I ran into this today, and I was wondering if something is going wrong here.
module example
public rel[str file, AstNode namespace] relFileNamespace;
public void InitGlobals()
{
relFileNamespace = {};
}
Then in the console:
rascal>import example;
ok
rascal>InitGlobals();
ok
rascal>relFileNamespace
|stdin:///|(0,13,<1,0>,<1,13>): Undeclared variable, function or constructor: relFileNamespace
If I declare it like this it does work.
public rel[str file, AstNode namespace] relFileNamespace = {};
So the question is, why does it have to be initialized in the declaration?
Rascal does not allow uninitialized variables at all, but it should complain about "uninitialized" in that case, not "undeclared"
It is not finding your variable. Could you try adding "example::" before dereferencing?
Related
I have a matcher that works perfectly for matching operator() calls on instances of a class or classes derived from that class. For example, it matches the final line of:
class MyBase { void operator()(...) {} };
MyBase b;
b(parameters);
using a matcher like:
const auto MyBaseExpr =
expr(hasType(cxxRecordDecl(isSameOrDerivedFrom("::MyBase"))));
Finder->addMatcher(traverse(
TK_AsIs, cxxOperatorCallExpr(
hasOverloadedOperatorName("()"),
hasArgument(0, anyOf(MyBaseExpr, MyOtherBaseExpr)),
hasAnyArgument(...),
this);
But I'd also like to be able to match such calls on instances of typedefs for the base or derived types like in the last line below:
typedef MyBase MyTypedef;
MyTypedef t;
t(parameters);
and I can't seem to fathom the correct way to specify this match. Attempting to use hasUnqualifiedDesugaredType rather than hasType doesn't work since it works on a type rather than a Decl and if I try to do more matching with the type then I can't use isSameOrDerived which returns a Matcher<CXXRecordDecl>. A similar problem occurs when trying to use hasCanonicalType:
.../RedundantStringCStrCheck.cpp:193:40: error: invalid initialization of reference of type ‘const clang::ast_matchers:
:internal::Matcher<clang::QualType>&’ from expression of type ‘clang::ast_matchers::internal::BindableMatcher<clang::Decl>’
193 | expr(hasCanonicalType(cxxRecordDecl(isSameOrDerivedFrom("::MyBase"))));
MyTypedef is defined from MyBase so its Canonical Type should be MyBase. More information about canonical type: https://clang.llvm.org/docs/InternalsManual.html#canonical-types
This is the example from LibASTMatchersReference , it uses hasType().
Thien Tran provided the pointer which led me to the right answer. Here's my original expression
const auto MyBaseExpr =
expr(hasType(cxxRecordDecl(isSameOrDerivedFrom("::MyBase"))));
I was trying to use:
const auto MyBaseExpr =
expr(hasCanonicalType(cxxRecordDecl(isSameOrDerivedFrom("::MyBase"))));
but the description of hasCanonicalType in LibASTMatchersReference shows that it takes and returns Matcher<QualType> yet cxxRecordDecl has type Matcher<Decl>, so this did not compile.
The mismatch of types can be corrected by inserting a call to hasDeclaration. It's then also necessary to keep the call to hasType in order to turn the Matcher<QualType> result of hasCanonicalType back into something that can be passed to expr.
After all that I ended up with:
const auto MyBaseExpr =
expr(hasType(hasCanonicalType(hasDeclaration(cxxRecordDecl(isSameOrDerivedFrom("::MyBase"))))));
which seems to work perfectly.
Coming back to C++ after a hiatus in Java. Attempting to create an immutable object and after working in Java, a public const variable seems the most sensible (like Java final).
public:
const int A;
All well and good, but if I want to defensive check this value, how might I go about it. The code below seems strange to me, but unlike Java final members, I can't seem to set A in the constructor after defensive checks (compiler error).
MyObj::MyObj(int a) : A(a) {
if (a < 0)
throw invalid_argument("must be positive");
}
A public const variable for A seems like a clearer, cleaner solution than a getter only with a non const int behind it, but open to that or other ideas if this is bad practice.
Your example as it stands should work fine:
class MyObj {
public:
const int var;
MyObj(int var) : var(var) {
if (var < 0)
throw std::invalid_argument("must be positive");
}
};
(Live example, or with out-of-line constructor)
If you intend that MyObj will always be immutable, then a const member is
probably fine. If you want the variable to be immutable in general, but still have the possibility to overwrite the entire object with an assignment, then better to have a private variable with a getter:
class MyObj {
int var;
public:
MyObj(int var) : var(var) {
if (var < 0)
throw std::invalid_argument("must be positive");
}
int getVar() const { return var; }
};
// now allows
MyObj a(5);
MyObj b(10);
a = b;
Edit
Apparently, what you want to do is something like
MyObj(int var) {
if (var < 0)
throw std::invalid_argument("must be positive");
this->var = var;
}
This is not possible; once a const variable has a value it cannot be changed. Once the body ({} bit) of the constructor starts, const variables already have a value, though in this case the value is "undefined" since you're not setting it (and the compiler is throwing an error because of it).
Moreover, there's actually no point to this. There is no efficiency difference in setting the variable after the checks or before them, and it's not like any external observers will be able to see the difference regardless since the throw statement will unroll the stack, deconstructing the object straight away.
Generally the answer by N. Shead is the regular practice - but you can also consider:
Create domain-specific types and use them instead of general primitives. E.g., if your field is a telephone number, have a type TelephoneNumber which, in its constructor (or factory), taking a string, does all the telephone number validation you'd like (and throws on invalid). Then you write something like:
class Contact {
const TelephoneNumber phone_;
public:
Contact(string phone) : phone_(phone) { ... }
...
When you do this the constructor for TelephoneNumber taking a string argument will be called when initializing the field phone_ and the validation will happen.
Using domain-specific types this way is discussed on the web under the name "primitive obsession" as a "code smell".
(The problem with this approach IMO is that you pretty much have to use it everywhere, and from the start of your project, otherwise you start having to have explicit (or implicit) casting all over the place and your code looks like crap and you can never be sure if the value you have has been validated or not. If you're working with an existing codebase it is nearly impossible to retrofit it completely though you might just start using it for particularly important/ubiquitous types.)
Create validation methods that take and return some value, and which perform the validation necessary - throwing when invalid otherwise returning its argument. Here's an example validator:
string ValidatePhoneNumber(string v) {
<some kind of validation throwing on invalid...>
return v;
}
And use it as follows:
class Contact {
const string phone_;
public:
Contact(string phone) : phone_(ValidatePhoneNumber(phone)) { ... }
I've seen this used when an application or library is doing so much validation of domain-specific types that a small library of these domain-specific validator methods has been built up and code readers are used to them. I wouldn't really consider it idiomatic, but it does have the advantage that the validation is right out there in the open where you can see it.
Should I get the following error:
class.dart:11:11: Error: The getter '_privateID' isn't defined for the class 'Y'.
- 'Y' is from 'class.dart'.
Try correcting the name to the name of an existing getter, or defining a getter or field named '_privateID'.
From the following code?
mixin.dart:
class Mixin {
static int _nextID = 0;
int publicID = _nextID++; // I only need one of these lines
int _privateID = _nextID++; // but this variable is inaccessible
}
class.dart:
import 'mixin.dart';
class X with Mixin {
void run() {
print(publicID); // no error here
}
}
class Y with Mixin {
void run() {
print(_privateID); // Error: _privateID not defined
}
}
void main() {
Y().run();
}
Or is this a bug? If it's not a bug, I'd like to understand why this behavior is reasonable.
When I instead define the mixin in the same file as the above classes, I get no error.
(Dart SDK 2.4.1.)
It is not a bug.
The private field is inherited, but you cannot access it because its name is private to a different library.
Dart's notion of "privacy" is library private names.
The name _privateID in the mixin.dart library introduces a library private name. This name is special in that it can only be written inside the same library.
If someone writes _privateID in a different library, it is a different name, one unique to that library instead.
It is as if private names includes the library URI of the library it is written in, so what you really declare is a name _privateID#mixin.dart.
When you try to read that field in class.dart, you write ._privateID, but because it is in a different library, what you really write is ._privateID#class.dart, a completely different name, and the classs does not have any declarations with that name.
So, if one class needs to access a private member of another class (or mixin, or anything), then the two needs to be declared in the same library, because otherwise they cannot even write the name of that variable.
That is why the code works if you write the mixin in the same library.
If you want to move the mixin to a separate file, but not necessarily a separate library, you can use a part file.
This question already has answers here:
PHP Error : Fatal error: Constant expression contains invalid operations
(5 answers)
Closed 4 years ago.
I have the following code, where I get the error "PHP Fatal Error: Constant expression contains invalid operations". It works fine when I define the variable in the constructor. I am using Laravel framework.
<?php
namespace App;
class Amazon
{
protected $serviceURL = config('api.amazon.service_url');
public function __construct()
{
}
}
I have seen this question: PHP Error : Fatal error: Constant expression contains invalid operations
But my code does not declare anything as static, so that did not answer my question.
As described here
Class member variables are called "properties". You may also see them referred to using other terms such as "attributes" or "fields", but for the purposes of this reference we will use "properties". They are defined by using one of the keywords public, protected, or private, followed by a normal variable declaration. This declaration may include an initialization, but this initialization must be a constant value--that is, it must be able to be evaluated at compile time and must not depend on run-time information in order to be evaluated.
The only way you can make this work is :-
<?php
namespace App;
class Amazon
{
protected $serviceURL;
public function __construct()
{
$this->serviceURL = config('api.amazon.service_url');
}
}
Initializing class properties is not allowed this way. You must move the initialization into the constructor.
Another working alternative I used is with boot( ) with Laravel Eloquent:
<?php
namespace App;
class Amazon {
protected $serviceURL;
protected static function boot()
{
parent::boot();
static::creating(function ($model){
$model->serviceURL = config('api.amazon.service_url');
});
} }
Hello i want to create a new class variable that is a pointer and initialize it by copy constructor. Though I know how copy constructor works by refernce, i cannot figure out how to do it. Can you help me?
For example I have this definition:
class A{
public:
int a;
private:
};
and in another code segment i do the following:
A *object= new A;
A->a=10;
A *newobject= new A(*object);
but i get a segmentation fault. Can you help me?
I also tried:
A *newobject= new A(&(*object));
but it doesn't work either.
These lines in your example shouldn't even compile:
A *object= new A;
A.a=10;
What you mean is
Foo *object = new Foo;
object->a = 10;
Right?
Edited to add:
What happens when you try the code posted by #Alok Save?
With this kind of simple example, the following which uses the default bit wise copy constructor works fine.
The simple class looks like
class Bclass {
public:
int iValue;
};
And the code to use the copy constructor looks like:
Bclass *pObject = new Bclass;
pObject->iValue = 10;
Bclass *pObject2 = new Bclass (*pObject);
Using Microsoft Visual Studio 2005, the above works fine.
See also Implementing a Copy Constructor.
See also Copy constructor for pointers to objects.
Since the class name is Foo and not A, a Foo object should be created.
class Foo{
public:
int a;
private:
};
Foo *object= new Foo;
object->a=10;
Now since object is a pointer to class Foo, the -> operator should be used.