Is there a construct that communicates to the type checker a function's post-condition?
For example, in typescript it is possible to say
function assertIsNumber(value: any): asserts value is number {
if (typeof value !== 'number') {
throw new TypeError();
}
}
I would like to be able to do something like the following in dart:
class SomeClass {
int? value;
_checkPreconditions() {
if(value == null) {
throw MyPreconditionError()
}
// ...
}
somefunc() {
_checkPreconditions();
// here we know `value` is a non-null int.
final sum = value + 5;
}
}
I understand I could coerce the value to non-null sum = value! + 5, but I would prefer to allow the function to inform the type checker if possible.
It looks like the type system of Dart is not so powerful. The only thing that looks (from first glance) possible is to create a custom code analyzer package (or search for one that already exists).
Dart annotations don't actually do anything. They provide hints to tools such as the Dart analyzer (usually so that it can generate additional warnings), but they cannot change program behavior. Even if you could convince the analyzer to treat some variables as different types, you still wouldn't be able to compile and run your code.
Annotations can be used by code generation tools, so one possibility might be to generate a statement such as final value = this.value!; automatically. However, that would be a lot of trouble to go through (and would mean that code then would need to use this.value = 42; for assignments and would prevent your code from being analyzed directly).
Related
I want to build a method to dynamically save attributes on a specific object
given the attribute name and the value to save I call the "save()" function to update the global targetObj
var targetObj = targetClass();
save(String attribute, String value){
targetObj.attribute = value;
print(targetObj.attribute);
}
But I'm getting the following error:
Class 'targetClass' has no instance setter 'attribute='.
Receiver: Instance of 'targetClass'
Tried calling: attribute="Foo"
The only thing that I can think of is that "attribute" due to being type String results in an error.
That lead me to think if there is a way to read a String as code, something like eval for php.
As #Randal mentioned, you cannot create class..method at runtime. Still, you can try something like this.
A certain class
class Foo {
dynamic bar1;
dynamic bar2;
// ...
}
Your save method
save(Foo fooObject, String attribute, dynamic value) {
if ("bar1" == attribute) fooObject.bar1 = value;
else if ("bar2" == attribute) fooObject.bar2 == value;
// ...
}
Dart (and thus flutter) does not have a way to compile and execute code at runtime (other than dart:mirrors, which is deprecated). You can build additional code that derives from other code using the various builder mechanisms, although it can be rather complicated to implement (and use!).
I know that in the latest version of dart we can use if else statements inside the build method. Does anyone know if we can use also if else statement when we setting class parameters? I know I can do inline statement there but inline is a bit hard to read when there are multiple conditions
const int i = 0;
class Person {
// NewClass n = NewClass(a: i == 0 ? 'a' : 'b'); //<- inline statement working
NewClass n = NewClass(a: if(i == 0) 'a' else 'b'); //<- if statement doesn't
}
class NewClass {
final String a;
const NewClass({this.a});
}
Edit:
Basically in my case I've got an TextField widget where I set its's type parameter from enum (Type.text, Type.numeric...) According to this parameter I want to set The textField parameters (textCapitalization, maxLength and so on)
As per your comment, you are already creating an enum for specifying the type of the fields.
enum Type {text, numeric}
Now for specifying the properties of that particular type, you can add an extension on this enum, as shown below:
extension TextFieldProperties on Type {
int get maxLength {
if (this == Type.text) {
return 10;
}
return 12;
}
}
So in your field class you already have a type defined, you can use that type variable to get the properties of that particular type of field.
Type type = Type.text;
print(type.maxLength); // Will print 10
type = Type.numeric;
print(type.maxLength); // Will print 12
Note: It will work only in Dart 2.7 and above
You want the conditional expression (?:), not the conditional statement or literal entry (if), as you have already discovered.
The reason if doesn't work is that if only works as a statement or as a collection literal entry. It doesn't work in arbitrary expressions.
The reason for the distinction is that the if syntax allows you to omit the else branch. That only makes sense in places where "nothing" is a valid alternative. For a statement, "doing nothing" is fine. For a collection, "adding nothing" is also fine.
In an expression context, you must evaluate to a value or throw. There is no reasonable default that we can use instead of "nothing", so an if is not allowed instead of an expression.
Doesn't work because this syntax doesn't exist in Dart. The only way to do what you would like to do is to use the ternary operator.
If you try it in the DartPad you will get an error.
I suggest you to use a function to return the right value.
I have the following classes & interfaces:
export interface IBody {
body : ListBody;
}
export class Element {
// ...
}
export class Paragraph extends Element implements IBody {
// ...
}
export class Character extends Element {
// ...
}
I have code where I will get an array of Element derived objects (there are more than just Paragraph & Character). In the case of those that implement IBody, I need to take action on the elements in the body.
What is the best way to see if it implements IBody? Is it "if (element.body !== undefined)"?
And then how do I access it? "var bodyElement = <IBody> element;" gives me an error.
C:/src/jenova/Dev/Merge/AutoTagWeb/client/layout/document/elements/factory.ts(34,27): error TS2012: Cannot convert 'Element' to 'IBody':
Type 'Element' is missing property 'body' from type 'IBody'.
Type 'IBody' is missing property 'type' from type 'Element'.
thanks - dave
An interface in TypeScript is a compile-time only construct, with no run-time representation. You might find section 7 of the TypeScript specification interesting to read as it has the complete details.
So, you can't "test" for an interface specifically. Done correctly and completely, you generally shouldn't need to test for it as the compiler should have caught the cases where an object didn't implement the necessary interface. If you were to try using a type assertion:
// // where e has been typed as any, not an Element
var body = <IBody> e;
The compiler will allow it without warning as you've asserted that the type is an IBody. If however, e were an Element in scope, the compiler as you've shown will check the signature of the Element and confirm that it has the properties/methods declared by IBody. It's important to note that it's checking the signature -- it doesn't matter that it may not implement IBody as long as the signature matches up.
Assuming that Element has a signature that matches IBody, it will work. If it does not, you'll get the compiler error you're receiving. But, again, if it's declared as any, the assertion will pass and at run-time, unless the type has the methods defined on IBody, the script will fail.
As your Element is the base class, you cannot check for IBody. You could declare an argument as any:
function someFeature(e: any) {
}
And then assert that the IBody is present:
function someFeature(e: any) {
var body :IBody = <IBody> e;
// do something
}
However, if you do need a run-time check, you'd need to look for the function on the prototype or as a property before using it. While that could be misleading in some cases, the interface in TypeScript also may not have caught the mismatch either. Here's an example of how you could check for the existence of a specific function.
It might look like this:
function someFeature(e: any) {
var body = <IBody> e;
if (typeof (body.someFunctionOnBodyInterface) === "undefined") {
// not safe to use the function
throw new Error("Yikes!");
}
body.someFunctionOnBodyInterface();
}
I am currently using ReSharper V8.1. I've only recently began using ReSharper and have found some interest in their LiveTemplate Macros. I've conjured up a solution to return a list of HotspotItems from a constant, similar to ReSharper's predefined macro "Comma-delimited list of values". In the method I take the constant variable of the template parameter and do a split string on them to provide a collection of HotSpotItems. Unfortunately it doesn't work if I use the macro more than one time within a template. Below is an extreme hack job showing my implementation of the method HotspotItems of IMacroImplementation.
I am hoping that someone out there may have done some work in this area and could possibly provide an example of how they've implemented IMacroImplementation which provides a list of items from a constant and also allows for multiple uses within a single template.
Thank you.
public override HotspotItems GetLookupItems(IHotspotContext context)
{
HotspotItems hotSpotItems = null;
foreach (var hotspot in context.HotspotSession.Hotspots)
{
if (hotspot.Expression != null && ((MacroCallExpressionNew)hotspot.Expression).Definition is Macros.DisplayMultipleItems)
{
//hotspot.CurrentValue
var multiItems = ((MacroCallExpressionNew) hotspot.Expression).Definition as DisplayMultipleItems;
if (!multiItems.ItemSet)
{
var expression = hotspot.Expression as MacroCallExpressionNew;
IMacroParameterValueNew baseValue = expression.Parameters[0].GetValue(context.SessionContext.Solution.GetLifetime(), context.HotspotSession);
string templateValue = baseValue.GetValue();
multiItems.ItemSet = true;
if (!string.IsNullOrEmpty(templateValue) && templateValue.Split(',').Any())
{
var lookupItems = templateValue.Split(',').Select(param => new TextLookupItem(param)).Cast<ILookupItem>().ToList();
if (hotSpotItems == null)
hotSpotItems = new HotspotItems(lookupItems);
else
{
foreach (var item in lookupItems)
{
hotSpotItems.Items.Add(item);
}
}
}
}
}
}
return hotSpotItems;
}
You should fire up dotPeek and point it to the ReSharper bin directory and take a look at ListMacroDef and ListMacroImpl, which is the implementation for the comma-delimited list macro.
The definition derives from SimpleMacroDefinition. It gets given the parameters in the call to GetPlaceholder, looks at the first and splits it by comma, returning the first item as the placeholder.
ListMacroImpl is just as simple. Its constructor has an [Optional] parameter of type MacroParameterValueCollection. This is the list of parameter values specified in the hotspot editor. You'll want to check for null and take the first parameter, which will be your delimited list. It then overrides GetLookupItems and returns HotspotItems.Empty if the parameter value is null, or parses the value and returns a list of TextLookupItem.
You don't need to look at the session and list of hotspots - that will get you all hotspots in the session, when you're only interested in the current hotspot, and ReSharper will create a new IMacroImplementation for each hotspot and give you those values in your constructor.
I've just started using Lambda expressions, and really like the shortcut. I also like the fact that I have scope within the lambda of the encompassing method. One thing I am having trouble with is nesting lambdas. Here is what I am trying to do:
public void DoSomeWork()
{
MyContext context = new MyDomainContext();
context.GetDocumentTypeCount(ci.CustomerId, io =>
{
if (io.HasError)
{
// Handle error
}
// Do some work here
// ...
// make DB call to get data
EntityQuery<AppliedGlobalFilter> query =
from a in context.GetAppliedGlobalFiltersQuery()
where a.CustomerId == ci.CustomerId && a.FilterId == 1
select a;
context.Load<AppliedGlobalFilter>(query, lo =>
{
if (lo.HasError)
{
}
**// Do more work in this nested lambda.
// Get compile time error here**
}
}, null);
}, null);
}
The second lambda is where I get the following compile time error:
Cannot convert Lambda expression to type 'System.ServiceModel.DomainService.Client.LoadBehavior' because it is not a delegate type
The compiler is choosing the wrong overload for the Load method even though I am using the same override I did in the previous Lambda.
Is this because I am trying to nest? Or do I have something else wrong?
Thanks,
-Scott
Found the problem as described in my comment above. I'll head back to work now - red face and all....
I realize this is not the answer you want, but I suggest caution about lengthy and/or nested lambdas. They work, but they often make code harder to read / maintain by other developers. I try to limit my lambdas in length to three statements, with no nesting.