Consider the following piece of code:
class Person {
String id;
String name;
ConnectionFactory connectionFactory;
// What is this constructor doing?
Person({this.connectionFactory: _newDBConnection});
}
If you precede a constructor's argument with this, the corresponding field will be automatically initialized, but why {...}?
This makes the argument a named optional argument.
When you instantiate a Person you can
Person p;
p = new Person(); // default is _newDbConnection
p = new Person(connectionFactory: aConnectionFactoryInstance);
without {} the argument would be mandatory
with [] the argument would be an optional positional argument
// Constructor with positional optional argument
Person([this.connectionFactory = _newDBconnection]);
...
Person p;
p = new Person(); // same as above
p = new Person(aConnectionFactoryInstance); // you don't specify the parameter name
Named optional parameters are very convenient for boolean arguments (but of course for other cases too).
p = new Person(isAlive: true, isAdult: false, hasCar: false);
There is a specific order in which these argument types can be used:
mandatory (positional) arguments (only positional arguments can be mandatory)
optional positional arguments
(optional) named arguments (named arguments are always optional)
Note that positional and named optional arguments use a different delimiter for the default value.
The named requires : but the positional requires =. The language designers argue that the colon fits better with the Map literal syntax (I would at least have used the same delimiter for both).
= is supported as delimiter since Dart 2 and preferred according to the style guide while : is still supporzed.
See also:
What is the difference between named and optional parameters in Dart?
Functions Are Fun, Pt 1 - Dart Tips, Ep 6
Chapter 2. A Tour of the Dart Language - Functions
Chapter 2. A Tour of the Dart Language - Constructors
Dart functions allow positional parameters, named parameters, and optional positional and named parameters, or a combination of all of them.
Positional parameters are simply without decoration:
void debugger(String message, int lineNum) {
// ...
}
Named parameters means that when you call a function, you attach the argument to a label. This example calls a function with two named parameters:
debugger(message: 'A bug!', lineNum: 44);
Named parameters are written a bit differently. You wrap any named parameters in curly braces ({ }). This line defines a function with named parameters:
void debugger({String message, int lineNum}) {
Named parameters, by default, are optional. But you can annotate them and make them required:
Widget build({#required Widget child}) {
//...
}
Finally, you can pass positional parameters that are optional, using [ ]:
int addSomeNums(int x, int y, [int z]) {
int sum = x + y;
if (z != null) {
sum += z;
}
return sum;
}
You call that function like this:
addSomeNums(5, 4)
addSomeNums(5, 4, 3)
You can define default values for parameters with the = operator in the function signature, and the function can be simplified as below:
addSomeNums(int x, int y, [int z = 5]) => x + y + z;
the this. connectionFactory in
Person({this.connectionFactory: _newDBConnection});
is called Automatic Class Member Variable Initialization. See this example
Related
Consider the following Dart code:
class Vec2 {
num x, y;
Vec2(this.x, this.y);
Vec2 operator*(num rhs) => Vec2(x * rhs, y * rhs);
String toString() => "<$x, $y>";
}
void main() => print(Vec2(1, 2) * 3);
The output is as expected:
<3, 6>
However, this only works when the left-hand side of the expression is a Vec2 and the right-hand side is a num. In this case, I want the multiplication operator to be commutative, so I write the following extension:
extension Vec2Util on num {
Vec2 operator*(Vec2 rhs) => Vec2(rhs.x * this, rhs.y * this);
}
One might naturally expect the following code to produce identical output to the first snippet:
void main() {
num x = 3;
print("${x * Vec2(1, 2)}");
}
However, the compiler is instead reporting that The argument type 'Vec2' can't be assigned to the parameter type 'num'. It looks as though the compiler is resolving the multiplication to num operator*(num rhs) in this case and then complaining that my Vec2 can't be passed in as a num operand. Why does the compiler apparently disregard my extension? What is the correct way to create custom commutative operators like this?
You cannot do what you want.
Dart user-definable binary operators are all methods on the first operand. Doing e1 + e2 is kind-of like doing e1.+(e2) where + is the name of the method, except you can't normally call a method +.
In order to be able to do 3 * vector, you need the method to be on 3.
You can't add methods to other people's classes, not without fiddling with their source code, and int is a system class so even that is not possible.
You cannot use extension methods because extension methods do not apply when the receiver type already has an instance method with the same name.
And int defines all the operators.
(It's like, and definitely not coincidentally, that the user-definable operators were chosen from exactly what int needs. That's not new in Dart, the operators go back to C and Java.)
So, you can define an extension method on int, but you can't call it anyway, not without an override:
extension MyInt on int {
Vector operator *(Vector other) => other.scalerMultiplication(this);
}
... MyInt(3) * vector ...
That's more complication than just swapping the operands.
class X extends Y {
X(int a, int b) : super(a,b);
}
Can someone give me an explanation about the syntax meaning of the colon :?
This feature in Dart is called "initializer list".
It allows you to initialize fields of your class, make assertions and call the super constructor.
This means that it is not the same as the constructor body. As I said, you can only initialize variables and only access static members. You cannot call any (non-static) methods.
The benefit is that you can also initialize final variables, which you cannot do in the constructor body. You also have access to all parameters that are passed to the constructor, which you do not have when initializing the parameters directly in the parentheses.
Additionally, you can use class fields on the left-hand of an assignment with the same name as a parameter on the right-hand side that refers to a parameter. Dart will automatically use the class field on the left-hand side.
Here is an example:
class X {
final int number;
X(number) : number = number ?? 0;
}
The code above assigns the parameter named number to the final field this.number if it is non-null and otherwise it assigns 0. This means that the left-hand number of the assignment actually refers to this.number. Now, you can even make an assertion that will never fail (and is redundant because of that, but I want to explain how everything works together):
class X {
final int number;
X(number): number = number ?? 0, assert(number != null);
}
Learn more.
It's ok to access non static member in initializer list.
class Point {
num x, y;
Point(this.x, this.y);
Point.origin(): this.x = 10, this.y = 10;
}
main() {
Point p = Point.origin();
print(p.x); // 10
}
i`m learning the flutter, but i do not understand those letters meaning.
map<T>(T f(E e)) → Iterable<T>
Returns a new lazy Iterable with elements that are created by
calling f on each element of this Iterable in iteration order. [...]
so,what do they stand for?
T:
f:
E:
e:
→:
Iterable.map<T>:
map<T>(T f(E e)) → Iterable<T>
Returns a new lazy Iterable with elements that are created by calling
f on each element of this Iterable in iteration order. [...]
T is a language Type in this case the Type of the items of the iterable and is also the type that function f must return.
→ tells you the return type of the whole function (map) in this case an Iterable of T
f is the function applied to the Element e that is passed as the parameter to the function so that the function could do some operation with this current value and then return a new value of type T based on the value of the element e.
If you navigate the Iterable map function definition you will see that:
Iterable<T> map <T>(
T f(
E e
)
)
So I wanna sharpen my answer starting with the exact map<T> function of the OP and then swich to a more complex example.
Just to clarify all these let's take a concrete class of the Iterable class, the Set class choosing a Set of type String in such a scenario:
Set<String> mySet = Set();
for (int i=0; i++<5;) {
mySet.add(i.toString());
}
var myNewSet = mySet.map((currentValue) => (return "new" + currentValue));
for (var newValue in myNewSet) {
debugPrint(newValue);
}
Here I've got a Set of String Set<String> and I want another Set of String Set<String> so that the value is the same value of the original map, but sorrounded with a prefix of "new:". And for that we could easily use the map<T> along with the closure it wants as paraemters.
The function passed as closure is
(currentValue) => ("new:" + currentValue)
And if we want we could write it also like that:
(currentValue) {
return "new:" + currentValue;
}
or even pass a function like that:
String modifySetElement(String currentValue) {
return "new:" + currentValue;
}
var myNewSet = mySet.map((value) => ("new:" + value));
var myNewSet = mySet.map((value) {return "new:" + value;});
var myNewSet = mySet.map((value) => modifySetElement("new:" + value));
And this means that the parameter of the function (closure) is the String value of the element E of the Set we're modifying.
We don't even have to specify the type because its inferred by method definition, that's one of the power of generics.
The function (closure) will be applied to all the Set's elements once at a time, but you write it once as a closure.
So summarising:
T is String
E is the element we are dealing with inside of the function
f is our closure
Let's go deeper with a more complex example. We'll now deal with the Dart Map class.
Its map function is define like that:
map<K2, V2>(MapEntry<K2, V2> f(K key, V value)) → Map<K2, V2>
So in this case the previous first and third T is (K2, V2) and the return type of the function f (closure), that takes as element E parameter the pair K and V (that are the key and value of the current MapEntry element of the iteration), is a type of MapEntry<K2, V2> and is the previous second T.
The whole function then return a new Map<K2, V2>
The following is an actual example with Map:
Map<int, String> myMap = Map();
for (int i=0; i++<5;) {
myMap[i] = i.toString();
}
var myNewMap = myMap.map((key, value) => (MapEntry(key, "new:" + value)));
for (var mapNewEntry in myNewMap.entries) {
debugPrint(mapNewEntry.value);
}
In this example I've got a Map<int, String> and I want another Map<int, String> so that (like before) the value is the same value of the original map, but sorrounded with a prefix of "new:".
Again you could write the closure (your f function) also in this way (maybe it highlights better the fact that it's a fanction that create a brand new MapEntry based on the current map entry value).
var myNewMap = myMap.map((key, value) {
String newString = "new:" + value;
return MapEntry(key, newString);
});
All these symbols are called Generics because they are generic placeholder that correspond to a type or another based on the context you are using them.
That's an extract from the above link:
Using generic methods
Initially, Dart’s generic support was limited to classes. A newer syntax, called generic methods, allows
type arguments on methods and functions:
T first<T>(List<T> ts) {
// Do some initial work or error checking, then...
T tmp = ts[0];
// Do some additional checking or processing...
return tmp;
}
Here the generic type parameter on first () allows you to use the
type argument T in several places:
In the function’s return type (T). In the type of an argument
(List<T>). In the type of a local variable (T tmp).
Follow this link for Generics name conventions.
Does Rascal support function pointers or something like this to do this like Java Interfaces?
Essentially I want to extract specific (changing) logic from a common logic block as separate functions. The to be used function is passed to the common block, which then call this function. In C we can do this with function pointers or with Interfaces in Java.
First I want to know how this general concept is called in the language design world.
I checked the Rascal Function Helppage, but this provide no clarification on this aspect.
So e.g. I have:
int getValue(str input) {
.... }
int getValue2(str input){
... }
Now I want to say:
WhatDatatype? func = getValue2; // how to do this?
Now I can pass this to an another function and then:
int val = invoke_function(func,"Hello"); // how to invoke?, and pass parameters and get ret value
Tx,
Jos
This page in the tutor has an example of using higher-order functions, which are the Rascal feature closest to function pointers:
http://tutor.rascal-mpl.org/Rascal/Rascal.html#/Rascal/Concepts/Functions/Functions.html
You can define anonymous (unnamed) functions, called closures in Java; assign them to variables; pass them as arguments to functions (higher-order functions); etc. Here is an example:
rascal>myfun = int(int x) { return x + 1; };
int (int): int (int);
rascal>myfun;
int (int): int (int);
rascal>myfun(3);
int: 4
rascal>int applyIntFun(int(int) f, int x) { return f(x); }
int (int (int), int): int applyIntFun(int (int), int);
rascal>applyIntFun(myfun,10);
int: 11
The first command defines an increment function, int(int x) { return x + 1; }, and assigns this to variable myfun. The rest of the code would work the same if instead this was
int myfun(int x) { return x + 1; }
The second command just shows the type, which is a function that takes and returns int. The third command calls the function with value 3, returning 4. The fourth command then shows a function which takes a function as a parameter. This function parameter, f, will then be called with argument x. The final command just shows an example of using it.
I know virtually nothing about F#. I don’t even know the syntax, so I can’t give examples.
It was mentioned in a comment thread that F# can declare functions that can take parameters of multiple possible types, for example a string or an integer. This would be similar to method overloads in C#:
public void Method(string str) { /* ... */ }
public void Method(int integer) { /* ... */ }
However, in CIL you cannot declare a delegate of this form. Each delegate must have a single, specific list of parameter types. Since functions in F# are first-class citizens, however, it would seem that you should be able to pass such a function around, and the only way to compile that into CIL is to use delegates.
So how does F# compile this into CIL?
This question is a little ambiguous, so I'll just ramble about what's true of F#.
In F#, methods can be overloaded, just like C#. Methods are always accessed by a qualified name of the form someObj.MethodName or someType.MethodName. There must be context which can statically resolve the overload at compile-time, just as in C#. Examples:
type T() =
member this.M(x:int) = ()
member this.M(x:string) = ()
let t = new T()
// these are all ok, just like C#
t.M(3)
t.M("foo")
let f : int -> unit = t.M
let g : string-> unit = t.M
// this fails, just like C#
let h = t.M // A unique overload for method 'M' could not be determined
// based on type information prior to this program point.
In F#, let-bound function values cannot be overloaded. So:
let foo(x:int) = ()
let foo(x:string) = () // Duplicate definition of value 'foo'
This means you can never have an "unqualified" identifier foo that has overloaded meaning. Each such name has a single unambiguous type.
Finally, the crazy case which is probably the one that prompts the question. F# can define inline functions which have "static member constraints" which can be bound to e.g. "all types T that have a member property named Bar" or whatnot. This kind of genericity cannot be encoded into CIL. Which is why the functions that leverage this feature must be inline, so that at each call site, the code specific-to-the-type-used-at-that-callsite is generated inline.
let inline crazy(x) = x.Qux(3) // elided: type syntax to constrain x to
// require a Qux member that can take an int
// suppose unrelated types U and V have such a Qux method
let u = new U()
crazy(u) // is expanded here into "u.Qux(3)" and then compiled
let v = new V()
crazy(v) // is expanded here into "v.Qux(3)" and then compiled
So this stuff is all handled by the compiler, and by the time we need to generate code, once again, we've statically resolved which specific type we're using at this callsite. The "type" of crazy is not a type that can be expressed in CIL, the F# type system just checks each callsite to ensure the necessary conditions are met and inlines the code into that callsite, a lot like how C++ templates work.
(The main purpose/justification for the crazy stuff is for overloaded math operators. Without the inline feature, the + operator, for instance, being a let-bound function type, could either "only work on ints" or "only work on floats" or whatnot. Some ML flavors (F# is a relative of OCaml) do exactly that, where e.g. the + operator only works on ints, and a separate operator, usually named +., works on floats. Whereas in F#, + is an inline function defined in the F# library that works on any type with a + operator member or any of the primitive numeric types. Inlining can also have some potential run-time performance benefits, which is also appealing for some math-y/computational domains.)
When you're writing C# and you need a function that can take multiple different parameter sets, you just create method overloads:
string f(int x)
{
return "int " + x;
}
string f(string x)
{
return "string " + x;
}
void callF()
{
Console.WriteLine(f(12));
Console.WriteLine(f("12"));
}
// there's no way to write a function like this:
void call(Func<int|string, string> func)
{
Console.WriteLine(func(12));
Console.WriteLine(func("12"));
}
The callF function is trivial, but my made-up syntax for the call function doesn't work.
When you're writing F# and you need a function that can take multiple different parameter sets, you create a discriminated union that can contain all the different parameter sets and you make a single function that takes that union:
type Either = Int of int
| String of string
let f = function Int x -> "int " + string x
| String x -> "string " + x
let callF =
printfn "%s" (f (Int 12))
printfn "%s" (f (String "12"))
let call func =
printfn "%s" (func (Int 12))
printfn "%s" (func (String "12"))
Being a single function, f can be used like any other value, so in F# we can write callF and call f, and both do the same thing.
So how does F# implement the Either type I created above? Essentially like this:
public abstract class Either
{
public class Int : Test.Either
{
internal readonly int item;
internal Int(int item);
public int Item { get; }
}
public class String : Test.Either
{
internal readonly string item;
internal String(string item);
public string Item { get; }
}
}
The signature of the call function is:
public static void call(FSharpFunc<Either, string> f);
And f looks something like this:
public static string f(Either _arg1)
{
if (_arg1 is Either.Int)
return "int " + ((Either.Int)_arg1).Item;
return "string " + ((Either.String)_arg1).Item;
}
Of course you could implement the same Either type in C# (duh!), but it's not idiomatic, which is why it wasn't the obvious answer to the previous question.
Assuming I understand the question, in F# you can define expressions which depend on the availability of members with particular signatures. For instance
let inline f x a = (^t : (member Method : ^a -> unit)(x,a))
This defines a function f which takes a value x of type ^t and a value a of type ^a where ^t has a method Method taking an ^a to unit (void in C#), and which calls that method. Because this function is defined as inline, the definition is inlined at the point of use, which is the only reason that it can be given such a type. Thus, although you can pass f as a first class function, you can only do so when the types ^t and ^a are statically known so that the method call can be statically resolved and inserted in place (and this is why the type parameters have the funny ^ sigil instead of the normal ' sigil).
Here's an example of passing f as a first-class function:
type T() =
member x.Method(i) = printfn "Method called with int: %i" i
List.iter (f (new T())) [1; 2; 3]
This runs the method Method against the three values in the list. Because f is inlined, this is basically equivalent to
List.iter ((fun (x:T) a -> x.Method(a)) (new T())) [1; 2; 3]
EDIT
Given the context that seems to have led to this question (C# - How can I “overload” a delegate?), I appear not to have addressed your real question at all. Instead, what Gabe appears to be talking about is the ease with which one can define and use discriminated unions. So the question posed on that other thread might be answered like this using F#:
type FunctionType =
| NoArgument of (unit -> unit)
| ArrayArgument of (obj[] -> unit)
let doNothing (arr:obj[]) = ()
let doSomething () = printfn "'doSomething' was called"
let mutable someFunction = ArrayArgument doNothing
someFunction <- NoArgument doSomething
//now call someFunction, regardless of what type of argument it's supposed to take
match someFunction with
| NoArgument f -> f()
| ArrayArgument f -> f [| |] // pass in empty array
At a low level, there's no CIL magic going on here; it's just that NoArgument and ArrayArgument are subclasses of FunctionType which are easy to construct and to deconstruct via pattern matching. The branches of the pattern matching expression are morally equivalent to a type test followed by property accesses, but the compiler makes sure that the cases have 100% coverage and don't overlap. You could encode the exact same operations in C# without any problem, but it would be much more verbose and the compiler wouldn't help you out with exhaustiveness checking, etc.
Also, there is nothing here which is particular to functions; F# discriminated unions make it easy to define types which have a fixed number of named alternatives, each one of which can have data of whatever type you'd like.
I'm not quite sure that understand your question correctly... F# compiler uses FSharpFunc type to represent functions. Usually in F# code you don't deal with this type directly, using fancy syntactic representation instead, but if you expose any members that returns or accepts function and use them from another language, line C# - you will see it.
So instead of using delegates - F# utilizes its special type with concrete or generic parameters.
If your question was about things like add something-i-don't-know-what-exactly-but-it-has-addition-operator then you need to use inline keyword and compiler will emit function body in the call site. #kvb's answer was describing exactly this case.