Suppose there is a set of frequent imports that I would like not to have to repeat in every module. Is there a way to specify "frequent imports" that could be called instead. For example something like:
module frequentImports =
open System
open System.IO
...
Then instead of having to retype all the imports individually, the frequentImports module could be called instead. Obviously, the above approach doesn't work for me which is why the question.
Thanks.
There is no way to define something like a group of open statements and then just refer to the group. Generally, you just need to have all your open statements once per file.
The fact that you have too many of them that you want to repeat all the time might suggest that your code organisation is not optimal - I would think that if you have code structured by putting logically related things into a single file, then each file would need different imports.
One thing you could do - though I don't think it's all that nice - is that you could define a module with module and type aliases for the things you commonly need.
Say, if I wanted to avoid opening Microsoft.FSharp.Reflection and System.Collections.Generic, I could define a module with aliases for the things I need:
module MyThings =
type Dictionary<'k,'v> = System.Collections.Generic.Dictionary<'k, 'v>
type FSharpType = Microsoft.FSharp.Reflection.FSharpType
type FSharpValue = Microsoft.FSharp.Reflection.FSharpValue
Using open MyThings now gives me access to the three types (and the same would work for modules too). That said, this does not automatically import all definitions and I think it's probably not worth doing this - but it's an option.
Related
Yes, I read dart import and part of directives in same file
I have this structure:
lib/
src/
one/
SomeClass.dart
one.dart
mylib.dart
main.dart
I'm trying to achieve this behavior:
All public and hidden variables are fully accessible inside library.
All public variables from library are accessible to main.dart.
There is a problem. For some weird reason I can't use any directive with 'part of'. So I can't use this in the one.dart:
part of mylib;
import 'SomeClass.dart';
//somecode
So I either need to move class definition from SomeClass.dart to one.dart (and that will make code less readable and mixed up) or I need to move 'import' in the mylib.dart.
library mylib;
import 'SomeClass.dart';
part ..
I don't like either of the options. In the second case I will need to parse all modules then and move import/exports. Which will definitely break something.
It may sound weird but the project will build from various modules automatically. And one/ is one of them.
This app design is bad, I know. But either I need to find a better way or just make all variables public and don't bother.
Default to defining one type per file, not using part, and importing only the files you need. This covers the majority of use cases.
Now, let's say you have two types that are commonly used together - for example, a Thing and a ThingException that gets thrown when Thing does bad things. Importing both of these files everywhere is tedious, so you have three options with their own tradeoffs:
Declare both types in the same file.
Declare each type in its own file, and have the 'primary' file export the other. So, thing.dart exports thing_exception.dart. Importing thing.dart gives the importing file access to both.
Declare each type in its own file, and have the other file be a 'part of' the primary file. So, thing_exception.dart declares that it is 'part of' thing.dart. Importing thing.dart gives the importing file access to both files.
For this simple type and its exception, your best bet is to use option 1. When the amount of code grows or the two types diverge in visibility, this option becomes less attractive. This puts options 2 and 3 are on the table.
When you have separate files, option 2 is often a better approach than options 3 because you maintain some flexibility - you could only import thing_exception.dart and not thing.dart. If you use option 3, you can't do this - you either import all of the parts or none of them. This is the error you are seeing when trying to do a part and import in the same file.
Option 3 becomes valuable when you the code is in the two files is highly dependent on one another and they need the ability to access private members of each other. This is less common.
When you have a bunch of files like this together, it becomes a 'library' in the more traditional sense. You declare a main library file (your my lib.dart file) that exports files:
export 'public.dart';
export 'other_public.dart';
The bin script imports the library as a whole, but it can't see anything that isn't explicitly exported from my_lib.dart.
import 'package:mylib/mylib.dart';
Here's an example of a smallish package that uses all three of these options together for a good reference.
I think you will have better luck using import, and export with show. (Use of part of is now discouraged.)
Answers to this question may help you: When to use part/part of versus import/export in Dart?
Also the Creating library packages documentation: https://www.dartlang.org/guides/libraries/create-library-packages
Using XMLProvider from the FSharp.Data package like:
type internal MyProvider = XmlProvider<Sample = "C:\test.xml">
The test.xml file contains a total of 151,838 lines which makes up 15 types.
Working in the same project as the type declaration MyProvider is a pain, as it seems the XmlProvider is triggered everytime I hit CTRL+SPACE (Edit.CompleteWord) - and therefore regenerates all the models, which can take up to 10sec.
Is there any known work around, or setting to cache the generated models from XmlProvider?
I'm afraid F# Data does not currently have any caching mechanism for the inferred schema. It sounds like something that should not be too hard to add - if anyone is interested in contributing, please open an issue on GitHub to start the discussion!
My recommendation for the time being would be to try to simplify the sample XML, so that it is shorter and contains just a few representative records of all the different kinds.
I'm trying to use phpBB3 (forum app) along with ZF2. For that, I have to include a file from the phpBB3. In theory this is as simple as:
include('/path/to/phpbb3/common.php');
$user->session_begin(); //$user is defined in common.php file
In common.php a lot of globals are defined, and after that are required some files which are using those globals.
In ZF2 simply including the common.php would not work, because the scope of the globals will not span over the required files, so I tried a little trick:
//in Application/Forum/Service
public function callForumAPI(){
$zf_dir = getcwd();
chdir('/var/www/html/phpBB3');
include('common.php');
$user->session_begin();
chdir($zf_dir);
}
Neither in this case the scope of the global variables didn't span over the required files, so all the globals where NULL in those files.
How could I solve this issue?
I consider 2 main problems:
1. Loading resources
I dont know if you changed the code of phpBB3, since if you dont, your problem is other.
Phpbb3, as many systems, doesnt let you access directly to any file, you have to go through index.php. As you can see in common.php
if (!defined('IN_PHPBB'))
{
exit;
}
IN_PHPBB is defined in index.php, so you can simply use
Also, common.php and other files, makes use of $phpbb_root_path, that is defined in index.php.
So, at least, when you are going to include common.php you need
$zf_dir = getcwd();
chdir('/var/www/html/phpBB3');
define('IN_PHPBB', true);
$phpbb_root_path = (defined('PHPBB_ROOT_PATH')) ? PHPBB_ROOT_PATH : './';
include('common.php');
...
chdir($zf_dir);
probably there are some other things you have to take care about.
2. Variable scopes
Also, consider than in PHP, like in almost every language, a variable declared inside a function, is considered local, and will be undefined outside that function. So for sure, if you do that inside callForumAPI(), you wont have any variable outside, and moreover, depending on where you are doing that includes...it could be actually inside a function, no matter you can notice it or not, since ZF2 is a framenwork with a complex, non-obvius architecture.
So, what i recomend, as soon as you load the file, is to use the ZF2 service manager to store all the variables and object than you would use in your application. This is a good measure even if you didnt need it,since this way you can have everything integrated as much as possible, it is important to minimize and localize access to phpbb3, since it is not meant to be a library, maintenance could be tricky, so if everyhing is in the same file, and then you create your own internal api through the service manager, it will more encapsulated and nicer. I assume you already know how to do this, if you dont, just let me know.
try this, and tell me if its enough or we need more research
I'm currently writing some functions that are related to lists that I could possibly be reused.
My question is:
Are there any conventions or best practices for organizing such functions?
To frame this question, I would ideally like to "extend" the existing lists module such that I'm calling my new function the following way: lists:my_funcion(). At the moment I have lists_extensions:my_function(). Is there anyway to do this?
I read about erlang packages and that they are essentially namespaces in Erlang. Is it possible to define a new namespace for Lists with new Lists functions?
Note that I'm not looking to fork and change the standard lists module, but to find a way to define new functions in a new module also called Lists, but avoid the consequent naming collisions by using some kind namespacing scheme.
Any advice or references would be appreciated.
Cheers.
To frame this question, I would ideally like to "extend" the existing lists module such that I'm calling my new function the following way: lists:my_funcion(). At the moment I have lists_extensions:my_function(). Is there anyway to do this?
No, so far as I know.
I read about erlang packages and that they are essentially namespaces in Erlang. Is it possible to define a new namespace for Lists with new Lists functions?
They are experimental and not generally used. You could have a module called lists in a different namespace, but you would have trouble calling functions from the standard module in this namespace.
I give you reasons why not to use lists:your_function() and instead use lists_extension:your_function():
Generally, the Erlang/OTP Design Guidelines state that each "Application" -- libraries are also an application -- contains modules. Now you can ask the system what application did introduce a specific module? This system would break when modules are fragmented.
However, I do understand why you would want a lists:your_function/N:
It's easier to use for the author of your_function, because he needs the your_function(...) a lot when working with []. When another Erlang programmer -- who knows the stdlb -- reads this code, he will not know what it does. This is confusing.
It looks more concise than lists_extension:your_function/N. That's a matter of taste.
I think this method would work on any distro:
You can make an application that automatically rewrites the core erlang modules of whichever distribution is running. Append your custom functions to the core modules and recompile them before compiling and running your own application that calls the custom functions. This doesn't require a custom distribution. Just some careful planning and use of the file tools and BIFs for compiling and loading.
* You want to make sure you don't append your functions every time. Once you rewrite the file, it will be permanent unless the user replaces the file later. Could use a check with module_info to confirm of your custom functions exist to decide if you need to run the extension writer.
Pseudo Example:
lists_funs() -> ["myFun() -> <<"things to do">>."].
extend_lists() ->
{ok, Io} = file:open(?LISTS_MODULE_PATH, [append]),
lists:foreach(fun(Fun) -> io:format(Io,"~s~n",[Fun]) end, lists_funs()),
file:close(Io),
c(?LISTS_MODULE_PATH).
* You may want to keep copies of the original modules to restore if the compiler fails that way you don't have to do anything heavy if you make a mistake in your list of functions and also use as source anytime you want to rewrite the module to extend it with more functions.
* You could use a list_extension module to keep all of the logic for your functions and just pass the functions to list in this function using funName(Args) -> lists_extension:funName(Args).
* You could also make an override system that searches for existing functions and rewrites them in a similar way but it is more complicated.
I'm sure there are plenty of ways to improve and optimize this method. I use something similar to update some of my own modules at runtime, so I don't see any reason it wouldn't work on core modules also.
i guess what you want to do is to have some of your functions accessible from the lists module. It is good that you would want to convert commonly used code into a library.
one way to do this is to test your functions well, and if their are fine, you copy the functions, paste them in the lists.erl module (WARNING: Ensure you do not overwrite existing functions, just paste at the end of the file). this file can be found in the path $ERLANG_INSTALLATION_FOLDER/lib/stdlib-{$VERSION}/src/lists.erl. Make sure that you add your functions among those exported in the lists module (in the -export([your_function/1,.....])), to make them accessible from other modules. Save the file.
Once you have done this, we need to recompile the lists module. You could use an EmakeFile. The contents of this file would be as follows:
{"src/*", [verbose,report,strict_record_tests,warn_obsolete_guard,{outdir, "ebin"}]}.
Copy that text into a file called EmakeFile. Put this file in the path: $ERLANG_INSTALLATION_FOLDER/lib/stdlib-{$VERSION}/EmakeFile.
Once this is done, go and open an erlang shell and let its pwd(), the current working directory be the path in which the EmakeFile is, i.e. $ERLANG_INSTALLATION_FOLDER/lib/stdlib-{$VERSION}/.
Call the function: make:all() in the shell and you will see that the module lists is recompiled. Close the shell.
Once you open a new erlang shell, and assuming you exported you functions in the lists module, they will be running the way you want, right in the lists module.
Erlang being open source allows us to add functionality, recompile and reload the libraries. This should do what you want, success.
The include directive is usually used for a .hrl file at the top of an .erl file.
But, I would like to use include from the Erlang console directly.
I am trying to use some functions in a module. I have compiled the erl file from the console. But, the functions I want to use do not work without access to the hrl file.
Any suggestions?
"But, the functions I want to use do not work without access to the hrl file."
This can't be true, but from this I'll take a shot at guessing that you want access to records in the hrl file that you don't (normally) have in the shell.
If you do rr(MODULE) you will load all records defined in MODULE(including those defined in an include file included by MODULE).
Then you can do everything you need to from the shell.
(Another thing you may possibly want for testing is to add the line -compile(export_all) to your erl file. Ugly, but good sometimes for testing.)
Have you tried the compile:file option? You can pass a list of modules to be included thus:
compile:file("myfile.erl", [{i, "/path/1/"}, {i, "/path/2/"}])
It's worth nothing that jsonerl.hrl doesn't contain any functions. It contains macros. As far as I know, macros are a compile-time-only construct in Erlang.
The easiest way to make them available would be to create a .erl file yourself that actually declares functions that are implemented in terms of the macro. Maybe something like this:
-module(jsonerl_helpers).
-include("jsonerl.hrl").
record_to_struct_f(RecordName, Record) ->
?record_to_struct(RecordName, Record).
... which, after you compile, you could call as:
jsonerl_helpers:record_to_struct_f(RecordName, Record)
I don't know why the author chose to implement those as macros; it seems odd, but I'm sure he had his reasons.