consider this code
type
TMyObject=class
private
FName: Integer;
function Name: Integer;
public
property Name : Integer read FName;
function Name(Param1 : integer) : Integer; overload;
end;
Is possible in delphi create a property and a function (or procedure) with the same name?
Exist any directive or compiler switch which allow create a class like that?
No, it is not. In addition, there is no directive or compiler switch that would allow this.
The answer is in the error message that you got when you tried this...you did try it right?
Since i see the overload keyword. I suspect that perhaps what you need default are parameters
If you use
function Name(Param1: Integer = SOME_VALUE): Integer;
it can be called as either :=Name or :=Name(5)
By accident I discovered it is possible to have a class with a property that has the same name as a function in the parent class (or vice versa).
However, I would avoid this because it will confuse you. Especially if the function and property have different meanings!
Currently, the compiler cannot do what you want.
In theory, a future version of the compiler could:
The signature of a method (overloaded or not) consists of the name and the parameter types.
The same holds for the signature of indexed properties.
Since the signature spaces of properties and methods are partially linked (hence the compiler error message), that combined space could be extended to include property overloads.
Of course that extension can backfire because of backward compatibility.
--jeroen
Related
I'm trying to find out if there is a way to do things similar to Delphi's enhanced RTTI features.
As far as I know FPC doesn't provide RTTI features which appeared in Delphi since Delphi 2010. But I'd like to find some way to do a few tricks during runtime.
Using typinfo unit in FPC I can do such things as:
get Object published property list - via getPropList from typinfo unit;
get/set value of the Object's published property - via GetPropValue(...): Variant/SetPropValue(...Value: Variant);
get published method - via MethodAddres;
But I haven't found a way to do things like:
call methods;
call constructors, or create Objects;
Update: the problem with constructors is much like methods one - I want to have a way to pass different params in it:
// concept of code
type
TClass = class of TObject;
TMyClass1 = class
public
constructor Create(Param1: Integer; Param2: string); override;
end;
TMyClass2 = class
public
constructor Create(ObjectParam: Object); override;
end;
TParams = array of Variant;
var
Classes: array of TClass
Instances: array of Object;
ParamArray: array of TParams;
...
For I := 0 to Count-1 do
begin
LocalConstructor := #(Classes[I].Create);
Instances[I] := CallConstructor(LocalConstructor, ParamArray[I]);
end;
So I need to call constructor without knowing its signature.
So my problem is to call an Object's method and pass some parameters to it. It could look like function CallMethod(Instance: Object; MethodName: String; Params: array of Variant): Variant;
If I'm not mistaken it could be solved via Delphi's 2010+ RTTI. But before using enhanced Delphi's RTTI I'd like to understand is it possible in FPC.
In other words my current problem is pass arguments to a routine.
I know it can be done using this scheme:
type
TmyProc = procedure CallMe(x: byte);
...
var proc: TmyProc;
...
proc := pointerToFunc^;
proc(0);
But I need to implement it without knowing count and types of parameters (during compile time).
There are a few links related to the topic:
Delphi: Call a function whose name is stored in a string
http://www.swissdelphicenter.ch/torry/showcode.php?id=1745
The second article (http://www.swissdelphicenter.ch/torry/showcode.php?id=1745) describes a way to pass arguments to a routine imported from DLL by name. Which is almost that I need I suppose. But I'm not sure that way is reliable.
Maybe there's any library, which implements these things using "old" typinfo unit (without RTTI unit)?
Also I'm interested in a way to create some kind of universal event handlers - procedures which can be assigned to different events (with different sets of parameters) e.g.:
procedure myEventHandler(params: array of variant);
...
Button.OnClick := myEventHandler;
Button.OnMouseMove := myEventHandler;
is this possible? Or at least something similar to it?
You can call methods, even not published, using MethodAddress, but it's up to you to ensure correct argument list.
You can call constructors using metaclasses (class references), example of it could be seen in TCollection: you pass class of your collection item at runtime and then it can be created when needed. By defining abstract class with virtual (and probably abstract) constructor, you can come up with argument list you wish, some example here.
AFAIK there is no way to determine argument list at runtime, but if you design both the methods to call and caller itself, there are many ways you can implement similar behavior.
For example, you pass variant open array (Array of const), as it's done in Format(), so number of arguments and its type may vary. But even having one and only pointer as the argument, you sure can pass as many as you want, all you need to do is to come up with some class to which it will lead.
Note that this is not a duplicate of Pointer to generic type. It's a followup question.
I know it is possible to define a pointer to any generic type.
It just that Delphi makes it complicated. It was meant to be impossible, but due to a compiler bug the option slipped through.
This is what the linked question answers.
My question is:
How do I define a pointer to a generic record without encapsulating it in a surrounding class?
Example code:
TGenericRecord<T> = record
Data: integer;
Procedure SomeMethod; inline; <<<< inlining is vital here.
end;
I want to get a type safe pointer to TGenericRecord.
I do not want to wrap the record in a surrounding class because in my experiments I've found that that disables the inlining.
How do I get a typesafe generic pointer to this record.
Use case
{class} function create(size: integer): PGenericRecord{<T>}
I want to be able to create records on the heap in addition to the stack.
I think your best bet probably looks like this:
type
TMyStaticClass<T> = class
public
type
TRec = record
....
end;
PRec = ^TRec;
public
class function NewRec: PRec; static;
end;
I don't have a compiler handy to check whether or not this even compiles but I feel that it should.....
Is there any way to determine the type of a variable passed as an argument to a method? Consider the class:
TSomeClass = class
procedure AddToList<T: TDataType; U: TListClass<T>>(Element: T; List: U);
end;
with the method implementation
procedure TSomeClass.AddToList<T, U>(Element: T; List: U);
begin
if Element is TInt then
List.AddElement(TInt.Create(XXX))
else if Element is TString then
List.AddElement(TString.Create(YYY));
end;
where TInt.Create() and TString.Create() have different sets of arguments, yet, they both inherit from TDataType.
Now, I know the is-operator can't be used like this, but is there a legal alternative that does what I'm asking here?
Not being able to use the is operator here is a known issue, but there's a pretty simple workaround.
if TObject(Element) is TInt then
List.AddElement(TInt.Create(XXX))
Also, since the type of a generic is part of the class and is known at compile-time, you might be better off restructuring your code. Make two different generic classes, one of which accepts a TInt as its <T> parameter, and the other of which accepts a TString. Put the type-specific functionality into them at that level, and have them descend from a common ancestor for shared functionality.
This question I asked some time ago
Conditional behaviour based on concrete type for generic class
might be of interest, especially if you want to use not only TObject descendants but also primitive types in your conditionals.
I need a way to write a generic procedure to act upon an object type or any of its descendants.
My first attempt was to declare
procedure TotalDestroy(var obj:TMyObject);
but when using it with a descendant object
type TMyNewerObject = class(TMyObject);
var someNewerObject: TMyNewerObject;
TotalDestroy(someNewerObject);
I get the infamous error "types of formal and actual parameters must be identical"
So, while strugling to find a solution, I looked at the source code of Delphi system FreeAndNil procedure. And I found this awesome declaration, along with this astonishing comment
{ FreeAndNil frees the given TObject instance and
sets the variable reference to nil.
Be careful to only pass TObjects to this routine. }
procedure FreeAndNil(var Obj);
It avoids the type checking error, but it uses no safety net.
My question is ... is there any safe way to check the type of an untyped var parameter?
or in other words, can you improve this Delphi source code so that the warning would not be needed?
procedure FreeAndNil(var Obj);
var
Temp: TObject;
begin
Temp := TObject(Obj);
Pointer(Obj) := nil;
Temp.Free;
end;
Let's examine what you want to do.
You want to call a method that takes X, passing in an object of type Y, where Y is a descendant of X. The snag, the parameter is a "var" parameter.
Let's analyze what you could do if that was possible.
type
TBase = class
end;
TDescendant = class(TBase)
end;
procedure Fiddle(var x: TBase);
begin
x := TDescendant.Create;
end;
type
TOtherDescendant = class(TBase)
end;
var a: TOtherDescendant;
a := TOtherDescendant.Create;
Fiddle(a);
Uh-oh, now a no longer contains an instance of TOtherDescendant, it contains an instance of TDescendant. That probably comes as a surprise to the code that follows the call.
You must not only consider what you intend to do with the syntax you propose, but effectively what you could do with the syntax.
You should read Eric Lipperts excellent blog post about similar issues in .NET, found here: Why do ref and out parameters not allow type variation?.
I've written about this before, using an example very similar to Lasse's:
Delphi Q&A: Why must the types of actual and formal var parameters be identical?
Unless you're writing an assignment statement to change the value of the input parameter itself, and not just one of its properties, you shouldn't pass a parameter by reference in the first place.
If you are writing an assignment statement to change the parameter's value, then the compiler message really is true, and you should heed it.
One reason for needing to by-pass the error is when you're writing a function like TApplication.CreateForm. Its job is to change the input parameter's value, and the type of the new value varies and cannot be determined at compile time. If you're writing such a function, then your only option with Delphi is to use an untyped var parameter, and then there is extra burden on both the caller and the receiver to make sure everything goes right. The caller needs to make sure it passes a variable that is capable of holding values of whatever type the function will put in it, and the function needs to make sure it stores a value of a type compatible with what the caller requested.
In the case of CreateForm, the caller passes in a class-reference literal and a variable of that class type. The function instantiates the class and stores the reference in the variable.
I don't think very highly of either CreateForm or FreeAndNil, largely because of the way their untyped parameters sacrifice type safety in return for comparatively little extra convenience. You haven't shown the implementation of your TotalDestroy function, but I suspect its var parameter will ultimately provide the same low utility as in those other two functions. See my articles on both:
When should I use FreeAndNil?
Why shouldn't I call Application.CreateForm?
In addition to what Lasse wrote, which is quite correct, most of the time you don't want to pass an object to a var parameter anyway.
An object is a reference type. What you see as the object is actually a reference to it. You would only want to pass an object reference to a var parameter if you wanted to change your object out for a new object. If you just want to be able to modify the members of the object, then you can do that by simply passing it to a normal parameter. Make method call take a TMyObject parameter instead of a var TMyObject parameter and it should work.
Of course, if you really are replacing the object, then feel free to disregard all this, and see Lasse's answer.
can you improve this Delphi source code so that the warning would not be needed?
Yes, you can get a type safe way to avoid the compiler error.
In the newest Delphi 10.4 Sidney, the FreeAndNil procedure has been changed into this:
procedure FreeAndNil(const [ref] Obj: TObject);
var
Temp: TObject;
begin
Temp := Obj;
TObject(Pointer(#Obj)^) := nil;
Temp.Free;
end;
It is type safe for objects and will catch errors when passing an interface reference for example.
The way to pass a parameter by const [ref] means that the parameter is passed by reference. Without the [ref] attribute, parameters with size equal and smaller than a pointer would otherwise be passed by value.
Here, even though the object is passed as a constant, the reference will be modified.
In that sense, it is not a perfect declaration, but will do its job better than the former implementation.
From New features in Delphi 10.4:
This means that incorrect usage of FreeAndNil will now cause a compiler error. In the past, incorrect usage would not be caught, leading to difficult bugs. Note that although the parameter is declared as const, the by-reference variable is indeed modified.
A new, but ‘not as bad’, class of incorrect calling is possible with this declaration of FreeAndNil: the method can be called passing in properties or a method result, as well as cast expressions, a type’s implicit conversion to TObject, etc. The nil-ed value will then be the temporary variable in the expression.
Is it possible to declare a property in an interface without declaring the get- and set-methods for it? Something like:
IValue = interface
property value: double;
end;
I want to state that the implementor should have a property called value, returning a double, but I really don't care if it returns a private field or the result from a function.
If it is possible, is it possible to declare it read/write or read-only?
No. Interfaces are implemented as function tables (basically a simple virtual method table) and the compiler needs to know there's a function to map the property onto. You can declare a property on an interface, but it has to have functions as getter/setter values, not fields. You can make it read-only or write-only, though.
When working with properties in an interface, think of the property as a shortcut to the reader/writer. Only one is required to satisfy the shortcut...otherwise it doesn't point to anything.