F# Val without Self Identifier - f#

Just curious why F# has:
member val Foo = ... with get, set
While omitting the self identifier (e.g. this.).
This is still an instance property. Maybe I am the only one confused when using it. But just bothered me enough to query whoever knows how the language was defined.

With this syntax, the property is almost totally auto-implemented -- all you provide is the initialization code, which essentially runs as part of the constructor.
One of the best-practice guard rails F# puts in place is that it does not let you access instance members before the instance is fully initialized. (wow, crazy idea, right?).
So you would have no use for a self-identifier in auto-props, anyways, since the only code you get to write is init code that can't touch instance members.
Per the MSDN docs (emphasis mine):
Automatically implemented properties are part of the initialization of
a type, so they must be included before any other member definitions,
just like let bindings and do bindings in a type definition. Note that
the expression that initializes an automatically implemented property
is only evaluated upon initialization, and not every time the property
is accessed. This behavior is in contrast to the behavior of an
explicitly implemented property. What this effectively means is that
the code to initialize these properties is added to the constructor of
a class.
Btw, if you try to be a smartass and use the class-level self-identifier to get around this, you'll still blow up at runtime:
type A() as this =
member val X =
this.Y + 10
with get, set
member this.Y = 42
let a = A()
System.InvalidOperationException: The initialization of an object or value resulted in an object or value being accessed recursively before it was fully initialized.
at Microsoft.FSharp.Core.LanguagePrimitives.IntrinsicFunctions.FailInit()
at FSI_0013.A.get_Y()
at FSI_0013.A..ctor()
at <StartupCode$FSI_0014>.$FSI_0014.main#()
Edit: Worth noting that in upcoming C# 6, they also now allow auto-props with initializers (more F# features stolen for C#, shocker :-P), and there is a similar restriction that you can't use the self-identifier:
class A
{
// error CS0027: Keyword 'this' is not available in the current context
public int X { get; set; } = this.Y + 10;
public int Y = 42;
public A() { }
}

Related

Overriding static properties in F# with extension methods

F# extension methods can be defined on types with the same name and type signature as existing instance and static methods to effectively override the default implementation of these methods, however I can't get this to work on static properties.
In particular, I'm trying to create an extension method for DateTime that returns a more precise time as follows:
#nowarn "51"
open System
module DateTimeExtensions =
open System.Runtime.InteropServices
[<DllImport("Kernel32.dll", CallingConvention = CallingConvention.Winapi)>]
extern void private GetSystemTimePreciseAsFileTime(int64*)
type System.DateTime with
// example showing that static methods can be overridden
static member IsLeapYear(_: DateTime) =
printfn "Using overridden IsLeapYear!"
true
// more accurate UtcNow method (note: not supported by older OS versions)
static member UtcNow =
printfn "Using overridden UtcNow!"
let mutable fileTime = 0L
GetSystemTimePreciseAsFileTime(&&fileTime)
DateTime.FromFileTimeUtc(fileTime)
However, the output when executing
open DateTimeExtensions
let _ = DateTime.IsLeapYear(DateTime.UtcNow)
is just
Using overridden IsLeapYear!
which shows that the static method 'override' is working, but not the static property.
(Note: I'm using F# 4.0)
This statement seems to be incorrect:
F# extension methods can be defined on types with the same name and
type signature as existing instance and static methods to effectively
override the default implementation of these methods, however I can't
get this to work on static properties.
No, they don't override.
You might be confused because in fact your signature of IsLeapYear is wrong, it should take an integer, that's why it works I mean you are not overriding anything, just adding a new (extension) method.
If you try it with the original signature you'll see that it doesn't work either:
type System.DateTime with
// example showing that static methods can NOT be overridden
static member IsLeapYear(_: int) =
printfn "Using overridden IsLeapYear!"
false
> DateTime.IsLeapYear(2000);;
val it : bool = true
Which is consistent with the behavior of the static property extension.
Anyway I'm not sure why it was decided not to override, if there was such decision at all when designing the language. I think it would be an interesting feature and if there is a good reason not to implement it at least it should emit a warning saying that since the method already exists it will never be called.
Maybe I will open an issue or a suggestion for the F# compiler.

How to convert C# code that uses Shell COM to F#?

I have the following C# method:
private static bool IsLink(string shortcutFilename)
{
var pathOnly = Path.GetDirectoryName(shortcutFilename);
var filenameOnly = Path.GetFileName(shortcutFilename);
var shell = new Shell32.Shell();
var folder = shell.NameSpace(pathOnly);
var folderItem = folder.ParseName(filenameOnly);
return folderItem != null && folderItem.IsLink;
}
I have tried converting this to F# as:
let private isLink filename =
let pathOnly = Path.GetDirectoryName(filename)
let filenameOnly = Path.GetFileName(filename)
let shell = new Shell32.Shell()
let folder = shell.NameSpace(pathOnly)
let folderItem = folder.ParseName(filenameOnly)
folderItem <> null && folderItem.IsLink
It however reports an error for the let shell = new Shell32.Shell() line, saying that new cannot be used on interface types.
Have I just made a silly syntactic mistake, or is there extra work needed to access COM from F#?
I don't know enough about the F# compiler but your comments makes it obvious enough. The C# and VB.NET compilers have a fair amount of explicit support for COM built-in. Note that your statement uses the new operator on an interface type, Shell32.Shell in the interop library looks like this:
[ComImport]
[Guid("286E6F1B-7113-4355-9562-96B7E9D64C54")]
[CoClass(typeof(ShellClass))]
public interface Shell : IShellDispatch6 {}
IShellDispatch6 is the real interface type, you can also see the IShellDispatch through IShellDispatch5 interfaces. That's versioning across the past 20 years at work, COM interface definitions are immutable since changing them almost always causes an undiagnosable hard crash at runtime.
The [CoClass] attribute is the important one for this story, that's what the C# compiler goes looking for you use new on a [ComImport] interface type. Tells it to create the object by creating an instance of Shell32.ShellClass instance and obtain the Shell interface. What the F# compiler doesn't do.
ShellClass is a fake class, it is auto-generated by the type library importer. COM never exposes concrete classes, it uses a hyper-pure interface-based programming paradigm. Objects are always created by an object factory, CoCreateInstance() is the workhorse for that. Itself a convenience function, the real work is done by the universal IClassFactory interface, hyper-pure style. Every COM coclass implements its CreateInstance() method.
The type library importer makes ShellClass look like this:
[ComImport]
[TypeLibType(TypeLibTypeFlags.FCanCreate)]
[ClassInterface(ClassInterfaceType.None)]
[Guid("13709620-C279-11CE-A49E-444553540000")]
public class ShellClass : IShellDispatch6, Shell {
// Methods
[MethodImpl(MethodImplOptions.InternalCall, MethodCodeType=MethodCodeType.Runtime), DispId(0x60040000)]
public virtual extern void AddToRecent([In, MarshalAs(UnmanagedType.Struct)] object varFile, [In, Optional, MarshalAs(UnmanagedType.BStr)] string bstrCategory);
// Etc, many more methods...
}
Lots of fire and movement, none of it should ever be used. The only thing that really matters is the [Guid] attribute, that provides the CLSID that CoCreateInstance() needs. It also needs the IID, the [Guid] of the interface, provided by the interface declaration.
So the workaround in F# is to create the Shell32.ShellClass object, just like the C# compiler does implicitly. While technically you can keep the reference in a ShellClass variable, you should strongly favor the interface type instead. The COM way, the pure way, it avoids this kind of problem. Ultimately it is the CLR that gets the job done, it recognizes the [ClassInterface] attribute on the ShellClass class declaration in its new operator implementation. The more explicit way in .NET is to use Type.GetTypeFromCLSID() and Activator.CreateInstance(), handy when you only have the Guid of the coclass.

Very untyped and recursive class definition that compiles but seems a corner case to me

These 4 lines compile but do not make sense to me :
open System
type mclas (y) =
member x.m = x.m
let z = mclas (1:>obj)
Question : In what case would we need to code in such way ? Am I activating subtle class features I am not aware of ?
Edit : If there is no use case, what is the status of this piece of code regarding compiler warning/error and is it eligible for some Issue raising on github ?
Note : At runtime, the debugger cannot evaluate variable z saying "Function evaluation timed out".
The member m actually compiles to something like this in IL:
.property instance object m {
.get instance object Program/mclas::get_m()
}
So m is a property of type object which has a getter that recurses endless. The C# equivalent of this would be:
public class mclas
{
public mclas(object y) { }
public object x {
get {
return x;
}
}
}
Because the recursion never ends, taking too long and/or there is a StackOverflowException happening when the Debugger tries to evaluate m, it cancels and spits out that the evaluation timed out.
And for your actual question: I don't think that you ever need this kind of self-reference in F#, at least I can't think of any possible use.
I think that this behaviour of the compiler makes sense, because a member without paramters will always compile to a get-only property, and then this would be the most obvious way of defining an infinite recursing property (just because this has no use doesn't mean that you can't do it).

Unable to use protected events in F#

Let's say we have the following C# class
public class Class1
{
protected event EventHandler ProtectedEvent;
protected virtual void OverrideMe() { }
}
It seems to be impossible to use the ProtectedEvent in F#.
type HelpMe() as this =
inherit Class1()
do
printfn "%A" this.ProtectedEvent
member x.HookEvents() =
printfn "%A" x.ProtectedEvent
member private x.HookEvents2() =
printfn "%A" x.ProtectedEvent
override x.OverrideMe() =
printfn "%A" x.ProtectedEvent
In this example I have attempted to call printfn on it, as there are multiple ways to hook up events in F# and I wanted to be clear that is simply the referencing of the event at all that causes the problem.
In each of the cases above the compiler complains with the following error
A protected member is called or 'base' is being used. This is only
allowed in the direct implementation of members since they could
escape their object scope.
I understand this error, what causes it and its purpose. Usually, the work around is to wrap the call in a private member, which works fine with methods - but that does not seem to work with events. No matter what I try, it seems to be impossible to use protected events in F# unless I resort to doing something with reflection, or make some changes to the base class (which in my case is not possible).
Note that I have also tried all possible combinations of using base, this and x.
Am I doing something wrong ?
I suspect that there is something about the code that the compiler generates behind the scene when you treat the event as a first-class value that later confuses it (i.e. some hidden lambda function that makes the compiler think it cannot access the protected member). I'd say that this is a bug.
As far as I can see, you can workaround it by using add_ProtectedEvent and remove_ProtectedEvent members directly (they do not show in the auto-completion, but they are there and are accessible - they are protected, but calling them is a direct method call, which is fine):
type HelpMe() =
inherit Class1()
member x.HookEvents() =
let eh = System.EventHandler(fun _ _ -> printfn "yay")
x.add_ProtectedEvent(eh)
override x.OverrideMe() =
printfn "hello"
This compiled fine for me. It is a shame that you cannot use the protected event as a first-class value, but this at least lets you use it...

IBM Integration Bus: How to read user defined node (Java) complex (table) property in Java extension code

I created Java user defined node in IntegrationToolkit (9.0.0.1) and assigned it with several properties. Two of the node properties are simple (of String type) and one property is complex (table property with predefined type of User-defined) that is consisted of another two simple properties.
By following the documentation I was able to read two simple properties in my Java extension class (that extends MbNode and implements MbNodeInterface) by making getters and setters that match the names of the two simple properties. Documentation also states that getters and setters should return and set String values whatever the real simple type of a property may be. Obviously, this would not work for my complex node property.
I was also able to read User Defined Properties that are defined on the message flow level, by using CMP (Integration Buss API) classes, which was another impossible thing to do from user defined node without CMP. At one point I began to think that my complex property would be among User Defined Properties, (although UDPs are defined on the flow level and my property is defined on the custom node level) based on some other random documentation and some other forum discussion.
I finally deduced that the complex property should map to MbTable type (as it is so stated in that type's description), but I was not able to use that.
Does anyone know how to access user defined node's complex(table) property value from Java?
I recently started working with WebSphere Message Broker v 8.0.0.5 for one of my projects and I was going to ask the same question until SO suggested your question which answered my question. It might be a little late for this question but it may help others having similar questions.
After many frustrating hours consulting IBM documentation this is what I found following your thread:
You're correct about the properties being available as user-defined properties (UDP) but only at the node level.
According to the JavaDoc for MbTable class (emphasis added to call out the relevant parts):
MbTable is a complex data type which contains one or more rows of simple data types. It structure is very similar to a * standard java record set. It can not be constructed in a node but instead is returned by the getUserDefinedAttribute() on the MbNode class. Its primary use is in allowing complex attributes to be defined on nodes instead of the normal static simple types. It can only be used in the runtime if a version of the toolkit that supports complex properties is being used.
You have to call com.ibm.broker.plugin.MbNode.getUserDefinedAttribute which will return an instance of com.ibm.broker.plugin.MbTable. However, the broker runtime doesn't call any setter methods for the complex attributes during the node initialization process like it does for simple properties. Also, you cannot access the complex attributes in either the constructor or the setter methods of other simple properties in the node class. These are available only in the run or evaluate method.
The following is the decompiled method definition of com.ibm.broker.plugin.MbNode.getUserDefinedAttribute.
public Object getUserDefinedAttribute(String string) {
Object object;
String string2 = "addDynamicTerminals";
if (Trace.isOn) {
Trace.logNamedEntry((Object)this, (String)string2);
}
if ((object = this.getUDA(string)) != null && object.getClass() == MbElement.class) {
try {
MbTable mbTable;
MbElement mbElement = (MbElement)object;
object = mbTable = new MbTable(mbElement);
}
catch (MbException var4_5) {
if (Trace.isOn) {
Trace.logStackTrace((Object)this, (String)string2, (Throwable)var4_5);
}
object = null;
}
}
if (Trace.isOn) {
Trace.logNamedExit((Object)this, (String)string2);
}
return object;
}
As you can see it always returns an instance of MbTable if the attribute is found.
I was able to access the complex attributes with the following code in my node definition:
#Override
public void evaluate(MbMessageAssembly inAssembly, MbInputTerminal inTerminal) throws MbException {
checkUserDefinedProperties();
}
/**
* #throws MbException
*/
private void checkUserDefinedProperties() throws MbException {
Object obj = getUserDefinedAttribute("geoLocations");
if (obj instanceof MbTable) {
MbTable table = (MbTable) obj;
int size = table.size();
int i = 0;
table.moveToRow(i);
for (; i < size; i++, table.next()) {
String latitude = (String) table.getValue("latitube");
String longitude = (String) table.getValue("longitude");
}
}
}
The documentation for declaring attributes for user-defined extensions in Java is surprisingly silent on this little bit of detail.
Please note that all the references and code are for WebSphere Message Broker v 8.0.0 and should be relevant for IBM Integration Bus 9.0.0.1 too.

Resources