Look at the code:
let add_one = |&: x| { 1 + x };
I know x is the closure argument, but what is the meaning of &: in the closure?
This is an underdocumented (and obsolete, see comment) section of Rust right now. The best reference I know of is the blog post Purging proc:
Because the current inference scheme is limited, you will sometimes need to specify which of the three fn traits you want explicitly. (Some people also just prefer to do that.) The current syntax is to use a leading &:, &mut:, or :, kind of like an “anonymous parameter”:
// Explicitly create a `Fn` closure.
foo(|&:| { ... })
// Explicitly create a `FnMut` closure.
foo(|&mut:| { ... })
// Explicitly create a `FnOnce` closure.
foo(|:| { ... }) // (ERROR)
Caveat: It is still possible we’ll change the &:/&mut:/: syntax before 1.0; if we can improve inference enough, we might even get rid of it altogether.
And it looks like it was removed in #21843! Thanks for pointing that out, #swizard!
Related
Interested why does set method defined on Cell, on the last line explicitly drops old value.
Shouldn't it be implicitly dropped (memory freed) anyways when the function returns?
use std::mem;
use std::cell::UnsafeCell;
pub struct Cell<T> {
value: UnsafeCell<T>
}
impl<T> Cell<T> {
pub fn set(&self, val: T) {
let old = self.replace(val);
drop(old); // Is this needed?
} // old would drop here anyways?
pub fn replace(&self, val: T) -> T {
mem::replace(unsafe { &mut *self.value.get() }, val)
}
}
So why not have set do this only:
pub fn set(&self, val: T) {
self.replace(val);
}
or std::ptr::read does something I don't understand.
It is not needed, but calling drop explicitly can help make code easier to read in some cases. If we only wrote it as a call to replace, it would look like a wrapper function for replace and a reader might lose the context that it does an additional action on top of calling the replace method (dropping the previous value). At the end of the day though it is somewhat subjective on which version to use and it makes no functional difference.
That being said, the real reason is that it did not always drop the previous value when set. Cell<T> previously implemented set to overwrite the existing value via unsafe pointer operations. It was later modified in rust-lang/rust#39264: Extend Cell to non-Copy types so that the previous value would always be dropped. The writer (wesleywiser) likely wanted to more explicitly show that the previous value was being dropped when a new value is written to the cell so the pull request would be easier to review.
Personally, I think this is a good usage of drop since it helps to convey what we intend to do with the result of the replace method.
It seems that for some reason Swift have chosen to make coding in it less readable by forcing users to remove completion handler parameter labels. I have read the Swift discussion and still think it's a mistake. At least they could have made it optional.
When building using Xcode 8 - is there a way to force the compiler to use Swift 2.3 so I don't get these errors anymore?
I have updated the option to use legacy Swift (under build settings)
but I still seem to get this error:
Function types cannot have argument label 'isloggedIn'; use '_'
instead
How can I keep my labels in my completion handlers?
The Swift designers decided to prohibit argument labels for function types.
The reasoning is explained here: https://github.com/apple/swift-evolution/blob/master/proposals/0111-remove-arg-label-type-significance.md
This is a frustrating and questionable choice, as prohibiting argument labels makes it much easier to incorrectly invoke closures, which seems more important than simplifying the language's type system.
Usability > ideology.
A workaround to consider. You can't do:
func doStuff(completion: (foo: Int, bar: String) -> Void) {
...
completion(foo: 0, bar: "")
}
... but you can do:
func doStuff(completion: ((foo: Int, bar: String)) -> Void) {
...
completion((foo: 0, bar: ""))
}
i.e. have a single unnamed argument to your closure which is a tuple, in this case (foo: Int, bar: String).
It's ugly in its own way, but at least you retain the argument labels.
Based on the information above - it appears that the only way to really fix this and ensure that its performant is to raise a proposal to
Make argument labels optional with a view to :
improving the speed of development ( without argument labels it requires us to scroll up to the top of the method each time we put in the completion handler.
Reduce Errors : ( I have already had several errors caused due to incorrect completion handler entries especially with those that expect boolean values)
Make code more readable across team members. Not everyone has only one team member and thus being able to easily pick up other peoples code is a must have.
Lastly good programming practice means that the solution should look as much like the actual item being developed. completionhandler: (newvalues, nil) looks less like the item being managed than completionhandler(results: newValue, error:nil)
I would love for people reading this to share their feedback/ comments
on this below before I submit it so I can show there are others that
support this.
Edit:
I have submitted the pitch here :
https://lists.swift.org/pipermail/swift-evolution/Week-of-Mon-20161010/028083.html
which appears to have been agreed. It looks like its going to happen, however the discussion is whether this is submitted as a Swift 4 improvement ( highly probable)
You have to use _ to make your parameters unnamed, and that is unfortunate. Instead of tacking _ on to each parameter and then blindly calling your function I would suggest making a wrapper object.
Since losing named parameters for function types introduces more risk that you will call the function with the wrong values, I would suggest wrapping the parameters in a struct and having that be the one and only parameter to your function.
This way the fields of you struct are named, and there is only one type of value to pass into your function. It is more cumbersome than if we were able to name the parameters of the function, but we can't. At least this way you'll be safer and you'll feel less dirty.
struct LineNoteCellState {
var lineNoteText: String?
var printOnInvoice = false
var printOnLabel = false
}
Here is an example of it being used:
cell.configure(editCallback: { (_ state: LineNoteCellState) in
self.lineNoteText = state.lineNoteText
self.printOnInvoice = state.printOnInvoice
self.printOnLabel = state.printOnLabel
})
Semi-workaround, note the _
completion: (_ success: Bool) -> Void
I am having difficulty referring to parameterless functions in Fable.
With this example:
let f1 () =
1
let someRefTof1 = f1
I'd expect the generated js to look something like this:
function f1() {
return 1;
}
var someRefTof1 = f1;
but what I actually get is:
function f1() {
return 1;
}
var someRefTof1 = exports.someRefTof1 = function someRefTof1(arg00_) {
return f1(arg00_);
};
I'm unclear on the purpose of arg00_ or how to avoid it being generated?
(As a bit of background, I am struggling to call a function in an external js library which expects a function to be passed as a parameter)
Edit:
Background
The above is what i believe to be a minimal, verifiable, reproduction of my question but, after comments, I thought it may be useful to provide a touch more context on why this is causing issues. What I am actually trying to do is use angularjs from Fable.
So my example looks more like this:
let app = AngularFable.NgFable.angular.``module``("app",[||])
type TestCtrl() =
member this.Val1() = "boom";
app?controller("test", TestCtrl)
which gets compiled to:
var app = exports.app = angular.module("app", []);
var TestCtrl = exports.TestCtrl = function () {
function TestCtrl() {
_classCallCheck(this, TestCtrl);
}
TestCtrl.prototype.Val1 = function Val1() {
return "boom";
};
return TestCtrl;
}();
_fableCore.Util.setInterfaces(TestCtrl.prototype, [], "App.TestCtrl");
app.controller("test", function (unitVar) {
return new TestCtrl();
});
with unitVar being the problematic parameter introduced in this example. When I use this in my html with something like:
<div ng-app="app">
<div ng-controller="test as vm">
{{vm.Val1()}}
</div>
</div>
I run into an unknown provider error whereas if I simply change the compiled javascript to remove the unitVar parameter from the last line like this:
app.controller("test", function () {
return new TestCtrl();
});
then my example works as expected.
I'd really like to know if there is a way to avoid having the Fable compiler generate this parameter. I'm 99% sure this reduces to the same problem as in my original question but I've included this additional context to better explain why this is an issue
Thank you very much for your question and detailed explanations. There're two things here that are a bit tricky and are caused by optimisations both of the F# compiler and Fable.
In the AST provided by the F# compiler, methods (functions that are members of a type or module) are compiled as usual methods as in C#. This is for optimization.
However, when you create an anonymous lambda or make a reference to a method, the F# compiler will keep F# semantics, that is, all functions have a single argument (as John Palmer says, unit is an argument too) and can be curried.
Ok, this info is just to make clear why the F# compiler/Fable represent methods and lambdas differently. Let's go with the issue of argumentless functions: the obvious solution would be of course to remove the F# compiler generated argument for functions accepting unit (as it's already done for methods). In fact, I also had problems with libraries like Mocha because of this.
I did try to remove the unit argument at the beginning but I got fails in some scenarios because of this. TBH, I don't remember now exactly which tests were failing but because of the expectation that there'll be always an argument, in some cases function composition or inlining was failing when the unit argument was removed.
Other attempts to modify the semantics of F# functions in the JS runtime have always failed because they don't cover all scenarios. However, we can be more lenient with delegates (System.Func<>) as it's usually safe to assume these ones should behave more like functions in languages like C# or F#. I can try to remove the unit argument just for delegates and see what happens :)
For more info about sending F# functions to JS code you can check the documentation.
UPDATE: Scratch all that, please try fable-compiler#0.6.12 and fable-core#0.6.8. This version eliminates unit arguments, the solution was actually simpler than I thought and (hopefully) shouldn't create issues with existing projects. (The explanation about methods and lambdas compiled differently still applies.)
The Error Handling chapter of the Rust Book contains an example on how to use the combinators of Option and Result. A file is read and through application of a series of combinators the contents are parsed as an i32 and returned in a Result<i32, String>.
Now, I got confused when I looked at the code. There, in one closure to an and_then a local String value is created an subsequently passed as a return value to another combinator.
Here is the code example:
use std::fs::File;
use std::io::Read;
use std::path::Path;
fn file_double<P: AsRef<Path>>(file_path: P) -> Result<i32, String> {
File::open(file_path)
.map_err(|err| err.to_string())
.and_then(|mut file| {
let mut contents = String::new(); // local value
file.read_to_string(&mut contents)
.map_err(|err| err.to_string())
.map(|_| contents) // moved without 'move'
})
.and_then(|contents| {
contents.trim().parse::<i32>()
.map_err(|err| err.to_string())
})
.map(|n| 2 * n)
}
fn main() {
match file_double("foobar") {
Ok(n) => println!("{}", n),
Err(err) => println!("Error: {}", err),
}
}
The value I am referring to is contents. It is created and later referenced in the map combinator applied to the std::io::Result<usize> return value of Read::read_to_string.
The question: I thought that not marking the closure with move would borrow any referenced value by default, which would result in the borrow checker complaining, that contents does not live long enough. However, this code compiles just fine. That means, the String contents is moved into, and subequently out of, the closure. Why is this done without the explicit move?
I thought that not marking the closure with move would borrow any referenced value by default,
Not quite. The compiler does a bit of inspection on the code within the closure body and tracks how the closed-over variables are used.
When the compiler sees that a method is called on a variable, then it looks to see what type the receiver is (self, &self, &mut self). When a variable is used as a parameter, the compiler also tracks if it is by value, reference, or mutable reference. Whatever the most restrictive requirement is will be what is used by default.
Occasionally, this analysis is not complete enough — even though the variable is only used as a reference, we intend for the closure to own the variable. This usually occurs when returning a closure or handing it off to another thread.
In this case, the variable is returned from the closure, which must mean that it is used by value. Thus the variable will be moved into the closure automatically.
Occasionally the move keyword is too big of a hammer as it moves all of the referenced variables in. Sometimes you may want to just force one variable to be moved in but not others. In that case, the best solution I know of is to make an explicit reference and move the reference in:
fn main() {
let a = 1;
let b = 2;
{
let b = &b;
needs_to_own_a(move || a_function(a, b));
}
}
I am trying to implement some code from parse.com and I notice a keyword in after the void.
I am stumped what is this ? The second line you see the Void in
PFUser.logInWithUsernameInBackground("myname", password:"mypass") {
(user: PFUser?, error: NSError?) -> Void in
if user != nil {
// Do stuff after successful login.
} else {
// The login failed. Check error to see why.
}
}
The docs don't document this. I know the in keyword is used in for loops.
Anyone confirm?
In a named function, we declare the parameters and return type in the func declaration line.
func say(s:String)->() {
// body
}
In an anonymous function, there is no func declaration line - it's anonymous! So we do it with an in line at the start of the body instead.
{
(s:String)->() in
// body
}
(That is the full form of an anonymous function. But then Swift has a series of rules allowing the return type, the parameter types, and even the parameter names and the whole in line to be omitted under certain circumstances.)
Closure expression syntax has the following general form:
The question of what purpose in serves has been well-answered by other users here; in summary: in is a keyword defined in the Swift closure syntax as a separator between the function type and the function body in a closure:
{ /parameters and type/ in /function body/ }
But for those who might be wondering "but why specifically the keyword in?", here's a bit of history shared by Joe Groff, Senior Swift Compiler Engineer at Apple, on the Swift forums:
It's my fault, sorry. In the early days of Swift, we had a closure
syntax that was very similar to traditional Javascript:
func (arg: -> Type, arg: Type) -> Return { ... }
While this is nice and regular syntax, it is of course also very bulky
and awkward if you're trying to support expressive functional APIs,
such as map/filter on collections, or if you want libraries to be able
to provide closure-based APIs that feel like extensions of the
language.
Our earliest adopters at Apple complained about this, and mandated
that we support Ruby-style trailing closure syntax. This is tricky to
fit into a C-style syntax like Swift's, and we tried many different
iterations, including literally Ruby's {|args| } syntax, but many of
them suffered from ambiguities or simply distaste and revolt from our
early adopters. We wanted something that still looked like other parts
of the language, but which could be parsed unambiguously and could
span the breadth of use cases from a fully explicit function signature
to extremely compact.
We had already taken in as a keyword, we couldn't use -> like Java
does because it's already used to denote the return type, and we were
concerned that using => like C# would be too visually confusing. in
made xs.map { x in f(x) } look vaguely like for x in xs { f(x) },
and people hated it less than the alternatives.
*Formatting and emphasis mine. And thanks to Nikita Belov's post on the Swift forums for helping my own understanding.