What is Ceylon's idiom for indicating that a function is not implemented? I often want to see if a design will typecheck before going through the trouble of implementing all the functions. Presumably, this means having the body throw an error, which has type Nothing and can be assigned to any function. This is also useful for sharing example code when the implementation does not matter.
It looks like some people use UnsupportedOperationException from Java like this:
Integer add(Integer a, Integer b) {throw UnsupportedOperationException();}
But that is too verbose to tack onto a bunch of class methods. I am looking for something similar to Scala's cutely named ??? as in:
def add(a: Int, b: Int): Int = ???
Actually, nothing is a built-in top-level getter you can invoke:
Integer add(Integer a, Integer b) => nothing;
It may look like an object being returned, but it actually throws a runtime exception as soon it is reached.
Related
Given the type
type T =
static member OverloadedMethod(p:int) = ()
static member OverloadedMethod(p:string) = ()
Let's suppose we want to create a generic function that resolves to the specific overload based on the type of the parameter. The most intuitive way would be
//Case 1
let inline call o = T.OverloadedMethod o //error
call 3
call "3"
but this, despite the inline definition, doesn't work and the compiler complains
Error FS0041 A unique overload for method 'OverloadedMethod' could not
be determined based on type information prior to this program point. A
type annotation may be needed. Candidates: static member
T.OverloadedMethod : p:int -> unit, static member T.OverloadedMethod :
p:string -> unit
We can achieve what we want though, for example using the "operator trick"
//Case 2
type T2 =
static member ($) (_:T2, p:int) = T.OverloadedMethod(p)
static member ($) (_:T2, p:string) = T.OverloadedMethod(p)
let inline call2 o = Unchecked.defaultof<T2> $ o
call2 3
call2 "3"
The F# compiler here does (apparently) some more work and doesn't simply fall back to the .NET resolution.
Yet, this looks ugly and implies code duplication. It sounds like Case 1 should be possible.
What technical reasons justify this behaviour? My guess is that there is some trade-off (perhaps with .NET interoperability), but couldn't find more information.
EDIT
From the posts I extract this as a reason:
"a trait call is an F# compiler feature, so there must be two different ways of writing a simple call and a trait call. Using the same syntax for both is not convenient because it might be confusing, some uses could arise where a simple call is compiled as a trait call accidentally".
Let's put the question in a different perspective:
Looking at the code, it really seems straightforward what the compiler should do:
1) call is an inline function, so defer compilation to the use site
2) call 3 is an use site, where the parameter is of type int. But T.OverloadedMethod(int) exists, so let's generate a call to it
3) call "3" like previous case with string in place of int
4) call 3.0 error as T.OverloadedMethod(float) doesn't exist
I would really like to see a code example where letting the compiler do this would be a problem that justifies requiring the developer to write the additional code for the trait call.
At the end of the day, isn't one of F# strengths "conciseness and intuitiveness"?
Here we are in presence of a case where it looks like it could be better.
The trade-offs stem from the fact that this it's a completely erased compiler trick. This means that:
C# code can't see (and take advantage of) any call2 function, it can only see your two $ method overloads.
All information about call2 is gone at runtime, meaning you couldn't invoke it through reflection, for example.
It won't show up in call stacks. This may be a good or a bad thing -- for example, in recent versions of the F# compiler, they've selectively inlined certain functions to make async stacktraces a bit nicer.
The F# is baked in at the call site. If your calling code in is assembly A call2 comes from assembly B, you can't just replace assembly B with a new version of call2; you have to recompile A against the new assembly. This could potentially be a backwards compatibility concern.
A rather interesting benefit is that it can lead to drastic performance improvements in specialized cases: Why is this F# code so slow?. On the flip side, I'm sure there are circumstances where it could cause active harm, or just bloat the resulting IL code.
The reason of that behavior is that T.OverloadedMethod o in
let inline call o = T.OverloadedMethod o
is not a trait call. It's rather simple .NET overloading that must be solved at the call site, but since your function type doesn't imply which overload to solve it simply fails to compile, this functionality is desired.
If you want to "defer" the overload resolution you need to do a trait call, making the function inline is necessary but not sufficient:
let inline call (x:'U) : unit =
let inline call (_: ^T, x: ^I) = ((^T or ^I) : (static member OverloadedMethod: _ -> _) x)
call (Unchecked.defaultof<T>, x)
Using an operator saves you many keystrokes by inferring automatically these constraints but as you can see in your question, it requires to include a dummy parameter in the overloads.
The Akka documentation is documenting dangerous variants of using Props:
// NOT RECOMMENDED within another actor:
// encourages to close over enclosing class
val props7 = Props(new MyActor)
Then carries on stating:
This method is not recommended to be used within another actor because
it encourages to close over the enclosing scope, resulting in
non-serializable Props and possibly race conditions (breaking the
actor encapsulation).
Could someone please explain the meaning of "closing over the enclosing scope"? Been looking all over and found nothing. Thanks.
It's a bit tricky to see in this example, that the new Actor is passed in as a so called "by name" parameter. Think of it as if it is turned into a function of type () => Actor. This function will be called every time the actor will be (re)created by it's supervisor during a restart.
The problem is that this function is a "closure" (very easy to Google ;)), which means it captures and remembers everything in the surrounding scope that it needs (sometimes, but very rarely referred to as "stack ripping"). E.g val f = (a: Int) => a + x. Where does the x come from? It comes from the surrounding scope. The function litetal, assigned to f is called an "open term". At runtime the function literal becomes a function value (that's a fancy way of saying "object"), which when executed closes the open term, while capturing everything in the surrounding scope. That's where the name "closure" comes from.
Closures are very very useful, but you have to be careful what you close over. Sometimes x is a def or god forbid a var, which leads to unpredictable results for f, because you don't have control over the time when f will be called/executed. Try it out!
Two very common anti paterns in Akka are/were:
Closing over (the outer) this reference when creating an Actor
from an inner class.
Closing over def sender when responding to
a message with a future.
I gave you a bunch of fancy terms to Google on purpose, btw ;)
Cheers and happy coding
As a supplement to #agilesteel's fine answer, some references:
Explains what closures are: Programming in Scala, 8.7, Closures
Explains why closures can cause serialization problems: SIP-21 - Spores
And here is a code example of creating a Props object that is not serializable because of closing over a non-serializable object, based on the example in SIP-21:
case class Helper(name: String)
object MyNonserializableObject {
val helper = Helper("the helper")
val props7 = Props(new MyActor(helper))
}
Even though helper itself is serializable, the "new MyActor(helper)" is passed by name and so captures this.helper, and this is not serializable.
You can see that the actor parameter is passed by name from the signature of the Props apply method where there is a ⇒ in the creator parameter:
def apply[T <: Actor](creator: ⇒ T)(implicit arg0: ClassTag[T]): Props
I would like to cast instances of my custom class A to int. What is the syntax of the implicit cast operator? (I thought I remembered that there is such a feature but I can't find it on the web)
int a = (new A());
You can also use as to help tell the tools "no, really, treat this object as this type".
A good example of this is when you have to deal with dart:html's querySelector() function.
FormElement form = querySelector('#sign-up') as FormElement;
In the above, the object returned by querySelector('#sign-up') is checked that it is really an instance of FormElement.
Learn more at https://www.dartlang.org/docs/dart-up-and-running/ch02.html#operators
Type annotations are not allowed to affect behavior in Dart. If you're not running in checked mode, then this:
int a = new A();
will work the same as this:
var a = new A();
at run-time. In other words, when not in checked mode, you're welcome to store your A in a variable annotated as an int, but no actual conversion takes place.
If you are running in checked mode, the first form will give you a runtime exception.
I'm not sure, but I think what you're asking for is a way to define a conversion between your class A and int that will happen automatically when "cast" to an int. No such thing exists, to my knowledge. You should simply define a method to do so. For example:
int a = new A().to_i();
If I have a function that returns a value of an unknown type, do I use dynamic, representing any object, or Object, which is the ancestor of all other types?
The style guide discusses this question for parameters, but not for return values.
How should I annotate the return value and why?
Dart engineer Bob Nystrom writes:
Return types are an interesting twist on this problem. With parameter types, the guidelines are pretty straightforward:
If you use Object as a parameter type, you're saying "my method will safely accept any object and only use it for stuff like toString() that all objects support".
If you use dynamic (or nothing) as a parameter type, you're saying "Dart's type system can't easily express the type that I accept here" or "I didn't bother to annotate".
It's tricky to flip (1) around. For a return type, I guess Object would say "You better not call anything except toString() or other stuff all objects support before doing a type test yourself", where dynamic would I think mean "we can't easily annotate this so you and I better just know what we're doing".
The user would have to "cast" it to a specific type that they expect to see to avoid compiler warning and get an error earlier in checked mode.
For what it's worth, in many cases you wouldn't have to cast even if you return Object. Dart allows implicit downcasting when you initialize a local variable with a type annotation. So you can do:
Object foo() => 123;
main() {
int x = foo(); // Implicit downcast. No type warning.
}
I think in this case, I would probably do dynamic, though. I think that conveys "I don't know what type this returns, but you should" better than Object.
Just discovered something rather funny:
var
Queue : TQueue <TProc>;
MyProc : TProc;
...
MyProc := Queue.Dequeue;
I think you see what is intendend here. However, the compiler thinks I want to store the Queue.Dequeue method (type "procedure of object") in MyProc and reports an error
E2010 Incompatible Types: 'TProc' und 'Procedure of object'
The workaround I came up with goes like this
MyProc := TProc (Pointer (Queue.Dequeue));
Is there a more elegant solution?
There's a bit of syntactical ambiguity there about whether the name "Dequeue" refers to the function itself, or the function's return value. And since you're dealing with an anonymous method pointer which you can assign a normal function to, it's trying to interpret that as a function assignment, not a function result assignment. Casting it to a pointer is the wrong solution, as that would force the function assignment to go through, which would then cause all sorts of fun errors when you attempt to invoke MyProc.
The correct way to fix it is by removing the syntactical ambiguity. Put an empty parenthesis after Dequeue, so that the compiler is sure that you're calling the function and not simply referencing it by name, and then it'll work.
MyProc := Queue.Dequeue();
As Mason said, there's an ambiguity in the Delphi syntax. Where TFoo.Bar is a method, it's not clear that FooValue.Bar means to refer to the result of calling TFoo.Bar, or a method pointer (or reference) TFoo.Bar itself (with implied Self argument of FooValue).
In the comments of Mason's answer, Rob Kennedy seems to suggest that the compiler simply figure this out based on the types of everything involved. This isn't simple; the compiler already does a lot of work to figure out whether you mean to refer to a method pointer value or a method call. It actually parses expressions in a different way when the expected receiver is a method pointer (or reference, or function pointer) type. The effort is especially involved when overloads are brought into the picture: the compiler scans through every overload candidate and checks for method pointer types in every parameter position, and then parses arguments differently depending on whether or not that parameter position contains a function pointer in one of the overloads. Then, if an overload that expects a function pointer isn't matched, the compiler changes the parse tree from function pointer to method call. The overloading mechanism itself needs to figure out which to use when its doing value to parameter comparisons. It's pretty messy, and it would be great if we didn't make it messier.
A prefix-style operator like # or Addr() isn't much help in resolving this ambiguity, not least because functions may return function pointers, and so on; how many # do you need to inhibit implicit (no () necessary) calling to grab the right value out? So when anonymous methods were introduced, a change in the expression parsing was made: I introduced the possibility of using () to force an invocation.
You can read more about it here:
http://blog.barrkel.com/2008/03/odd-corner-of-delphi-procedural.html
and here:
http://blog.barrkel.com/2008/03/procedurally-typed-expressions-redux.html