I'm just beginning to learn Dart and Flutter and I was wondering if there is any difference in the following declarations?
final List<WordPair> _suggestions = <WordPair>[];
and
final _suggestions = <WordPair>[];
They both seem to exhibit the same behaviour but I'm wondering if there is some underlying difference?
I prefer the first declaration as I'm coming from a C/C++ back ground
There's no difference between them at all.
The second syntax is here only to avoid pointless repetition.
Usually you should prefer the shorthand in Dart. According to the DO/DON'T of dart, there are some conditions in which you'll want to use the full syntax though.
final List<Foo> globalVariable = <Foo>[];
void func() {
final localVariable = <Foo>[]
}
Related
I'm new to LLVM and I'm stuck on something that might seem basic.
I'm writing a LLVM pass to apply some transformations to global variables before they are use.
I would like to detect somehow when is the first usage of a global variable to only apply the transformation there, and not in all places where the global variable is used. But it must be the first time it is used otherwise the program crashes.
I have been reading about the AnalysisManager, and I would say that I want something similar to DominatorTree which is used for basic blocks in a function.
So the idea is to get the DominatorTree of a GlobalVariable to get the first time it is used in the code and apply there my transformation.
Given the following example
int MyGlobal = 30;
void foo()
{
printf("%s\n", MyGlobal);
}
int main()
{
printf("%s\n", MyGlobal);
foo();
}
In the example above, I only want to apply the transformation just before the first printf in the main function
Given the following example
int MyGlobal = 30;
void foo()
{
printf("%s\n", MyGlobal);
}
int main()
{
foo();
printf("%s\n", MyGlobal);
}
For the example above I would like to apply the transformation inside the foo function.
I want to avoid to create a stub function at the beginning of the program to process all globals before start running (This is what actually Im doing)
Does LLVM provide something that can help me doing this? or what should be the best approach to implement it?
Consider the following line of code that doesn't compile in Dart -- lack of comma operator, but comparable things are totally fine in JavaScript or C++:
final foo = (ArgumentError.checkNotNull(value), value) * 2;
The closest I could get with an ugly workaround is
final foo = last(ArgumentError.checkNotNull(value), value) * 2;
with function
T last<T>(void op, T ret) => ret;
Is there a better solution?
Dart does not have a comma operator similar to the one in JavaScript.
There is no obviously better solution than what you already have.
The work-around operation you introduced is how I would solve it. I usually call it seq for "sequence" if I write it.
There is sadly no good way to use an extension operator because you need to be generic on the second operand and operators cannot be generic. You could use an extension method like:
extension Seq on void {
T seq<T>(T next) => next;
}
Then you can write ArgumentError.checkNotNull(value).seq(value).
(For what it's worth, the ArgumentError.checkNotNull function has been changed to return its value, but that change was made after releasing Dart 2.7, so it will only be available in the next release after that).
If the overhead doesn't matter, you can use closures without arguments for a similar effect (and also more complex operations than just a sequence of expressions).
final foo = () {
ArgumentError.checkNotNull(value);
return value;
} ();
This is not great for hot paths due to the overhead incurred by creating and calling a closure, but can work reasonably well outside those.
If you need this kind of test-plus-initialization pattern more than once, the cleanest way would arguably be to put it in a function of its own, anyway.
T ensureNotNull<T>(T value) {
ArgumentError.checkNotNull(value);
return value;
}
final foo = ensureNotNull(value);
First of, sorry for the title name. I’m not sure how else to ask this.
In swift, we can run the following code:
func setColor(to newColor: UIcolor) {
self.color = newColor
}
setColor(to: .blue)
In dart, the only ways I know of doing that code is:
setColor(Color newColor){
this.color = newColor;
}
setColor(Colors.blue);
Or
setColorTo({Color newColor}){
this.color = newColor;
}
setColorTo(newColor: Colors.blue);
To me, the swift code is much cleaner. I personally like it when the code explains what is happening. E.g setColor(to: color).
I like it when you can choose one name for the code and another for the usage.
If you are to call setColor(color), you know what it is doing but is further away from normal English. You could also do setColorTo(newColor: color) but the word ‘to’ shouldn’t be in the function. Also calling it newColor makes it more verbose as it fits with the code and when calling the function.
Is there a way to use swift like syntax in dart?
In Dart you would usually set the variable directly rather than use a unary function starting with set. That is:
this.color = Colors.blue;
Public non-final variables are perfectly fine, you can set them directly.
If you want to do something more while setting, you would use a getter and setter with a private variable:
Color get color => _color;
set color(Color newColor) {
logColorChange(_color, newColor);
_color = newColor;
}
// and then still write:
this.color = Color.blue;
If this isn't really a setter issue, but just a general parameter naming issue, then Dart does not allow you to provide different external and internal names for the same named parameter. If you want a different name, you will have to declare it in the method:
void setColor({Color to}) {
Color newColor = to;
this.color = newColor;
}
I am not aware of any previous request for such a feature, perhaps because named parameters in Dart are always optional, so they are not used as much as required positional parameters to begin with, and using setFoo(to: something) feels like overhead over just setFoo(something) or setFooTo(something).
"The determined Real Programmer can write FORTRAN programs in any language."
Dart is not Swift, it is different in many obvious and subtle ways. If you try to write Swift in Dart, you will be dissapointed. I recommend trying to write idiomatic Dart instead and see how that feels after a while.
In dart, when developing a web application, if I invoke a method with a wrong number of arguments, the editor shows a warning message, the javascript compilation however runs successfully, and an error is only raised runtime. This is also the case for example if I refer and unexistent variable, or I pass a method argument of the wrong type.
I ask, if the editor already know that things won't work, why is the compilation successful? Why do we have types if they are not checked at compile time? I guess this behaviour has a reason, but I couldn't find it explained anywhere.
In Dart, many programming errors are warnings.
This is for two reasons.
The primary reason is that it allows you to run your program while you are developing it. If some of your code isn't complete yet, or it's only half refactored and still uses the old variable names, you can still test the other half. If you weren't allowed to run the program before it was perfect, that would not be possible.
The other reason is that warnings represent only static type checking, which doesn't know everything about your program, It might be that your program will work, it's just impossible for the analyser to determine.
Example:
class C {
int foo(int x) => x;
}
class D implements C {
num foo(num x, [num defaultValue]) => x == null ? defaultValue : x;
}
void bar(C c) => print(c.foo(4.1, 42)); // Static warning: wrong argument count, bad type.
main() { bar(new D()); } // Program runs fine.
If your program works, it shouldn't be stopped by a pedantic analyser that only knows half the truth. You should still look at the warnings, and consider whether there is something to worry about, but it is perfectly fine to decide that you actually know better than the compiler.
There is no compilation stage. What you see is warning based on type. For example:
This code will have warning:
void main() {
var foo = "";
foo.baz();
}
but this one won't:
void main() {
var foo;
foo.baz();
}
because code analyzer cant deduct the type of foo
I'm a hobbyist programmer (cook by trade) that's currently trying to teach myself F# and functional programming in general.
Anyway, I was fooling around with DeflateStream and wrote the following two functions:
let Compress compressMe =
let ds = new DeflateStream(File.Create("compressed.txt"), CompressionMode.Compress)
File.OpenRead(compressMe).CopyTo(ds)
ds.Close()
let Decompress =
let ds = new DeflateStream(File.OpenRead("compressed.txt"), CompressionMode.Decompress)
ds.CopyTo(File.Create("decompressed.txt"))
ds.Close()
In the body of the main function they are called one right after the other like this:
Compress args.[0]
Decompress
However, if compressed.txt doesn't exist when the program is run Decompress throws a FileNotFoundException which is surprising because the only thing that could throw this is the call to File.OpenRead("compress.txt"). After about an hour I figured out that Decompress was implementing IComparable and was being executed before the call to it in the main function. I found that by changing its definition to let Decompress () = [...] it no longer implemented IComparable and my code executed as it was intended to. Can anyone tell me why F# was infering IComparable and why such and inference would cause the function to execute before the main function marked with [<EntryPoint>]? Also, please forgive the imperitive style of my code, I'm incredibly new at this.
Thanks in adavance.
I'm not entirely sure about the IComparable bit, but the issue you have is that without the parentheses, the compiler is treating Decompress as a value not a function. This would be similar to if you had written.
let compressedName = "compressed.txt"
in that case, compressedName is now a value. Adding the parentheses tells the compiler that this is a function whose code must be called each time the function is rather than a value initialized once (before the entry point) by the code you wrote.
When you write something like
let value =
//some long calculation
[<Entrypoint>]
let main args = ...
The compiler executes the long calculation before main. This is because you probably use the value later in your code. To suppress this, as you found, you need to use let value() = ....
I am not sure where Icomparable is coming from, but this is the key to what is happening.
Note, if you write
let a = ...
let b = ...
The compiler will gurantee a is calculated before b executes.
As others have pointed out, the absence of parentheses in the declaration is significant.
let Decompres = ...
declares a variable of type unit. This type is used to represent "data" (even if this data doesn't encode much information), and it implements IComparable like any other data-oriented type.
let Decompress() = ...
declares a function, and functions in F# are not comparable, probably because there is no universally accepted notion of equality on functions.
I can't see that the "IComparable-ness" of Decompress had anything to do with the exception you got.