How can I store a macro name in a variable and then later use it?
For example:
Set myVariable = "AssertEquals"
Do $$$myVariable(...)
OR
Set myVariable = "$$$AssertEquals"
Do myVariable(...)
Thought I could do something like the following but that doesn't work either (I get CLASS DOES NOT EXIST).
Do $CLASSMETHOD("%UnitTest.TestCase","AssertEqualsViaMacro",....)
No way, macroses expended during compile time, but you going to use them in runtime. I think you should better explain what you actually going to achieve. And you'll get more answers if you ask here.
Related
In Matlab, it is easy to generate "help" for a function, as follows.
function out = foo()
% helpful information about foo
end
When we execute help foo, we get "helpful information about foo".
However, suppose we would like to define help for a variable, probably as a definition. How could we do such a thing? It would be nice if we could do something like
x = 3; % m ... position
help x
and get "m ... position". However, I don't believe such functionality exists.
The only reasonable way I see around this is to define every variable as a struct with keys value and description.
x.value = 3;
x.description = 'm/s ... position';
This requires we define every variable as a struct, which is kind of annoying and, I worry (should I?), unperformant (it's simulation code and these variables are accessed repeatedly).
Is there another solution I'm not considering? Should I be worried about making every variable a struct?
Your code should be self-documenting. Instead of variable name x, use position.
Furthermore, all variables should be local, so you can easily look for its definition (with comment) within the function you are editing.
Variables declared further away (with larger scope within the function) should have longer, more self-explanatory names than variables with a smaller scope (e.g. use within a short loop.
There are only two three cases where variables are declared outside the function’s scope:
Class properties. You can actually document these.
In a script, you have access to variables that already existed before the script started. A good reason not to use scripts or depend on the base namespace in larger projects.
Global variables. You should never use global variables for many reasons. Just don’t.
This question already has answers here:
What is the difference between `let` and `var` in Swift?
(32 answers)
Closed 8 years ago.
I'm new to Swift programming, and I've met the var and let types. I know that let is a constant and I know what that means, but I never used a constant mainly because I didn't need to. So why should I use var instead of let, at what situation should I use it?
Rather than constant and variable, the correct terminology in swift is immutable and mutable.
You use let when you know that once you assign a value to a variable, it doesn't change - i.e. it is immutable. If you declare the id of a table view cell, most likely it won't change during its lifetime, so by declaring it as immutable there's no risk that you can mistakenly change it - the compiler will inform you about that.
Typical use cases:
A constant (the timeout of a timer, or the width of a fixed sized label, the max number of login attempts, etc.). In this scenario the constant is a replacement for the literal value spread over the code (think of #define)
the return value of a function used as input for another function
the intermediate result of an expression, to be used as input for another expression
a container for an unwrapped value in optional binding
the data returned by a REST API call, deserialized from JSON into a struct, which must be stored in a database
and a lot more. Every time I write var, I ask myself: can this variable change?. If the answer is no, I replace var with let. Sometimes I also use a more protective approach: I declare everything as immutable, then the compiler will let me know when I try to modify one of them, and for each case I can proceed accordingly.
Some considerations:
For reference types (classes), immutable means that once you assign an instance to the immutable variable, you cannot assign another instance to the same variable.
For value types (numbers, strings, arrays, dictionaries, structs, enums) immutable means that that once you assign a value, you cannot change the value itself. For simple data types (Int, Float, String) it means you cannot assign another value of the same type. For composite data types (structs, arrays, dictionaries) it means you cannot assign a new value (such as a new instance of a struct) and you cannot change any of their stored properties.
Also an immutable variable has a semantic meaning for the developer and whoever reading the code - it clearly states that the variable won't change.
Last, but maybe less important from a pure development point of view, immutables can be subject to optimizations by the compiler.
Generally speaking, mutable state is to avoid as much as possible.
Immutable values help in reasoning about code, because you can easily track them down and clearly identify the value from the start to the end.
Mutable variables, on the other hand, make difficult to follow your data flow, since anyone can modify them at any time. Especially when dealing with concurrent applications, reasoning about mutable state can quickly become an incredibly hard task.
So, as a design principle, try to use let whenever possible and if you need to modify an object, simply produce a new instance.
Whenever you need to use a var, perhaps because using it makes the code clearer, try to limit their scope as much as possible and not to expose any mutable state. As an example, if you declare a var inside a function, it's safe to do so as long as you don't expose that mutability to the caller, i.e. from the caller point of view, it must not matter whether you used a var or a val in the implementation.
In general, if you know a variable's value is not going to change, declare it as a constant. Immutable variables will make your code more readable as you know for sure a particular variable is never being changed. This might also be better for the compiler as it can take advantage of the fact that a variable is constant and perform some optimisations.
This doesn't only apply to Swift. Even in C when the value of a variable is not be changed after being initialised, it's good practise to make sure it's const.
So, the way you think about "I didn't need to" should change. You don't need a constant only for values like TIMEOUT etc. You should have a constant variable anywhere you know the value of a variable doesn't need to be changed after initialisation.
Note: This is more of a general "programming as a whole" answer and not specific to Swift. #Antonio's answer has more of a focus on Swift.
I am attempting to use LuaJ with Scala. Most things work (actually all things work if you do them correctly!) but the simple task of setting object values has become incredibly complicated thanks to Scala's setter implementation.
Scala:
class TestObject {
var x: Int = 0
}
Lua:
function myTestFunction(testObject)
testObject.x = 3
end
If I execute the script or line containing this Lua function and pass a coerced instance of TestObject to myTestFunction this causes an error in LuaJ. LuaJ is trying to direct-write the value, and Scala requires you to go through the implicitly-defined setter (with the horrible name x_=, which is not valid Lua so even attempting to call that as a function makes your Lua not parse).
As I said, there are workarounds for this, such as defining your own setter or using the #BeanProperty markup. They just make code that should be easy to write much more complicated:
Lua:
function myTestFunction(testObject)
testObject.setX(testObject, 3)
end
Does anybody know of a way to get luaj to implicitly call the setter for such assignments? Or where I might look in the luaj source code to perhaps implement such a thing?
Thanks!
I must admit that I'm not too familiar with LuaJ, but the first thing that comes to my mind regarding your issue is to wrap the objects within proxy tables to ease interaction with the API. Depending upon what sort of needs you have, this solution may or may not be the best, but it could be a good temporary fix.
local mt = {}
function mt:__index(k)
return self.o[k] -- Define how your getters work here.
end
function mt:__newindex(k, v)
return self.o[k .. '_='](v) -- "object.k_=(v)"
end
local function proxy(o)
return setmetatable({o = o}, mt)
end
-- ...
function myTestFunction(testObject)
testObject = proxy(testObject)
testObject.x = 3
end
I believe this may be the least invasive way to solve your problem. As for modifying LuaJ's source code to better suit your needs, I had a quick look through the documentation and source code and found this, this, and this. My best guess says that line 71 of JavaInstance.java is where you'll find what you need to change, if Scala requires a different way of setting values.
f.set(m_instance, CoerceLuaToJava.coerce(value, f.getType()));
Perhaps you should use the method syntax:
testObject:setX(3)
Note the colon ':' instead of the dot '.' which can be hard to distinguish in some editors.
This has the same effect as the function call:
testObject.setX(testObject, 3)
but is more readable.
It can also be used to call static methods on classes:
luajava.bindClass("java.net.InetAddress"):getLocalHost():getHostName()
The part to the left of the ':' is evaluated once, so a statement such as
x = abc[d+e+f]:foo()
will be evaluated as if it were
local tmp = abc[d+e+f]
x = tmp.foo(tmp)
I'm starting to play with Scala, and one of the first things I read is that vals are:
variables that are assigned once and never change, and vars, variables that may change over their lifetime
But I'm curious why I can do this:
val foo = Array(1, 3 ,2)
scala.util.Sorting.quickSort(foo)
If I check the foo variable now is ordered, which means it has changed... also if I do print(foo), both have the same, so the variable is pointing to the same object (I could have thought that the variable just pointed to a new object)
Could anyone clarify?
The Array pointed to by the foo variable is changing, but the fact that foo points at that Array doesn't change. Try re-assigning foo and you will see what you are looking for.
The problem is not with val, but with Array. Although values are unchangeable, arrays are. If you are looking to stop this, you can use a class within the package immutable.
I mean if there's some declarative way to prevent an object from changing any of it's members.
In the following example
class student(var name:String)
val s = new student("John")
"s" has been declared as a val, so it will always point to the same student.
But is there some way to prevent s.name from being changed by just declaring it like immutable???
Or the only solution is to declare everything as val, and manually force immutability?
No, it's not possible to declare something immutable. You have to enforce immutability yourself, by not allowing anyone to change it, that is remove all ways of modifying the class.
Someone can still modify it using reflection, but that's another story.
Scala doesn't enforce that, so there is no way to know. There is, however, an interesting compiler-plugin project named pusca (I guess it stands for Pure-Scala). Pure is defined there as not mutating a non-local variable and being side-effect free (e.g. not printing to the console)—so that calling a pure method repeatedly will always yield the same result (what is called referentially transparent).
I haven't tried out that plug-in myself, so I can't say if it's any stable or usable already.
There is no way that Scala could do this generally.
Consider the following hypothetical example:
class Student(var name : String, var course : Course)
def stuff(course : Course) {
magically_pure_val s = new Student("Fredzilla", course)
someFunctionOfStudent(s)
genericHigherOrderFunction(s, someFunctionOfStudent)
course.someMethod()
}
The pitfalls for any attempt to actually implement that magically_pure_val keyword are:
someFunctionOfStudent takes an arbitrary student, and isn't implemented in this compilation unit. It was written/compiled knowing that Student consists of two mutable fields. How do we know it doesn't actually mutate them?
genericHigherOrderFunction is even worse; it's going to take our Student and a function of Student, but it's written polymorphically. Whether or not it actually mutates s depends on what its other arguments are; determining that at compile time with full generality requires solving the Halting Problem.
Let's assume we could get around that (maybe we could set some secret flags that mean exceptions get raised if the s object is actually mutated, though personally I wouldn't find that good enough). What about that course field? Does course.someMethod() mutate it? That method call isn't invoked from s directly.
Worse than that, we only know that we'll have passed in an instance of Course or some subclass of Course. So even if we are able to analyze a particular implementation of Course and Course.someMethod and conclude that this is safe, someone can always add a new subclass of Course whose implementation of someMethod mutates the Course.
There's simply no way for the compiler to check that a given object cannot be mutated. The pusca plugin mentioned by 0__ appears to detect purity the same way Mercury does; by ensuring that every method is known from its signature to be either pure or impure, and by raising a compiler error if the implementation of anything declared to be pure does anything that could cause impurity (unless the programmer promises that the method is pure anyway).[1]
This is quite a different from simply declaring a value to be completely (and deeply) immutable and expecting the compiler to notice if any of the code that could touch it could mutate it. It's also not a perfect inference, just a conservative one
[1]The pusca README claims that it can infer impurity of methods whose last expression is a call to an impure method. I'm not quite sure how it can do this, as checking if that last expression is an impure call requires checking if it's calling a not-declared-impure method that should be declared impure by this rule, and the implementation might not be available to the compiler at that point (and indeed could be changed later even if it is). But all I've done is look at the README and think about it for a few minutes, so I might be missing something.