Is optional field supported in IDL defined by OMG?
If not, is using sequence or fixed size array to wrap it a good practice?
Or just leave it to be null at the runtime without further hint at the IDL specification?
The OMG IDL 4.2 specification does define an #optional annotation to indicate that a field is optional but this is not supported by CORBA. The best practice is to use an IDL sequence.
Related
I would like to get the initializer in the field corrected_time in code below. I found the field.initializer, but couldn't get much further. (the #Init annotation is temporary solution for now):
mixin PrerenderDoc on Doc implements AllowDelete {
#Init(init_int: 0)
int corrected_time = 0;
}
I'm guessing that field is an instance of FieldElement. Unfortunately, if that's the case, then the answer is that analyzer doesn't have a value for the initializer. The analyzer only computes values for (a subset of) expressions that are constant expressions. For field initializers, that means that the field needs to be declared to be const, and the one in the example isn't.
(Annotations are constants and hence have values, which is why your workaround works.)
If the field were declared const, then you could use VariableElement.constantValue to access a representation of the value (VariableElement is a superclass of FieldElement).
The other option available to you is to use the AST structure and examine the structure of the expression, but if you want / need to handle anything more than just simple literal values, that can be quite complex.
I'm coming from a Java/Android background where we use NULL. Now I am doing Swift/iOS and I am confused as to what Swift's nil means.
Can I use it like NULL in Java? Does it act the exact same way or is there something different about its usage?
You can think of 'null' and 'nil' the same. Whether the language includes optionals is a separate concern.
Objective-C, has 'nil', but does not have in-built optionals while Swift does. Similarly, Java has 'null', but not have implicit optionals, while several JVM languages such as Kotlin, Scala and Ceylon do, and did so before Swift.  
Here's an article that compares about null, nil and optionals in Kotlin, Scala and Swift: http://codemonkeyism.com/comparing-optionals-and-null-in-swift-scala-ceylon-and-kotlin/
Incidentally, for Android development you may want to investigate Kotlin and the associated Anko library from Jetbrains.
Swift does not currently support a null coalescing operator.
Swift nil explanation
nil means "no value". Non-optional variables cannot be assigned nil even if they're classes, so it's explicitly not a null pointer and not similar to one.
I can recommend you to read more about optionals in Swift.
Disclosure: I don't know a whole terrible lot about Java, so my answer is coming from a C++/Objective-C/Swift perspective.
Matt Thompson of NSHipster has a great post about it and how it relates to Objective-C vs C. You can find it here.
The answer basically boils down to this: you should consider it the same.
0 is how you represent nothing for a primitive value
NULL is how you represent nothing for literal for C pointers
nil is how you represent nothing for literal Objective-C/Swift objects
Is it legal for a record to have a nullable field such as:
type MyRec = { startDate : System.Nullable<DateTime>; }
This example does build in my project, but is this good practice if it is legal, and what problems if any does this introduce?
It is legal, but F# encourage using option types instead:
type MyRec = { startDate : option<DateTime>; }
By using option you can easily pattern match against options and other operations to transform option values as for example map values (by using Option.map), and abstractions such as the Maybe monad (by using Option.bind), whereas with nullable you can't since only value types can be made nullables.
You will notice most F# functions (such as List.choose) work with options instead of nullables. Some language features like optional parameters are interpreted as the F# option type.
However in some cases, when you need to interact with C# you may want to use Nullable.
When usign Linq to query a DB you may consider using the Linq.Nullable Module and the Nullable operators
F# does not allow types that are declared in F# to be null. However, if you're using types that are not defined in F#, you are still allowed to use null. This is why your code is still legal. This is needed for inter-operability, because you may need to pass null to a .NET library or accept it as a result.
But I would say it is not a good practice unless your need is specifically of inter-operability. As others pointed out, you can use the option feature. However, this doesn't create an optional record field whose value you don't need to specify when creating it. To create a value of the record type, you still need to provide the value of the optional field.
Also, you can mark a type with the AllowNullLiteral attribute, and F# compiler would allow null as a value for that specific type, even if it is a type declared in F#. But AllowNullLiteral can't be applied to record types.
Oh and I almost forgot to mention: option types are NOT compatible with nullable types. Something that I kind of naively expected to just work (stupid me!). See this nice SO discussion for details.
Which way is more idiomatic to use Nullable<'a> or to use Option<'a> for representing a nullable int?
Option is far more idiomatic in F# code.
It has far nicer syntax when used in match and has large amounts of support from the standard library.
However, if you plan to access the code from C# or some other language you should probably expose the interface with Nullable which is easier to use in C#.
As John said, Option<T> is definitely more idiomatic type in F#. I would certainly use options as my default choice - the Option module provides many useful functions, pattern matching works nicely on options and F# libraries are generally designed to work with options.
That said, there are two cases when you might want to use nullable:
When creating arrays of optional values - Nullable<T> is a value type (sort of) and if you create an array Nullable<T>[] then it is allocated as continuous memory block. On the other hand options are reference types and option<T>[] will be an array of references to heap-allocated objects.
When you need to write some calculations and propagate missing values - in F# 3.0, there is a module Microsoft.FSharp.Linq.NullableOperators which implements various operators for dealing with nullable values (see MSDN documentation) which lets you write e.g.:
let one = Nullable(1)
let two = Nullable(2)
// Add constant to nullable, then compare value of two nullables
(one ?+ 2) ?>=? two
In F# mantra there seems to be a visceral avoidance of null, Nullable<T> and its ilk. In exchange, we are supposed to instead use option types. To be honest, I don't really see the difference.
My understanding of the F# option type is that it allows you to specify a type which can contain any of its normal values, or None. For example, an Option<int> allows all of the values that an int can have, in addition to None.
My understanding of the C# nullable types is that it allows you to specify a type which can contain any of its normal values, or null. For example, a Nullable<int> a.k.a int? allows all of the values that an int can have, in addition to null.
What's the difference? Do some vocabulary replacement with Nullable and Option, null and None, and you basically have the same thing. What's all the fuss over null about?
F# options are general, you can create Option<'T> for any type 'T.
Nullable<T> is a terrifically weird type; you can only apply it to structs, and though the Nullable type is itself a struct, it cannot be applied to itself. So you cannot create Nullable<Nullable<int>>, whereas you can create Option<Option<int>>. They had to do some framework magic to make that work for Nullable. In any case, this means that for Nullables, you have to know a priori if the type is a class or a struct, and if it's a class, you need to just use null rather than Nullable. It's an ugly leaky abstraction; it's main value seems to be with database interop, as I guess it's common to have `int, or no value' objects to deal with in database domains.
Im my opinion, the .Net framework is just an ugly mess when it comes to null and Nullable. You can argue either that F# 'adds to the mess' by having Option, or that it rescues you from the mess by suggesting that you avoid just null/Nullable (except when absolutely necessary for interop) and focus on clean solutions with Options. You can find people with both opinions.
You may also want to see
Best explanation for languages without null
Because every .NET reference type can have this extra, meaningless value—whether or not it ever is null, the possibility exists and you must check for it—and because Nullable uses null as its representation of "nothing," I think it makes a lot of sense to eliminate all that weirdness (which F# does) and require the possibility of "nothing" to be explicit. Option<_> does that.
What's the difference?
F# lets you choose whether or not you want your type to be an option type and, when you do, encourages you to check for None and makes the presence or absence of None explicit in the type.
C# forces every reference type to allow null and does not encourage you to check for null.
So it is merely a difference in defaults.
Do some vocabulary replacement with Nullable and Option, null and None, and you basically have the same thing. What's all the fuss over null about?
As languages like SML, OCaml and Haskell have shown, removing null removes a lot of run-time errors from real code. To the extent that the original creator of null even describes it as his "billion dollar mistake".
The advantage to using option is that it makes explicit that a variable can contain no value, whereas nullable types leave it implicit. Given a definition like:
string val = GetValue(object arg);
The type system does not document whether val can ever be null, or what will happen if arg is null. This means that repetitive checks need to be made at function boundaries to validate the assumptions of the caller and callee.
Along with pattern matching, code using option types can be statically checked to ensure both cases are handled, for example the following code results in a warning:
let f (io: int option) = function
| Some i -> i
As the OP mentions, there isn't much of a semantic difference between using the words optional or nullable when conveying optional types.
The problem with the built-in null system becomes apparent when you want to express non-optional types.
In C#, all reference types can be null. So, if we relied on the built-in null to express optional values, all reference types are forced to be optional ... whether the developer intended it or not. There is no way for a developer to specify a non-optional reference type (until C# 8).
So, the problem isn't with the semantic meaning of null. The problem is null is hijacked by reference types.
As a C# developer, i wish I could express optionality using the built-in null system. And that is exactly what C# 8 is doing with nullable reference types.
Well, one difference is that for a Nullable<T>, T can only be a struct which reduces the use cases dramatically.
Also make sure to read this answer: https://stackoverflow.com/a/947869/288703