Please help I am quite confused since I was following a course online and i've double checked everything I can and compare his code to mine yet I have an error and he doesn't. please help. :)
pragma solidity ^0.8.7;
interface IERC165 {
// this is an interface because we have statically declared it as an interface.
// and it contains only unimplemented functions.
// what is the calculation for this function supportsInterface:
function supportsInterface(bytes4 interfaceId) external view returns (bool);
}
contract ERC165 is IERC165 {
// write a calculation interface function algorithm
function calcFingerPrint() public view returns(bytes4) {
return bytes4(keccak256('supportedInterface(bytes4)'));
}
// hash table to keep track of contract fingerprint data of byte function covers
mapping(bytes => bool) private _supportedInterfaces;
function supportsInterface(bytes4 interfaceId) external override view returns (bool) {
_supportedInterfaces[interfaceId];
}
/*
The ERC165 standard actually requires that the supportsInterface function "use less than 30,000 gas"
So rather than re-calculating interfaceIDs every time someone cals supportsInterface, lets keep our
supported interfaceID in a mapping.
bytes4 Bytes is dynamic array of bytes. It's shortened for byte[]
bytes4 is exactly 4 bytes long.
You can define a available by using the keyword bytesX where X represents
the sequence of bytes. X can be from 1 up to 32
keccak26: keccak256 compute the keccak-256 hash of the input. Creating a deterministic unique ID from an input.
*/
} ```
This line causing issue
mapping(bytes => bool) private _supportedInterfaces;
You defined your mapping bytes=>bool.
mapping(bytes4 => bool) private _supportedInterfaces;
Related
For Solidity Programing Language,
While defining Interface, we name it as per our needs and then call it as needed with the same types of inputs.
What happens when there are the same function names with the same parameter names but different types of data stored?
Eg. Here are two different contracts stored on Ethereum Blockchain separately. What will happen if while writing a 3rd smart contract, I create an interface and call function with name "favoriteNumber". Which value will it return? 10 or 15?
contract A {
uint randomnumber = 10;
function favoriteNumber (uint _number) public view returns(uint randomnumber) {
}
}
contract B {
uint randomnumber = 15;
function favoriteNumber (uint _number) public view returns(uint randomnumber) {
}
}
It will depends on what contract you call, each contract have it unique address with each own storage
I am looking for examples of Chapel passing by reference. This example works but it seems like bad form since I am "returning" the input. Does this waste memory? Is there an explicit way to operate on a class?
class PowerPuffGirl {
var secretIngredients: [1..0] string;
}
var bubbles = new PowerPuffGirl();
bubbles.secretIngredients.push_back("sugar");
bubbles.secretIngredients.push_back("spice");
bubbles.secretIngredients.push_back("everything nice");
writeln(bubbles.secretIngredients);
proc kickAss(b: PowerPuffGirl) {
b.secretIngredients.push_back("Chemical X");
return b;
}
bubbles = kickAss(bubbles);
writeln(bubbles.secretIngredients);
And it produces the output
sugar spice everything nice
sugar spice everything nice Chemical X
What is the most efficient way to use a function to modify Bubbles?
Whether Chapel passes an argument by reference or not can be controlled by the argument intent. For example, integers normally pass by value but we can pass one by reference:
proc increment(ref x:int) { // 'ref' here is an argument intent
x += 1;
}
var x:int = 5;
increment(x);
writeln(x); // outputs 6
The way that a type passes when you don't specify an argument is known as the default intent. Chapel passes records, domains, and arrays by reference by default; but of these only arrays are modifiable inside the function. ( Records and domains pass by const ref - meaning they are passed by reference but that the function they are passed to cannot modify them. Arrays pass by ref or const ref depending upon what the function does with them - see array default intent ).
Now, to your question specifically, class instances pass by "value" by default, but Chapel considers the "value" of a class instance to be a pointer. That means that instead of allowing a field (say) to be mutated, passing a class instance by ref just means that it could be replaced with a different class instance. There isn't currently a way to say that a class instance's fields should not be modifiable in the function (other than making them to be explicitly immutable data types).
Given all of that, I don't see any inefficiencies with the code sample you provided in the question. In particular, here:
proc kickAss(b: PowerPuffGirl) {
b.secretIngredients.push_back("Chemical X");
return b;
}
the argument accepting b will receive a copy of the pointer to the instance and the return b will return a copy of that pointer. The contents of the instance (in particular the secretIngredients array) will remain stored where it was and won't be copied in the process.
One more thing:
This example works but it seems like bad form since I am "returning" the input.
As I said, this isn't really a problem for class instances or integers. What about an array?
proc identity(A) {
return A;
}
var A:[1..100] int;
writeln(identity(A));
In this example, the return A in identity() actually does cause a copy of the array to be made. That copy wasn't created when passing the array in to identity(), since the array was passed by with a const ref intent. But, since the function returns something "by value" that was a reference, it's necessary to copy it as part of returning. See also arrays return by value by default in the language evolution document.
In any case, if one wants to return an array by reference, it's possible to do so with the ref or const ref return intent, e.g.:
proc refIdentity(ref arg) ref {
return arg;
}
var B:[1..10] int;
writeln(refIdentity(B));
Now there is no copy of the array and everything is just referring to the same B.
Note though that it's currently possible to write programs that return a reference to a variable that no longer exists. The compiler includes some checking in that area but it's not complete. Hopefully improvements in that area are coming soon.
I found conception of Delegates pretty hard for me. I really do not understand why I can't simply pass one function to another and need to wrap it to Delegate. I read in docs that there is some cases when I do not know it's name and Delegate is only way to call it.
But now I have trouble in understanding conception of callbacks. I tried to find more information, but I can't understand is it's simply call of other function or what is it.
Could you show examples of D callbacks and explain where they can be helpful?
import vibe.d;
shared static this()
{
auto settings = new HTTPServerSettings;
settings.port = 8080;
listenHTTP(settings, &handleRequest);
}
void handleRequest(HTTPServerRequest req,
HTTPServerResponse res)
{
if (req.path == "/")
res.writeBody("Hello, World!", "text/plain");
}
&handleRequest is it callback? How it's work and at what moment it's start?
So within memory a function is just a pile of bytes. Like an array, you can take a pointer to it. This is a function pointer. It has a type of RETT function(ARGST) in D. Where RETT is the return type and ARGST are the argument types. Of course attributes can be applied like any function declaration.
Now delegates are a function pointer with a context pointer. A context pointer can be anything from a single integer (argument), call frame (function inside of another) or lastly a class/struct.
A delegate is very similar to a function pointer type at RETT delegate(ARGST). They are not interchangeable, but you can turn a function pointer into a delegate pointer pretty easily.
The concept of a callback is to say, hey I know you will know about X so when that happens please tell me about X by calling this function/delegate.
To answer your question about &handleRequest, yes it is a callback.
You can pass functions to other functions to later be called.
void test(){}
void receiver(void function() fn){
// call it like a normal function with 'fn()'
// or pass it around, save it, or ignore it
}
// main
receiver(&test); // 'test' will be available as 'fn' in 'receiver'
You need to prepend the function name as argument with & to clarify you want to pass a function pointer. If you don't do that, it will instead call that function due to UFCS (calling without braces). It is not a delegate yet.
The function that receives your callable may do whatever it wants with it. A common example is in your question, a web service callback. First you tell the framework what should be done in case a request is received (by defining actions in a function and making that function available for the framework), and in your example enter a loop with listenHTTP which calls your code when it receives a request. If you want to read more on this topic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_(computing)#Event_handler
Delegates are function pointers with context information attached. Say you want to add handlers that act on other elements available in the current context. Like a button that turns an indicator red. Example:
class BuildGui {
Indicator indicator;
Button button;
this(){
... init
button.clickHandler({ // curly braces: implicit delegate in this case
indicator.color = "red"; // notice access of BuildGui member
});
button.clickHandler(&otherClickHandler); // methods of instances can be delegates too
}
void otherClickHandler(){
writeln("other click handler");
}
}
In this imaginary Button class all click handlers are saved to a list and called when it is clicked.
There were several questions in the OP. I am going to try to answer the following two:
Q: Could you show examples of D callbacks and explain where they can be helpful?
A: They are commonly used in all languages that support delegates (C# for an example) as event handlers. - You give a delegate to be called whenever an event is triggered. Languages that do not support delegates use either classes, or callback functions for this purpose. Example how to use callbacks in C++ using the FLTK 2.0 library: http://www.fltk.org/doc-2.0/html/group__example2.html. Delegates are perfect for this as they can directly access the context. When you use callbacks for this purpose you have to pass along all the objects you want to modify in the callback... Check the mentioned FLTK link as an example - there we have to pass a pointer to the fltk::Window object to the window_callback function in order to manipulate it. (The reason why FLTK does this is that back FLTK was born C++ did not have lambdas, otherwise they would use them instead of callbacks)
Example D use: http://dlang.org/phobos/std_signals.html
Q: Why I can't simply pass one function to another and need to wrap it to Delegate?
A: You do not have to wrap to delegates - it depends what you want to accomplish... Sometimes passing callbacks will just work for you. You can't access context in which you may want to call the callback, but delegates can. You can, however pass the context along (and that is what some C/C++ libraries do).
I think what you are asking is explained in the D language reference
Quote 1:
A function pointer can point to a static nested function
Quote 2:
A delegate can be set to a non-static nested function
Take a look at the last example in that section and notice how a delegate can be a method:
struct Foo
{
int a = 7;
int bar() { return a; }
}
int foo(int delegate() dg)
{
return dg() + 1;
}
void test()
{
int x = 27;
int abc() { return x; }
Foo f;
int i;
i = foo(&abc); // i is set to 28
i = foo(&f.bar); // i is set to 8
}
There are already excellent answers. I just want to try to make simple summary.
Simply: delegate allows you to use methods as callbacks.
In C, you do the same by explicitly passing the object (many times named context) as void* and cast it to (hopefully) right type:
void callback(void *context, ...) {
/* Do operations with context, which is usually a struct */
doSomething((struct DATA*)context, ...);
doSomethingElse((struct DATA*)context, ...);
}
In C++, you do the same when wanting to use method as callback. You make a function taking the object pointer explicitly as void*, cast it to (hopefully) right type, and call method:
void callback(void* object, ...) {
((MyObject*)object)->method(...);
}
Delegate makes this all implicitly.
I'm studying Swift language, and in github.com, i found SwiftHelper.
In it's IntHelper.swift file, I found below code:
extension Int {
var isEven: Bool {
let remainder = self % 2
return remainder == 0
}
var isOdd: Bool {
return !isEven
}
}
why isEven and isOdd were written as properties, not method calls?
In this situation, Using property has any advantage over using method calls?
In purely technical terms, there are no advantages or disadvantages to using a property over a method or vice versa* : the only difference is in readability.
In this particular case, I think that using an extension property makes for better readability than using a method call, because it reads better. Compare
if myInt.isOdd {
... // Do something
}
vs.
if myInt.isOdd() {
... // Do something
}
vs.
if isOdd(myInt) {
... // Do something
}
The first (property) and second (method) code fragments keeps words in the same order as they are in English, contributing to somewhat better readability. However, the second one adds an unnecessary pair of parentheses. For completeness, the third way of accomplishing the same task (a function) is less readable than the other two.
* This also applies to other languages that support properties, for example, Objective-C and C#.
The properties used in the extension are what's known as 'computed properties' - which in a lot of ways are like a method :) in that they don't store any state themselves, but rather return some computed value.
The choice between implementing a 'property' vs. a 'method' for something like this can be thought of in semantic terms; here, although the value is being computed, it simply serves to represent some information about the state of the object (technically 'struct' in the case of Int) in the way that you would expect a property to, and asking for that state isn't asking it to modify either itself or any of its dependencies.
In terms of readability, methods in Swift (even those without arguments) still require parens - you can see the difference that makes in this example:
// as a property
if 4.isEven { println("all is right in the world") }
// as a method
if 5.isEven() { println("we have a problem") }
I'm working on finishing up my server for my first iPhone application, and I want to implement a simple little feature.
I would like to run a function (perhaps method as well), if another function returns a certain value after a certain waiting period. Fairly simple concept.... right?
Here's my basic foundation.
template <typename T,class TYP>
struct funcpar{
T (*function)(TYP);
TYP parameter;
funcpar(T (*func)(TYP),TYP param);
funcpar& operator=(const funcpar& fp);
};
The goal here is to be able to call funcpar::function(funcpar::parameter) to run the stored function and parameter, and not have to worry about anything else...
When I attempted to use a void* parameter instead of the template, I couldn't copy the memory as an object (because I didn't know what the end object was going to be, or the beginning for that matter) and when I tried multiple timers, every single object's parameter would change to the new parameter passed to the new timer... With the previous struct I have a
question:
Is it possible to make an all-inclusive pointer to this type of object inside a method of a class? Can I templatize a method, and not the whole class? Would it work exactly like a function template?
I have a managing class that holds a vector of these "jobs" and takes care of everything fairly well. I just don't know how to use a templatized function with the struct, or how to utilize templates on a single method in a class..
I'm also utilizing this in my custom simple threadpool, and that's working fairly well, and has the same problems...
I have another question:
Can I possibly store a function with a parameter before it's run? Something like toRun = dontrunmeyet(withThisParameter);? Is my struct even necessary?
Am I going about this whole thing incorrectly?
If this is overly ambiguous, I can set you up with my whole code for context
In order to create a class method that takes a template parameter, yes, it would work almost exactly like a function template. For example:
class A
{
public:
template<typename T>
void my_function(const T& value) { }
};
int main()
{
A test;
test.my_function(5);
return 0;
}
Secondly, for your structure, you can actually turn that into a functor-object that by overloading operator(), lets you call the structure as-if it were a function rather than having to actually call the specific function pointer members inside the structure. For instance, your structure could be re-written to look like this:
#include <iostream>
template <class ReturnType, class ParameterType>
class funcpar
{
private:
ReturnType (*function)(ParameterType);
ParameterType parameter;
public:
funcpar(ReturnType (*func)(ParameterType),ParameterType param):
function(func), parameter(param) {}
funcpar& operator=(const funcpar& fp);
//operator() overloaded to be a function that takes no arguments
//and returns type ReturnType
ReturnType operator() ()
{
return function(parameter);
}
};
int sample_func(int value)
{
return value + 1;
}
int main()
{
funcpar<int, int> test_functor(sample_func, 5);
//you can call any instance of funcpar just like a normal function
std::cout << test_functor() << std::endl;
return 0;
}
BTW, you do need the functor object (or your structure, etc.) in order to bind a dynamic parameter to a function before the function is called in C/C++ ... you can't "store" a parameter with an actual function. Binding a parameter to a function is actually called a closure, and in C/C++, creating a closure requires a structure/class or some type of associated data-structure you can use to bind a function with a specific parameter stored in memory that is used only for a specific instance of that function call.