i am currently working with Flutter/Dart. I want to implement a generic helper class, which puts a received input value into a generic wrapper, depending on the type.
Here the example code:
class ClassA {}
class ClassB<T> {
ClassB(this.t);
final T t;
}
class ClassC<T extends ClassA? {
ClassC(this.t);
final T t;
}
class ClassD<T> {
ClassD(this.t);
final T t;
Object getWrapper(){
final t = this.t;
return T == ClassA?
? ClassC<T>(t) //<--fails
: ClassB<T>(t);
}
}
Produces:
'T' doesn't conform to the bound 'ClassA?' of the type parameter 'T'.
ClassD is the helper which produces the wrappers. For the wrapper ClassB there is no isdue, but i could not get it to work for the wrapper ClassC. As it constrains its generic type it conflicts with the generic type of the wrapper itself, although i also included a type check there to limit the type to the constrained one.
I am wondering why this won't work and how it could be adjusted to make it work.
I tried to add a type check and adjusted it in various ways like
T == ClassA
or
T is ClassA
also including the local variable t
T == ClassA && t is ClassA
Related
I've recently found myself in a situation where I wanted to check if a Type is a subtype of another Type this is what I've tried
abstract class Record{}
class TimeRecord extends Record{}
void test(){
print(TimeRecord is Record); // return false but why ??
}
The only time it makes sense to check if one type is a subtype of another type is when at least one of the types is a type variable. (Otherwise, you can just look at the source and write a constant true or false into the code).
There is a way to check whether one type is a subtype of another, and it does use the is operator, but you need to have an instance as the first operand and a type as the second. You can't just create an instance of an unknown type, so we instead rely in Dart's covariant generics:
bool isSubtype<S, T>() => <S>[] is List<T>;
(You can use any generic class, or even create your own, instead of using List. All it needs is a way to create the object.)
Then you can write:
print(isSubtype<TimeRecord, Record>()); // true!
The is keyword is used to check if an object instance is an object of type T, and not if a type is another type:
abstract class Record{}
class TimeRecord extends Record{}
void test(){
print(TimeRecord() is Record); // returns true!
}
Just to add up to #lrn answer.
You could also do something like:
extension NullableObjectsExtensions<T> on T {
bool isSubtypeOf<S>() => <T>[] is List<S>;
bool isSupertypeOf<S>() => <S>[] is List<T>;
}
So this way you can test any variable anywhere.
In Dart, is there a difference in assigning values right away vs in constructor like in Java?
class Example {
int x = 3;
}
vs
class Example {
int x;
Example() {
x = 3;
}
}
I ask because when I was using Flutter and tried to assign a Function that uses setState to a variable, it was not possible with the former method but possible with the latter.
In your trivial case, it doesn't matter.
In general, you can initialize instance variables in a few ways:
Inline (field initializers)
class Example1 {
T x = value;
}
Advantages:
Direct, concise.
Member will be initialized in all constructors.
Can be used to initialize final or non-nullable members.
Member is initialized before invoking base class constructors, which is important when the base class constructor calls member functions that are overridden by the derived class.
Disadvantages:
Cannot depend on construction arguments.
Usually cannot depend on this since the initialization occurs before this becomes valid (i.e., cannot depend on other instance members). (An exception is if the member is initialized lazily by declaring it late. This requires the null-safety feature to be enabled.)
Initializer list
class Example2 {
T x;
Example2() : x = value;
}
Advantages:
Can be used to initialize final or non-nullable members.
Member is initialized before invoking base class constructors, which is important when the base class constructor calls member functions that are overridden by the derived class.
Can utilize construction arguments.
The initialized variable always refers to a member variable, never to a constructor parameter.
Disadvantages:
If the class has multiple constructors, initialization would need to be duplicated, or constructors should redirect to a common constructor.
Cannot depend on this since the initialization occurs before this becomes valid (i.e., cannot depend on other instance members).
Can initialize only members of the enclosing class. Because initializer lists are executed before invoking base class constructors, they cannot set base class members.
Constructor body
class Example3 {
T x;
Example3() {
x = value;
}
}
Advantages:
Can utilize construction arguments.
Can be used to perform more complicated initialization, such as cases where the member cannot be initialized via a single expression.
Can use this (i.e., can use other instance members).
Can be used to set base class members.
Disadvantages:
Cannot be used to initialize non-late final nor non-nullable members.
If the class has multiple constructors, initialization would need to be duplicated or initialization code would need to be refactored out (such as, but not limited to, redirecting to a common constructor).
Member is initialized after invoking base class constructors.
If the constructor has a parameter that shadows a member variable, it's easy to accidentally refer to the parameter instead of the member. (See https://github.com/dart-lang/linter/issues/2552 for details.)
There probably are some points I'm forgetting, but I think that should cover the main ones.
Direct, inline initialization occurs first, then initialization lists, then constructor bodies. Also see Difference between assigning the values in parameter list and initialiser list, which explains why this becomes valid only for the later stages of object initialization.
As an example where it matters where members are initialized:
class Base {
Base() {
doSomething();
}
void doSomething() {}
}
class DerivedEarly extends Base {
int? x;
DerivedEarly() : x = 42;
#override
void doSomething() => print(x);
}
class DerivedLate extends Base {
int? x;
DerivedLate() {
x = 42;
}
#override
void doSomething() => print(x);
}
void main() {
DerivedEarly(); // Prints: 42
DerivedLate(); // Prints: null
}
I have a generic class of the form:
class BaseClass<T> {
var prop: T
...
}
I then have multiple subclasses of the form:
class SubClassOne: BaseClass<SomeSubClass> {
...
}
class SubClassTwo: BaseClass<SomeOtherSubClass> {
...
}
Where the type parameters SomeSubClass and SomeOtherSubClass both inherit from a common base class SomeBaseClass.
I now want to define a variable to store instances of both SubClassOne and SubClassTwo. I have tried many possibilities:
var obj: BaseClass
var obj: BaseClass<SomeBaseClass>
var obj: BaseClass<Any>
But the first attempt results in the error Reference to generic type 'BaseClass' requires arguments in <...>, and the other two result in the error Cannot assign value of type 'SubClassOne' to type ... when trying to assign a value. I even tried to trick the Swift compiler into inferring the type for me by initializing an array:
var testArray = [SubClassOne(), SubClassTwo()]
But even this failed, resulting in the error Heterogeneous collection literal could only be inferred to [Any]; add explicit type annotation if this is intentional. Indeed, the only type annotation that successfully allows storage of both SubClasses is Any or AnyObject. Is it possible to store these instances with a more specific type? If not, why?
The reason it's important to do so is that I ultimately want to get the property prop from the stored variable obj. I am unable to do so if obj is stored as Any. I am also unable to simply cast it to SubClassOne or SubClassTwo because the method itself where I am trying to access the properties is a generic method, and which of SubClassOne or SubClassTwo to cast to depends on the generic type parameter of the method:
func castObj<T>(asType: T.Type) {
(self.obj as? T).prop
}
Which would be called as: castObj(asType: SubClassOne.self) or castObj(asType: SubClassTwo.self). However, we run into the same problem: the only generic type parameter constraint I can define that accepts both SubClassOne and SubClassTwo is Any, and then the Swift compiler complains: Value of type 'T' has no member 'prop'.
As a workaround I tried to define a protocol that encapsulates the desired property:
protocol HasProp {
var prop: SomeBaseClass { get }
}
Then I added this to the declaration of SubClassOne and SubClassTwo. However this resulted in still another error: Type 'SubClassOne' does not conform to protocol 'HasProp'. This confuses me as well, since SubClassOne and SubClassTwo both inherit prop from BaseClass<SomeSubClass> and so actually do conform to the protocol.
In summary:
Is it possible to store instances of SubClassOne and SubClassTwo with a more specific type that gives access to properties of BaseClass? If not, why?
Why do the SubClasses not conform to the protocol as expected?
How can I change the design to attain my desired behavior?
The problem is that at the moment the function castObj has no type constraints for its generic parameter, T. By giving a type constraint of BaseClass you should be fine, since BaseClass has both properties.
func castObj<T: BaseClass>(asType: T.Type) {
(self.obj as? T).propOne
(self.obj as? T).propTwo
}
In your example, the type of propTwo was common to both subclasses and the type of propOne was specialized. Make your design reflect that.
[was]
class BaseClass<T,U> {
var propOne: T
var propTwo: U
...
}
class SubClassOne: BaseClass<SomeSubClass, SomeClass> {}
class SubClassTwo: BaseClass<SomeOtherSubClass, SomeClass> {}
[could be]
class BaseClass<U> {
var propTwo: U
...
}
class SubClassOne<T>: BaseClass<SomeClass> {
var propOne: T
...
}
class SubClassTwo<T>: BaseClass<SomeClass> {
var propOne: T
...
}
The point is to keep common things in the base class and compose your specializations.
There's a fundamental misconception that SubclassOne and SubclassTwo are in the same inheritance hierarchy. Because of the generic type, they inherit from different base classes. You cannot mix and match them.
Think about it. With inheritance you should be able to use any subclass anywhere where you have the base class, so in your test example:
var testArray = [SubClassOne(), SubClassTwo()]
What type would the right hand side of the following expressions have to be?
testArray[0].prop = something
And this one
testArray[1].prop = something;
In SubClassOne, the type of prop is SomeSubClass and in SubClassTwo the type of prop must be SomeOtherSubClass.
The only way for you to get this to work is for prop to be declared as SomeBaseClass and that removes the necessity for BaseClass to be generic.
Edit
Why doesn't the protocol work?
The problem with the protocol is that you define the property as having the type of the base class but it is read/write. A property in an implementation of the protocol cannot fulfill the contract with a property that is specialised to one of the subclasses because other bits of code need to be able to assign any instance of the base class to the property.
protocol MyProtocol
{
var prop: BaseClass
}
struct MyImplementation: MyProtocol
{
var prop: SubClass
}
class BaseClass {}
class SubClass: BaseClass {}
class DifferentSubClass: BaseClass {}
var instance: MyProtocol = MyImplementation()
instance.prop = DifferentSubClass()
// Should be legal because the protocol says so but the type of prop in instance is SubClass.
A factory function creates the instances of classes:
class A {
name: string
}
function factory<T>(Cl): T {
return new Cl()
}
let a = factory<A>(A)
a.name // OK
I would like to avoid the repetition of A in: factory<A>(A). The generics instance type should be able to be inferred from the class type, shouldn't be?
I tried this code:
function factory<T>(Cl: typeof T): T { // Error: Cannot find name 'T'
return new Cl()
}
Is there a way to do this?
Based on the Typescript documentation :
When creating factories in TypeScript using generics, it is necessary
to refer to class types by their constructor functions.
So you must do something like this:
function factory<T>(Cl: { new(): T; }): T {
return new Cl();
}
In the code above, Cl must a type that at least has a constructor which return T generic type.
So the type inference will work:
let a = factory(A);
a.name;
You don't need to specify the type of A anyway because the compiler know it.
Haxe allows class inheritance hierarchies
class Honda extends Car {
...
}
is there a common inheritance hierarchy root for all objects? I have a generic container class that could contain any object and I want to be able to declare
var _contents:Object; //Any class instance in _contents
How can I do this?
You can also use {} as a type, which will accept class instances as well as anonymous objects :
var _contents:{};
We also have Dynamic, which basically means "anything" (not only objects, but also primitives like Bool, Int, etc).
If your class is a generic container, you may want to type its content, though, using type parameters:
class Container<T> {
var _contents:T;
public function new(contents:T):Void {
_contents = contents;
}
}
And then:
var arrayContainer = new Container([]);
var stuffContainer = new Container({foo:"bar"});
var classContainer = new Container( new Stuff() );
The inheritance root for classes is Class<T> so the following should work:
var _contents:Class<T>;
However, to store an Enum, you would have to use Enum<T> instead.
From the manual:
There is a special type in Haxe which is compatible with all classes:
Define: Class<T>
This type is compatible with all class types which means that all classes (not their instances) can be assigned to it. At compile-time, Class<T> is the common base type of all class types. However, this relation is not reflected in generated code.
This type is useful when an API requires a value to be a class, but not a specific one. This applies to several methods of the Haxe reflection API.