In Rescript, one can define a Record in this format:
type record1 = {
a : String
}
but NOT:
type record2 = {
[a] : String
}
I am looking to write a record that compiles to JS like:
{
[Op.or]: [12,13]
}
The use case above comes from Sequelize, and the reference is here.
My current solution:
%raw(`{[Op.or]:[12,13]}`)
It's not entirely clear how you intend to interface with the Op construct, whether you can bind to it or not, but here's an example that does, and along with Js.Dict.t effectively produces the same output:
module Op = {
#val external or: string = "Op.or"
}
Js.Dict.fromList(list{
(Op.or, [12, 23])
})
It does not directly compile to the JS you want, however, which might be a problem if you rely on something that actually parses the source code. But short of that, I believe this should do what you ask for.
Related
Given the input value:
input =
name:'Foo'
id:'d4cbd9ed-fabc-11e6-83e6-307bd8cc75e3'
ref:5
addtData:'d4cbd9ed-fabc-11e6-83e6-307bd8cc75e3'
data:'bar'
When I try to destructure the input via a function like this:
simplify: (input)->
{ name, ref, id } = input
...the return value is still the full input or a copy of the input.
Am I missing something simple here? How can I access the destructured value. If you can't access the value via a return, it seems that destructuring has little value outside of locally scoped values.
While this isn't necessarily an advantage, the only way I was able to transpile and get the correct answer was to assign the destructure values to the local scope using # (aka this).
input =
name:'foo'
data:'bar'
id: 12314
key:'children'
ref:1
f = (input)->
{ #name, #id } = input
r = {}
f.call(r, input)
console.log r # Object {name: "foo", id: 12314}
working example - link
If someone has a better way to approach this, please add an answer so I can select it as this doesn't seem like the best way.
Is it possible to build an enum inside a Rust macro using fields that are defined as macro parameters? I've tried this:
macro_rules! build {
($($case:ty),*) => { enum Test { $($case),* } };
}
fn main() {
build!{ Foo(i32), Bar(i32, i32) };
}
But it fails with error: expected ident, found 'Foo(i32)'
Note that if the fields are defined inside the enum, there is no problem:
macro_rules! build {
($($case:ty),*) => { enum Test { Foo(i32), Bar(i32, i32) } };
}
fn main() {
build!{ Foo(i32), Bar(i32, i32) };
}
It also works if my macro only accepts simple fields:
macro_rules! build {
($($case:ident),*) => { enum Test { $($case),* } };
}
fn main() {
build!{ Foo, Bar };
}
But I've been unable to get it to work in the general case.
It's absolutely possible, but you're conflating totally unrelated concepts.
Something like $case:ty does not mean $case is something which looks like a type, it means $case is literally a type. Enums are not made up of a sequence of types; they're made up of a sequence of variants which are an identifier followed (optionally) by a tuple structure body, a record structure body, or a tag value.
The parser doesn't care if the type you give it happens to coincidentally look like a valid variant, it's simply not expecting a type, and will refuse to parse one in that position.
What you need is to use something like $case:variant. Unfortunately for you, no such matcher exists. The only way to do something like this is to manually parse it using a recursive incremental parser and that is so out of scope of an SO question it's not funny. If you want to learn more, try the chapter on incremental TT munchers in the Little Book of Rust Macros as a starting point.
However, you don't appear to actually do anything with the cases. You're just blindly substituting them. In that case, you can just cheat and not bother with trying to match anything coherent:
macro_rules! build {
($($body:tt)*) => {
as_item! {
enum Test { $($body)* }
}
};
}
macro_rules! as_item {
($i:item) => { $i };
}
fn main() {
build!{ Foo, Bar };
}
(Incidentally, that as_item! thing is explained in the section on AST coercion (a.k.a. "the reparse trick").)
This just grabs everything provided as input to build!, and shoves it into the body of an enum without caring what it looks like.
If you were trying to do something meaningful with the variants, well, you're going to have to be more specific about what you're actually trying to accomplish, as the best advice of how to proceed varies wildly depending on the answer.
My code looks like:
case class SRecord(trialId: String, private var _max:Int) {
def max=_max
def max_=(value:Int):Unit=_max=value
}
Then later on I apply a function onto it:
def groupSummaryRecords(it:Iterator[Option[SRecord]], optionSummary:Option[SRecord]):Option[SRecord] = {
var max=0;
var sRecord1 : Option[SRecord] = None
var i=0
while(it.hasNext) {
var sRecord:Option[SRecord] = it.next();
if(i==0) {
sRecord1 = sRecord;
}
..
}
sRecord1.max=max; // getting 'reassignment to val' compilation error
..
}
Why am i getting this compilation error, and how to fix it ?
If I instead change sRecord and sRecord1 instances to be of type SRecord instead of Option[SRecord] as well as the method signature, it all works fine however.
But in some cases I may have a null SRecord hence the use of None/Some. I am new to Scala, using Option/Some all over feels like a real pain if you ask me, i am just thinking of removing all this Option nonsense and testing for 'null' in good ol' Java, at least my code would work ??!
With the line sRecord1.max=max you are trying to call the max method on an Option[SRecord], not an SRecord. You want to access the contained SRecord (if any) and call the method on that, which can be done using foreach:
sRecord1.foreach(_.max=max)
which is desugared to:
sRecord1.foreach( srec => srec.max=max )
(the actual name "srec" is made up, the compiler will assign some internal name, but you get the idea). If sRecord1 is None, this won't do anything, but if it is Some(srec), the method execution will be passed in to operate on the contained instance.
I am using dotnetrdf and trying to parse some triples with NTriplesParser. I have my own handler RobHandler in which I process each triple in turn.
public class RobHandler : BaseRdfHandler
{
protected override bool HandleTripleInternal(Triple t)
{
string predicateUrl = ((BaseUriNode)(t.Predicate)).Uri.AbsoluteUri;
string value = t.Object.ToString();
}
}
This works fine but I want to get the object minus the language. My objects look like "Lincoln"#en. I could obviously write some code to remove the #en bit, but I'd rather use some library code rather than my own that hard-coded strings like #en. To do this I think I need to create a LiteralNode but there doesn't seem to be a way to get from a string which is what I have (my variable value) to a LiteralNode.
How can I extract just the textual value from an object string?
Actually I think I have the answer myself:
if (t.Object.NodeType == NodeType.Literal)
{
var node = (ILiteralNode)t.Object;
}
I'm trying to write a class for a scala project and I get this error in multiple places with keywords such as class, def, while.
It happens in places like this:
var continue = true
while (continue) {
[..]
}
And I'm sure the error is not there since when I isolate that code in another class it doesn't give me any error.
Could you please give me a rule of thumb for such errors? Where should I find them? are there some common syntactic errors elsewhere when this happens?
It sounds like you're using reserved keywords as variable names. "Continue", for instance, is a Java keyword.
You probably don't have parentheses or braces matched somewhere, and the compiler can't tell until it hits a structure that looks like the one you showed.
The other possibility is that Scala sometimes has trouble distinguishing between the end of a statement with a new one on the next line, and a multi-line statement. In that case, just drop the ; at the end of the first line and see if the compiler's happy. (This doesn't seem like it fits your case, as Scala should be able to tell that nothing should come after true, and that you're done assigning a variable.)
Can you let us know what this code is inside? Scala expects "expressions" i.e. things that resolve to a particular value/type. In the case of "var continue = true", this does not evaluate to a value, so it cannot be at the end of an expression (i.e. inside an if-expression or match-expression or function block).
i.e.
def foo() = {
var continue = true
while (continue) {
[..]
}
}
This is a problem, as the function block is an expression and needs to have an (ignored?) return value, i.e.
def foo() = {
var continue = true
while (continue) {
[..]
}
()
}
() => a value representing the "Unit" type.
I get this error when I forget to put an = sign after a function definition:
def function(val: String):Boolean {
// Some stuff
}