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.
Related
I am trying to init a const variable differently based on another const string.
Code is not inside a class, just plain dart.
Only way I found is using the elvis operator but it's quite ugly and will become unmaintanable with many conditions to handle ...
How would you do it ?
test.dart called with --dart-define CONTEXT=context-A:
// can be : "context-A" or "context-B" or "context-C" etc ...
const contextString = String.fromEnvironment('CONTEXT');
const Context contextObject = (contextString == 'context-A')
? ContextA()
: (contextString == 'context-B')
? ContextB()
: ContextC();
Any other method (like calling an init method) fails with dart telling me that I cannot init a const variable with a non const method :(
Thanks
Personally I would use the ternary conditional operator as you're already using; I don't think it's unreadable, and as long as you don't have too many cases (which itself would be a maintenance problem), the indentation creep shouldn't be too bad.
However, one alternative would be to abuse collection-if:
const contextObject = [
if (contextString == 'context-A')
ContextA()
else if (contextString == 'context-B')
ContextB()
else
ContextC()
];
which is formatted more nicely (as long as the expression is sufficiently long that dart format doesn't try to squeeze it all onto a single line). However, I don't recommend this because:
You'll need to some extra overhead of using operator [] everywhere to access the intended object.
Equality comparisons are potential pitfall. contextObject == const [ContextA()] will work, but if const is accidentally omitted, it will never compare equal.
(At some point, perhaps if-expressions will be added to Dart.)
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);
Coming back to C++ after a hiatus in Java. Attempting to create an immutable object and after working in Java, a public const variable seems the most sensible (like Java final).
public:
const int A;
All well and good, but if I want to defensive check this value, how might I go about it. The code below seems strange to me, but unlike Java final members, I can't seem to set A in the constructor after defensive checks (compiler error).
MyObj::MyObj(int a) : A(a) {
if (a < 0)
throw invalid_argument("must be positive");
}
A public const variable for A seems like a clearer, cleaner solution than a getter only with a non const int behind it, but open to that or other ideas if this is bad practice.
Your example as it stands should work fine:
class MyObj {
public:
const int var;
MyObj(int var) : var(var) {
if (var < 0)
throw std::invalid_argument("must be positive");
}
};
(Live example, or with out-of-line constructor)
If you intend that MyObj will always be immutable, then a const member is
probably fine. If you want the variable to be immutable in general, but still have the possibility to overwrite the entire object with an assignment, then better to have a private variable with a getter:
class MyObj {
int var;
public:
MyObj(int var) : var(var) {
if (var < 0)
throw std::invalid_argument("must be positive");
}
int getVar() const { return var; }
};
// now allows
MyObj a(5);
MyObj b(10);
a = b;
Edit
Apparently, what you want to do is something like
MyObj(int var) {
if (var < 0)
throw std::invalid_argument("must be positive");
this->var = var;
}
This is not possible; once a const variable has a value it cannot be changed. Once the body ({} bit) of the constructor starts, const variables already have a value, though in this case the value is "undefined" since you're not setting it (and the compiler is throwing an error because of it).
Moreover, there's actually no point to this. There is no efficiency difference in setting the variable after the checks or before them, and it's not like any external observers will be able to see the difference regardless since the throw statement will unroll the stack, deconstructing the object straight away.
Generally the answer by N. Shead is the regular practice - but you can also consider:
Create domain-specific types and use them instead of general primitives. E.g., if your field is a telephone number, have a type TelephoneNumber which, in its constructor (or factory), taking a string, does all the telephone number validation you'd like (and throws on invalid). Then you write something like:
class Contact {
const TelephoneNumber phone_;
public:
Contact(string phone) : phone_(phone) { ... }
...
When you do this the constructor for TelephoneNumber taking a string argument will be called when initializing the field phone_ and the validation will happen.
Using domain-specific types this way is discussed on the web under the name "primitive obsession" as a "code smell".
(The problem with this approach IMO is that you pretty much have to use it everywhere, and from the start of your project, otherwise you start having to have explicit (or implicit) casting all over the place and your code looks like crap and you can never be sure if the value you have has been validated or not. If you're working with an existing codebase it is nearly impossible to retrofit it completely though you might just start using it for particularly important/ubiquitous types.)
Create validation methods that take and return some value, and which perform the validation necessary - throwing when invalid otherwise returning its argument. Here's an example validator:
string ValidatePhoneNumber(string v) {
<some kind of validation throwing on invalid...>
return v;
}
And use it as follows:
class Contact {
const string phone_;
public:
Contact(string phone) : phone_(ValidatePhoneNumber(phone)) { ... }
I've seen this used when an application or library is doing so much validation of domain-specific types that a small library of these domain-specific validator methods has been built up and code readers are used to them. I wouldn't really consider it idiomatic, but it does have the advantage that the validation is right out there in the open where you can see it.
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>[]
}
In JavaScript we have something like .toString which can convert the entire function object to string.
Do we have something similar on IOS?
For example, in JavaScript if we have function like this, after converting it with .toString and printing the value in console we see the entire function object.
function sum(a, b)
{
return a + b;
}
console.log(sum.toString());
// expected output:
// "function sum(a, b)
// {
//return a + b;
// }"
Can we do something similar for IOS? I tried String (describing :Function) in Swift but that didn't work and gave me output as (Function) but not the complete structure like we get in JavaScript .toString.
public func say_hello()
{
print("Hello, World!")
}
String(describing: say_hello))
//Output:(Function)
Despite the many comments explaining why that's not possible (nor feasible in many cases), I want to point out that you can use JavaScript code in your Swift app and thus use the serialization mechanism of that language. Have a look at JSContext for details. This of course won't make things simpler, but it does give extra flexibility with injecting/changing/extending functionality at runtime.
This is not possible from Swift/Objc