compiled
So this stuff is all handled by the compiler, and by the time we need to generate code, once again, we've statically resolved which specific type we're using at this callsite. The "type" of crazy is not a type that can be expressed in CIL, the F# type system just checks each callsite to ensure the necessary conditions are met and inlines the code into that callsite, a lot like how C++ templates work.
(The main purpose/justification for the crazy stuff is for overloaded math operators. Without the inline feature, the + operator, for instance, being a let-bound function type, could either "only work on ints" or "only work on floats" or whatnot. Some ML flavors (F# is a relative of OCaml) do exactly that, where e.g. the + operator only works on ints, and a separate operator, usually named +., works on floats. Whereas in F#, + is an inline function defined in the F# library that works on any type with a + operator member or any of the primitive numeric types. Inlining can also have some potential run-time performance benefits, which is also appealing for some math-y/computational domains.)
When you're writing C# and you need a function that can take multiple different parameter sets, you just create method overloads:
string f(int x)
{
return "int " + x;
}
string f(string x)
{
return "string " + x;
}
void callF()
{
Console.WriteLine(f(12));
Console.WriteLine(f("12"));
}
// there's no way to write a function like this:
void call(Func<int|string, string> func)
{
Console.WriteLine(func(12));
Console.WriteLine(func("12"));
}
The callF function is trivial, but my made-up syntax for the call function doesn't work.
When you're writing F# and you need a function that can take multiple different parameter sets, you create a discriminated union that can contain all the different parameter sets and you make a single function that takes that union:
type Either = Int of int
| String of string
let f = function Int x -> "int " + string x
| String x -> "string " + x
let callF =
printfn "%s" (f (Int 12))
printfn "%s" (f (String "12"))
let call func =
printfn "%s" (func (Int 12))
printfn "%s" (func (String "12"))
Being a single function, f can be used like any other value, so in F# we can write callF and call f, and both do the same thing.
So how does F# implement the Either type I created above? Essentially like this:
public abstract class Either
{
public class Int : Test.Either
{
internal readonly int item;
internal Int(int item);
public int Item { get; }
}
public class String : Test.Either
{
internal readonly string item;
internal String(string item);
public string Item { get; }
}
}
The signature of the call function is:
public static void call(FSharpFunc<Either, string> f);
And f looks something like this:
public static string f(Either _arg1)
{
if (_arg1 is Either.Int)
return "int " + ((Either.Int)_arg1).Item;
return "string " + ((Either.String)_arg1).Item;
}
Of course you could implement the same Either type in C# (duh!), but it's not idiomatic, which is why it wasn't the obvious answer to the previous question.
Assuming I understand the question, in F# you can define expressions which depend on the availability of members with particular signatures. For instance
let inline f x a = (^t : (member Method : ^a -> unit)(x,a))
This defines a function f which takes a value x of type ^t and a value a of type ^a where ^t has a method Method taking an ^a to unit (void in C#), and which calls that method. Because this function is defined as inline, the definition is inlined at the point of use, which is the only reason that it can be given such a type. Thus, although you can pass f as a first class function, you can only do so when the types ^t and ^a are statically known so that the method call can be statically resolved and inserted in place (and this is why the type parameters have the funny ^ sigil instead of the normal ' sigil).
Here's an example of passing f as a first-class function:
type T() =
member x.Method(i) = printfn "Method called with int: %i" i
List.iter (f (new T())) [1; 2; 3]
This runs the method Method against the three values in the list. Because f is inlined, this is basically equivalent to
List.iter ((fun (x:T) a -> x.Method(a)) (new T())) [1; 2; 3]
EDIT
Given the context that seems to have led to this question (C# - How can I “overload” a delegate?), I appear not to have addressed your real question at all. Instead, what Gabe appears to be talking about is the ease with which one can define and use discriminated unions. So the question posed on that other thread might be answered like this using F#:
type FunctionType =
| NoArgument of (unit -> unit)
| ArrayArgument of (obj[] -> unit)
let doNothing (arr:obj[]) = ()
let doSomething () = printfn "'doSomething' was called"
let mutable someFunction = ArrayArgument doNothing
someFunction <- NoArgument doSomething
//now call someFunction, regardless of what type of argument it's supposed to take
match someFunction with
| NoArgument f -> f()
| ArrayArgument f -> f [| |] // pass in empty array
At a low level, there's no CIL magic going on here; it's just that NoArgument and ArrayArgument are subclasses of FunctionType which are easy to construct and to deconstruct via pattern matching. The branches of the pattern matching expression are morally equivalent to a type test followed by property accesses, but the compiler makes sure that the cases have 100% coverage and don't overlap. You could encode the exact same operations in C# without any problem, but it would be much more verbose and the compiler wouldn't help you out with exhaustiveness checking, etc.
Also, there is nothing here which is particular to functions; F# discriminated unions make it easy to define types which have a fixed number of named alternatives, each one of which can have data of whatever type you'd like.
I'm not quite sure that understand your question correctly... F# compiler uses FSharpFunc type to represent functions. Usually in F# code you don't deal with this type directly, using fancy syntactic representation instead, but if you expose any members that returns or accepts function and use them from another language, line C# - you will see it.
So instead of using delegates - F# utilizes its special type with concrete or generic parameters.
If your question was about things like add something-i-don't-know-what-exactly-but-it-has-addition-operator then you need to use inline keyword and compiler will emit function body in the call site. #kvb's answer was describing exactly this case.