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();
Related
I need to implement an abstract class function, which own a an specific data type. But I need inside my logic layer to make the attribute which is going to be passed as a dynamic data type. But when i Pass it to the function, i am sure that its data type will be as needed. So, i type (product.value.pickedImages) as ListOf5) . But it does an Exception.
The Abstract Class Code Is:
Future<Either<FireStoreServerFailures, List<String>>> uploadProductImages(
{required ListOf5<File> images});
The Implementation Code Is:
Future<Option<List<String>>> _uploadImagesToFirestorage() async {
return await productRepo
.uploadProductImages(
images: (product.value.pickedImages) as ListOf5<File>) // Exception
}
The Exception Is:
The argument type 'ListOf5 < dynamic>' can't be assigned to the
parameter type 'ListOf5 < File>'.
You are trying to cast the List from List<dynamic> to List<String>.
Instead, you should cast each item, using something like this:
void main() {
List<dynamic> a = ['qwerty'];
print(List<String>.from(a));
}
Not sure about the implementation of this ListOf5 though...
The cast (product.value.pickedImages) as ListOf5<File> fails.
It fails because product.value.pickedImages is-not-a ListOf5<File>, but instead of ListOf5<dynamic> (which may or may not currently contain only File objects, but that's not what's being checked).
Unlike a language like Java, Dart retains the type arguments at run-time(it doesn't do "erasure"), so a ListOf5<dynamic> which contains only File objects is really different from a ListOf5<File> at run-time.
You need to convert the ListOf5<dynamic> to a ListOf5<File>.
How to do that depends on the type ListOf5, which I don't know.
For a normal List, the two most common options are:
(product.value.pickedImages).cast<File>(). Wraps the existing list and checks on each read that you really do read a File. It throws if you ever read a non-File from the original list. Perfectly fine if you'll only read the list once.
List<File>.of(product.value.pickedImages). Creates a new List<File> containing the values of product.value.pickedImages, and throws if any of the values are not File objects. Requires more memory (because it copies the list), but fails early in case there is a problem, and for small lists, the overhead is unlikely to be significant. If you read the resulting list many times, it'll probably be more efficient overall.
If the ListOf5 class provides similar options, you can use those. If not, you might have to build a new ListOf5 manually, casting each element of the existing ListOf5<dynamic> yourself.
(If the ListOf5 class is your own, you can choose to add such functionality to the class).
I'm trying to do something that would be a basic feature in any other Object Oriented Language but for some reasons in Dart, I can't manage to do it. I'm new to Dart so this question might be dumb, but I couldn't find any answer online.
I have a property that need to be calculated once and on the constructor. This is my code so far :
class Game {
String _wordChosen;
Game() {
final _random = Random();
_wordChosen = WORDS[_random.nextInt(WORDS.length)];
}
}
WORDS is a list defined outside the class. My error is on the Game constructor :
not_initialized_non_nullable_instance_field.
I don't want to set the _wordChosen variable to a default value as that would make no sense (it would be overwritten right when the constructor is run).
I also don't want to set the property as nullable as again, it would make no sense.
i think the answer is using the keyword late to make compiler know that you will initialize the variable before using it but not now like below
late String _wordChosen;
i think this is your solution and it in null safety documents here
i hope this answer helps you
I started learning Dart and was reading a critique of some of it's design choices here: https://medium.com/#krossovochkin/dart-language-bad-design-choices-6e35987dc693
The last point that is made is about the poor type system and the author cited this code snippet which prints null:
void main() {
String s = null;
if (s is String) {
print("string");
} else if (s is Null) {
print("null");
} else {
print ("none");
}
}
The is keyword was new to me but "The Dart Programming Language" by Gilad pointed out that is checks the interface implemented by an object's class and not the actual class of an object.
However this didn't help me much because I would think that the variable s is an instance of String and therefore implements String, but the evidence is to the contrary.
I get that the class is not required when defining objects/variables in Dart, and thus I started to wonder if putting the class in the definition just serves as sugar and has little functional purpose. But instead the class of an object/variable is completely determined by its value, and since the default value for all variables in Dart is null, then it would make sense that String is not implemented, but Null is. Is this the case? Am I way of base? Maybe someone could help me wrap my head around this.
The reason is that is checks the interface of the current object itself and not the reference to this object. So yes, s can point to a String object but also allowed to point to null which are a instance of Null: https://api.dart.dev/stable/2.7.2/dart-core/Null-class.html
Since Null does not implement the String interface, this will return false (null is String). This is also mentioned in the article.
The problem the article are trying to focus on are more the fact you are allowed to set the String variable to null value but Null does not implement String.
Well, in the future, this problem are going to be fixed with non-nullable types which are in development right now. When this is implemented you can actually define variables where you can be sure the value will never be null.
So I continued my Dart reading and I came to a better understanding, and that is that Dart is truly optionally typed and that means 2 things:
Type are syntactically optional.
Type has no impact on runtime semantics.
Therefore the actual type annotation of a variable in Dart only serves documentation purposes and it cannot be assumed that a type annotation is true. The actual type of a variable is wholly determined by the value stored at this variable, and in this case it is null.
In truth the variable that I defined in my example is not a String variable or an implementer of the String interface. It is just annotated that it may be/should be/most likely is a string.
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.
I'm new to Dart, so maybe I'm missing something here:
This works:
In my main(), I have this:
var a = _someFunction;
var b = _someFunction;
print("${a == b}"); // true. correct!
Where _someFunction is another top-level function.
This does NOT work: (at least not how I'm expecting it to)
Given this class...
class Dummy {
void start() {
var a = _onEvent;
var b = _onEvent;
print(a == b); // false. ???????
}
void _onEvent() {
}
}
Instantiating it from main() and calling its start() method results in false. Apparently a new instance of some function or closure object is created and returned whenever my code obtains a reference to _onEvent.
Is this intentional behaviour?
I would expect that obtaining multiple references to the same method of the same instance returns the same object each time. Perhaps this is intended for some reason. If so; what reason? Or is this a bug/oversight/limitation of VM perhaps?
Thanks for any insights!
Currently, the behaviour seems to be intentional, but the following defect is open since May 2012: https://code.google.com/p/dart/issues/detail?id=144
If I were to guess, I'd say that setting "var a = _onEvent;" creates a bound method, which is some sort of object that contains both the function as well as this. You are asking for bound methods to be canonicalized. However, that would require the team to create a map of them, which could lead to worries about memory leaks.
I think they made "var a = _someFunction;" work early on because they needed static functions to be constants so that they could be assigned to consts. This was so that they could write things like:
const logger = someStaticLoggingFunction;
This was in the days before statics were lazily evaluated.
In any case, I would say that comparing closures for equality is a edge case for most languages. Take all of the above with a grain of salt. It's just my best guess based on my knowledge of the system. As far as I can tell, the language spec doesn't say anything about this.
Actually, now that I've read (https://code.google.com/p/dart/issues/detail?id=144), the discussion is actually pretty good. What I wrote above roughly matches it.