Is there a way to look at the definition of the Async workflow? What goes under the hood that would make a line of code behave differently in there, than outside of it?
If by "the Async workflow", you mean the AsyncBuilder type which defines the behavior of async blocks, then you can find the definition in the control.fs file in the source distribution, in the source\fsharp\FSharp.Core folder.
The translation of a computation expression into method calls on the builder instance can be found in the F# spec.
Adding to kvb's advice, relevant Don's "Expert F#" chapter is available online:
http://download.microsoft.com/download/b/b/6/bb666ebe-e643-496f-b290-03527d157b47/Expert.F.Sharp_Ch13_8504Syme.pdf
It includes a short but informative "Under the Hood" section.
Related
After googling a bit it seems there is no multi-line comment support in Erlang, is this really the case?
And if so, why?
I know some editors support commenting out regions (adding % first on every line of the region) but i don't really want to pick editor based on this.
It's simple. Use preprocessor:
-ifdef(comment).
Something to comment
You can add text or
function(Declaration) ->
...
Which will removed from file
-endif.
There are no multi-line comments in Erlang.
In general, I haven't found this to be a big deal: I use templates for gen_server and supervisor and a general template for other modules, and all of these include the boilerplate top doc blocks. I get some template support from my editor (Emacs) but you could be editor-agnostic and just write some templates and copy them to any new modules you want.
The biggest use of multi-line comments other than documentation is to comment-out a big chunk of code. Since your Erlang code should generally be small functions, you can just comment out the function call, which is a one-line comment.
I find Erlang's module arity import /n where n is the number of arguments rather bizarre.
In Java and various other languages you can do something like:
import static com.stuff.Blah.myFunction;
Which will import all overloaded Blay.myFunction(..) regardless of parameters.
Besides I guess being explicit why did the language designers decide this was a good idea (I'm not trying to criticize the language... just curious)?
Does it have to do with code swapping?
Or does it have to do with hiding guard methods for recursion? If so why not allow arity on export but no need for arity on import?
Why would I want to be that explicit? That is import the two argument function but not the the three argument of myFunction?
You should be aware of what importing functions in Erlang really does. It is a pure textual transformation. If I do an -import(foo, [bar/1,baz/2]). it means that when I write a call like bar(5) or baz(a, 3) the compiler transforms these to foo:bar(5) and foo:baz(a, 3). That is all it does, nothing else. It doesn't check anything:
It doesn't check if the module foo contains the functions bar/1 or baz/2.
It doesn't even check if the module foo exists.
Really all it does is hide that you are calling a function in another module. That is why the recommendation from experienced Erlangers is "don't use it". It was a mistake. Unfortunately it is much easier to add stupid things than to get rid of them so we were never able to remove it.
"Does it have to do with code swapping?"
Yes, sort of. The unit of all code handling in Erlang is the module. So you compile modules, load modules, purge and delete modules. This means that there are no inter-module dependencies at all in the system and the compiler makes no assumptions about other modules when it is compiling a module. No assumptions are made that the environment in which a module is compiled will be the same in which it is run. That is why it is at runtime the system checks whether the function you are trying to call in another exists, or even if the module itself exists. That is why the import was a purely textual transformation.
Erlang was originally developed in Prolog.
In Prolog, the arity adds additional meaning to what you consider to be the 'arguments, as I understand from a function' in a procedural programming language. But that model does not apply here.
The so-called clauses 'married(X,Y).' and 'married(X,Y,Z).' imply a different kind of relationship 'married', which can be declared as married/2 and married/3.
In procedural programming, 'add(a,b)' or 'add(a,b,c)' are intended to generate the addition of a different number of arguments. That's not immediately the case in Prolog, where it is possible to have the relationship 'a and b, added' or 'a, b and c, added' mean something else. Needless to say, Prolog allows you to declare 'add' as you would expect a function would do. But it allows for more. More available meaning, means more need to control it.
And as in any module system, selecting what you want to expose to external clients makes sense: hence the declaration of arity.
Does it have to do with code swapping?
Kind of. The modules in Erlang are compiled separately (which is part of what allows code swapping), unlike Java classes, so the compiler doesn't know how many versions of the imported function with different arities exist. It could assume that all calls of a function with the given name come from the same module, of course, but the designers likely decided it wasn't particularly useful.
In fact, you rarely want to use imports at all, at least in my experience, just as you rarely use static imports in Java. Just write module:function, like Class.staticMethod.
Or does it have to do with hiding guard methods for recursion?
No, since not importing functions doesn't hide them in any way.
My delphi application runs scripts using JvInterpreter (from the Jedi project).
A feature I use is runtime evaluation of expressions.
Script Example:
[...]
ShowMessage(X_SomeName);
[...]
JvInterpreter doesn't know X_SomeName.
When X_SomeName's value is required the scripter calls its OnGetValue-callback.
This points to a function I handle. There I lookup X_SomeName's value and return it.
Then JvInterpreter calls ShowMessage with the value I provided.
Now I consider switching to DelphiWebScript since it has a proper debug-interface and should also be faster than JvInterpreter.
Problem: I didn't find any obvious way to implement what JvInterpreter does with its OnGetValue/OnSetValue functions, though.
X_SomeName should be considered (and actually is, most of the time) a variable which is handled by the host application.
Any Ideas?
Thanks!
You can do that through the language extension mechanism, which has a FindUnknownName method that allows to register symbols on the spot.
It is used in the asm lib module demo, and you can also check the new "AutoExternalValues" test case in ULanguageExtensionTests, which should be closer to what you're after.
I'm using a closed-source application that loads Lua scripts and allows some customization through modifying these scripts. Unfortunately that application is not very good at generating useful log output (all I get is 'script failed') if something goes wrong in one of the Lua scripts.
I realize that dynamic languages are pretty much resistant to static code analysis in the way C++ code can be analyzed for example.
I was hoping though, there would be a tool that runs through a Lua script and e.g. warns about variables that have not been defined in the context of a particular script.
Essentially what I'm looking for is a tool that for a script:
local a
print b
would output:
warning: script.lua(1): local 'a' is not used'
warning: script.lua(2): 'b' may not be defined'
It can only really be warnings for most things but that would still be useful! Does such a tool exist? Or maybe a Lua IDE with a feature like that build in?
Thanks, Chris
Automated static code analysis for Lua is not an easy task in general. However, for a limited set of practical problems it is quite doable.
Quick googling for "lua lint" yields these two tools: lua-checker and Lua lint.
You may want to roll your own tool for your specific needs however.
Metalua is one of the most powerful tools for static Lua code analysis. For example, please see metalint, the tool for global variable usage analysis.
Please do not hesitate to post your question on Metalua mailing list. People there are usually very helpful.
There is also lua-inspect, which is based on metalua that was already mentioned. I've integrated it into ZeroBrane Studio IDE, which generates an output very similar to what you'd expect. See this SO answer for details: https://stackoverflow.com/a/11789348/1442917.
For checking globals, see this lua-l posting. Checking locals is harder.
You need to find a parser for lua (should be available as open source) and use it to parse the script into a proper AST tree. Use that tree and a simple variable visibility tracker to find out when a variable is or isn't defined.
Usually the scoping rules are simple:
start with the top AST node and an empty scope
item look at the child statements for that node. Every variable declaration should be added in the current scope.
if a new scope is starting (for example via a { operator) create a new variable scope inheriting the variables in the current scope).
when a scope is ending (for example via } ) remove the current child variable scope and return to the parent.
Iterate carefully.
This will provide you with what variables are visible where inside the AST. You can use this information and if you also inspect the expressions AST nodes (read/write of variables) you can find out your information.
I just started using luacheck and it is excellent!
The first release was from 2015.
I am writing a unit test infrastructure for a large Delphi code base. I would like to link calls to pure functions in SysUtils.FileExists for example to a "MockSysUtils.FileExists" instead.
Creating a SysUtils unit with the same interface is not appreciated by the compiler.
What I am thinking of is to hook in my mock function at runtime. Is this possible nowadays?
Any other suggestions?
Regards,
Peter
Replacing a function at runtime is difficult but usually technically possible. "All" you need to do is:
take the address of the function in question
disassemble the first 5 bytes or so (to check for a RET instruction - very small routines may abut another routine, preventing you from replacing it)
change its page protection (with VirtualProtect) to be writable
rewrite the first 5 bytes with a JMP rel32 instruction (i.e. E9 <offset-to-your-func>)
implement your version function as normal, making sure it has the same arguments and calling convention as the function you are mocking
An easier approach would be to link against a different version of SysUtils.pas. That will require you to also recompile all the units in the RTL and VCL that depend on SysUtils.pas, but it is likely quite a bit easier than the function intrumentation approach described above.
The easiest approach is the language-level one, where either you don't directly rely on SysUtils at all (and so can switch at a higher level), or you modify the uses declaration to conditionally refer to a different unit.
You can do it with MadCodeHook. Use the HookCode function, give it the address of the function you want to replace and the address of the function you want to be called instead. It will give you back a function pointer that you can use for calling the original and for unhooking afterward. In essence, it implements the middle three steps of Barry's description.
I think MadCodeHook is free for personal use. If you're looking for something freer than that, you can try to find an old version of the Tnt Unicode controls. It used the same hooking technique to inject Unicode support into some of the VCL's code. You'll need an old version because more recent releases aren't free anymore. Find the OverwriteProcedure function in TntSystem.pas, which is also where you'll find examples of how to use it.
Code-hooking is nice because it doesn't require you to recompile the RTL and VCL, and it doesn't involve conditional compilation to control which functions are in scope. You can hook the code from your unit-test setup procedure, and the original code will never know the difference. It will think it's calling the original FileExists function (because it is), but when it gets there, it will immediately jump to your mocked version instead.
You could also just add a unit that only contains the functions you want to mock to the test unit's uses clause. Delphi will always use the function from the unit that is listed last. Unfortunately this would require you to change the unit you want to test.
Your Mock-Sysutils unit:
unit MockSysutils;
interface
function FileExists(...) ...
...
end.
Your unit, you want to test:
unit UnitTotest;
interface
uses
Sysutils,
MockSysUtils;
...
if FileExists(...) then
FileExists will now call the version from MockSysutils rather than from Sysutils.
Thanks,
yes, it would be great to have TSysUtils class for example instead that I could inherit with my MockSysUtils. But, that is not the case and the code base huge. It will be replaced bit by bit, but I wondered if there was a quick-start solution.
The first approach is ok for one function perhaps, but not in this case I guess.
I will go for the second approach.
This is slightly way out there but here is another alternative.
When building your unit tests and your main codebase to go with it, you could grep all the functions you wish to replace and specify the unit to use
Instead of
fileexists(MyFilename);
you could grep fileexists and replace with
MockTests.fileexists(MyFileName);
If you did this at build time (using automated build tools) it could easily be done and would provide you with the greatest flexibility. You could simply have a config file that listed all the functions to be replaced.