I created macro for printing, using proc-macro-hack.
Then this error occured though I already have defined a.
Following is the code.
On decl crate,
proc_macro_expr_decl! {
/// Function for printing to the standard output.
///
/// First argument can be literal or not literal.
gprint! => gprint_impl
}
On impl crate,
use syn::{Expr, ExprTuple, parse_str};
use quote::ToTokens;
fn _print_impl(input: &str, print_name: &str) -> String {
let mut input_with_parens = String::with_capacity(input.len() + 2);
input_with_parens.push('(');
input_with_parens.push_str(input);
input_with_parens.push(')');
let tuple = parse_str::<ExprTuple>(&input_with_parens)
.unwrap_or_else(|_| panic!("expected arguments is expressions separated by comma, found {}", input))
let mut arg_iter = tuple.elems.iter();
let first = arg_iter.next();
if first.is_none() {
return "()".to_string();
}
let first = first.unwrap();
let mut s = String::new();
if let &Expr::Lit(ref lit) = first {
s.push_str(print_name);
s.push('(');
s.push_str(&lit.into_tokens().to_string());
} else {
s.push_str(print_name);
s.push_str("(\"{}\", ");
s.push_str(&first.into_tokens().to_string());
}
for arg in arg_iter {
s.push_str(", ");
s.push_str(&arg.into_tokens().to_string());
}
s.push(')');
s
}
proc_macro_expr_impl! {
pub fn gprint_impl(input: &str) -> String {
_print_impl(input, "print!")
}
}
And tried using this macro,
fn main() {
let a = 0;
gprint!(a);
}
error occured:
error[E0425]: cannot find value `a` in this scope
Why?
Related
I tried to add function from objective c to swift just like here https://stackoverflow.com/a/29440193/7395969 and I converted call method to Swift as shown below. But I get error : Cannot convert value of type 'in_addr_t' (aka 'UInt32') to expected argument type 'UnsafeMutablePointer!' on this line : let r: Int
func getGatewayIP() -> String {
var ipString: String? = nil
let gatewayaddr: in_addr
let r: Int = getdefaultgateway((gatewayaddr.s_addr))
if r >= 0 {
ipString = "\(inet_ntoa(gatewayaddr))"
print("default gateway : \(ipString)")
}
else {
print("getdefaultgateway() failed")
}
return ipString!
}
You have to pass the address of gatewayaddr.s_addr as inout argument
with &. Also the gatewayaddr must be initialized:
var gatewayaddr = in_addr()
let r = getdefaultgateway(&gatewayaddr.s_addr)
Note that string interpolation
ipString = "\(inet_ntoa(gatewayaddr))"
will not work to convert the C string to a Swift String,
you have to call String(cString:). Also
return ipString!
will crash if the gateway could not be determined.
Example of a safe version:
func getGatewayIP() -> String? {
var gatewayaddr = in_addr()
let r = getdefaultgateway(&gatewayaddr.s_addr)
if r >= 0 {
return String(cString: inet_ntoa(gatewayaddr))
} else {
return nil
}
}
if let gateway = getGatewayIP() {
print("default gateway", gateway)
} else {
print("getGatewayIP() failed")
}
If I’ve got a bunch of chained guard let statements, how can I diagnose which condition failed, short of breaking apart my guard let into multiple statements?
Given this example:
guard let keypath = dictionary["field"] as? String,
let rule = dictionary["rule"] as? String,
let comparator = FormFieldDisplayRuleComparator(rawValue: rule),
let value = dictionary["value"]
else
{
return nil
}
How can I tell which of the 4 let statements was the one that failed and invoked the else block?
The simplest thing I can think of is to break out the statements into 4 sequential guard else statements, but that feels wrong.
guard let keypath = dictionary["field"] as? String
else
{
print("Keypath failed to load.")
self.init()
return nil
}
guard let rule = dictionary["rule"] as? String else
{
print("Rule failed to load.")
self.init()
return nil
}
guard let comparator = FormFieldDisplayRuleComparator(rawValue: rule) else
{
print("Comparator failed to load for rawValue: \(rule)")
self.init()
return nil
}
guard let value = dictionary["value"] else
{
print("Value failed to load.")
self.init()
return nil
}
If I wanted to keep them all in one guard statement, I can think of another option. Checking for nils inside the guard statement might work:
guard let keypath = dictionary["field"] as? String,
let rule = dictionary["rule"] as? String,
let comparator = FormFieldDisplayRuleComparator(rawValue: rule),
let value = dictionary["value"]
else
{
if let keypath = keypath {} else {
print("Keypath failed to load.")
}
// ... Repeat for each let...
return nil
}
I don't even know if that will compile, but then I might as well have used a bunch of if let statements or guards to begin with.
What's the idiomatic Swift way?
Erica Sadun just wrote a good blog post on this exact topic.
Her solution was to hi-jack the where clause and use it to keep track of which guard statements pass. Each successful guard condition using the diagnose method will print the file name and the line number to the console. The guard condition following the last diagnose print statement is the one that failed. The solution looked like this:
func diagnose(file: String = #file, line: Int = #line) -> Bool {
print("Testing \(file):\(line)")
return true
}
// ...
let dictionary: [String : AnyObject] = [
"one" : "one"
"two" : "two"
"three" : 3
]
guard
// This line will print the file and line number
let one = dictionary["one"] as? String where diagnose(),
// This line will print the file and line number
let two = dictionary["two"] as? String where diagnose(),
// This line will NOT be printed. So it is the one that failed.
let three = dictionary["three"] as? String where diagnose()
else {
// ...
}
Erica's write-up on this topic can be found here
Normally, a guard statement doesn't let you distinguish which of its conditions wasn't satisfied. Its purpose is that when the program executes past the guard statement, you know all the variables are non-nil. But it doesn't provide any values inside the guard/else body (you just know that the conditions weren't all satisfied).
That said, if all you want to do is print something when one of the steps returns nil, you could make use of the coalescing operator ?? to perform an extra action.
Make a generic function that prints a message and returns nil:
/// Prints a message and returns `nil`. Use this with `??`, e.g.:
///
/// guard let x = optionalValue ?? printAndFail("missing x") else {
/// // ...
/// }
func printAndFail<T>(message: String) -> T? {
print(message)
return nil
}
Then use this function as a "fallback" for each case. Since the ?? operator employs short-circuit evaluation, the right-hand side won't be executed unless the left-hand side has already returned nil.
guard
let keypath = dictionary["field"] as? String ?? printAndFail("missing keypath"),
let rule = dictionary["rule"] as? String ?? printAndFail("missing rule"),
let comparator = FormFieldDisplayRuleComparator(rawValue: rule) ?? printAndFail("missing comparator"),
let value = dictionary["value"] ?? printAndFail("missing value")
else
{
// ...
return
}
Very good question
I wish I had a good answer for that but I have not.
Let's begin
However let's take a look at the problem together. This is a simplified version of your function
func foo(dictionary:[String:AnyObject]) -> AnyObject? {
guard let
a = dictionary["a"] as? String,
b = dictionary[a] as? String,
c = dictionary[b] else {
return nil // I want to know more ☹️ !!
}
return c
}
Inside the else we don't know what did go wrong
First of all inside the else block we do NOT have access to the constants defined in the guard statement. This because the compiler doesn't know which one of the clauses did fail. So it does assume the worst case scenario where the first clause did fail.
Conclusion: we cannot write a "simple" check inside the else statement to understand what did not work.
Writing a complex check inside the else
Of course we could replicate inside the else the logic we put insito the guard statement to find out the clause which did fail but this boilerplate code is very ugly and not easy to maintain.
Beyond nil: throwing errors
So yes, we need to split the guard statement. However if we want a more detailed information about what did go wrong our foo function should no longer return a nil value to signal an error, it should throw an error instead.
So
enum AppError: ErrorType {
case MissingValueForKey(String)
}
func foo(dictionary:[String:AnyObject]) throws -> AnyObject {
guard let a = dictionary["a"] as? String else { throw AppError.MissingValueForKey("a") }
guard let b = dictionary[a] as? String else { throw AppError.MissingValueForKey(a) }
guard let c = dictionary[b] else { throw AppError.MissingValueForKey(b) }
return c
}
I am curious about what the community thinks about this.
One possible (non-idiomatic) workaround: make use of the where clause to track the success of each subsequent optional binding in the guard block
I see nothing wrong with splitting up your guard statements in separate guard blocks, in case you're interested in which guard statement that fails.
Out of a technical perspective, however, one alternative to separate guard blocks is to make use of a where clause (to each optional binding) to increment a counter each time an optional binding is successful. In case a binding fails, the value of the counter can be used to track for which binding this was. E.g.:
func foo(a: Int?, _ b: Int?) {
var i: Int = 1
guard let a = a where (i+=1) is (),
let b = b where (i+=1) is () else {
print("Failed at condition #\(i)")
return
}
}
foo(nil,1) // Failed at condition #1
foo(1,nil) // Failed at condition #2
Above we make use of the fact that the result of an assignment is the empty tuple (), whereas the side effect is the assignment to the lhs of the expression.
If you'd like to avoid introducing the mutable counter i prior the scope of guard clause, you could place the counter and the incrementing of it as a static class member, e.g.
class Foo {
static var i: Int = 1
static func reset() -> Bool { i = 1; return true }
static func success() -> Bool { i += 1; return true }
}
func foo(a: Int?, _ b: Int?) {
guard Foo.reset(),
let a = a where Foo.success(),
let b = b where Foo.success() else {
print("Failed at condition #\(Foo.i)")
return
}
}
foo(nil,1) // Failed at condition #1
foo(1,nil) // Failed at condition #2
Possibly a more natural approach is to propagate the value of the counter by letting the function throw an error:
class Foo { /* as above */ }
enum Bar: ErrorType {
case Baz(Int)
}
func foo(a: Int?, _ b: Int?) throws {
guard Foo.reset(),
let a = a where Foo.success(),
let b = b where Foo.success() else {
throw Bar.Baz(Foo.i)
}
// ...
}
do {
try foo(nil,1) // Baz error: failed at condition #1
// try foo(1,nil) // Baz error: failed at condition #2
} catch Bar.Baz(let num) {
print("Baz error: failed at condition #\(num)")
}
I should probably point out, however, that the above is probably closer to be categorized as a "hacky" construct, rather than an idiomatic one.
The simplest thing I can think of is to break out the statements into 4 sequential guard else statements, but that feels wrong.
In my personal opinion, the Swift way shouldn't require you to check whether the values are nil or not.
However, you could extend Optional to suit your needs:
extension Optional
{
public func testingForNil<T>(#noescape f: (Void -> T)) -> Optional
{
if self == nil
{
f()
}
return self
}
}
Allowing for:
guard let keypath = (dictionary["field"] as? String).testingForNil({ /* or else */ }),
let rule = (dictionary["rule"] as? String).testingForNil({ /* or else */ }),
let comparator = FormFieldDisplayRuleComparator(rawValue: rule).testingForNil({ /* or else */ }),
let value = dictionary["value"].testingForNil({ /* or else */ })
else
{
return nil
}
My two cents:
Since Swift doesn't let me add the where in the guard let, I came up with this solution instead:
func validate<T>(_ input: T?, file: String = #file, line: Int = #line) -> T? {
guard let input = input else {
print("Nil argument at \(file), line: \(line)")
return nil
}
return input
}
class Model {
let id: Int
let name: String
init?(id: Int?, name: String?) {
guard let id = validate(id),
let name = validate(name) else {
return nil
}
self.id = id
self.name = name
}
}
let t = Model(id: 0, name: "ok") // Not nil
let t2 = Model(id: 0, name: nil) // Nil
let t3 = Model(id: nil, name: "ok") // Nil
I think other answers here are better, but another approach is to define functions like this:
func checkAll<T1, T2, T3>(clauses: (T1?, T2?, T3?)) -> (T1, T2, T3)? {
guard let one = clauses.0 else {
print("1st clause is nil")
return nil
}
guard let two = clauses.1 else {
print("2nd clause is nil")
return nil
}
guard let three = clauses.2 else {
print("3rd clause is nil")
return nil
}
return (one, two, three)
}
And then use it like this
let a: Int? = 0
let b: Int? = nil
let c: Int? = 3
guard let (d, e, f) = checkAll((a, b, c)) else {
fatalError()
}
print("a: \(d)")
print("b: \(e)")
print("c: \(f)")
You could extend it to print the file & line number of the guard statement like other answers.
On the plus side, there isn't too much clutter at the call site, and you only get output for the failing cases. But since it uses tuples and you can't write a function that operates on arbitrary tuples, you would have to define a similar method for one parameter, two parameters etc up to some arity. It also breaks the visual relation between the clause and the variable it's being bound to, especially if the unwrapped clauses are long.
This code can be used for all guard and if logic tests like optional, bool and case tests. It prints a line of a logic test which failed.
class GuardLogger {
var lastGoodLine: Int
var lineWithError: Int { lastGoodLine + 1 }
var file: String
var function: String
init(file: String = #file, function: String = #function, line: Int = #line) {
self.lastGoodLine = line
self.file = file
self.function = function
}
func log(line: Int = #line) -> Bool {
lastGoodLine = line
return true
}
func print() {
Swift.print([file, function, String(lineWithError)].joined(separator: " "))
}
}
let testBoolTrue = true
let testBoolFalse = false
let guardLogger = GuardLogger()
guard
testBoolTrue, guardLogger.log(),
let testOptionalBoolTrue = Optional(testBoolTrue), guardLogger.log(),
let selfIsViewController = self as? UIViewController, guardLogger.log(),
testBoolTrue == false, guardLogger.log() // this fails
else {
print(guardLogger.lastGoodLine)
fatalError()
}
I want to get the parameter types of a Haxe function using a macro and convert them to a shorthand string form, a bit like JNI/Java method signatures, but without a return type.
The motivation here is to provide access to the function parameter types, without having to slowly search through run-time type information at runtime. For example, say you want to construct a graphical widget for calling a function that takes parameters. You will need the type of each function parameter to create the correct spinbox, textbox, and select box widgets needed for tweaking the values that will be passed to the function.
So the question is, how can you save Haxe function parameter types with a macro?
Here is a macro that works for a few basic types, and any abstracts based on those types. It maps the function parameter types to strings. For example, function type String->Float->Int->String->Void maps to sfis, Float->Float->Int to ff etc:
package;
import haxe.macro.Expr;
import haxe.macro.Context;
import haxe.macro.Type;
import haxe.macro.ExprTools;
// Map some Haxe types to string ids
#:enum abstract TypeMapping(String) from (String) {
var BOOL = "b";
var FLOAT = "f";
var INT = "i";
var STRING = "s";
}
class Util
{
public macro static function getParameterTypes(f:Expr):ExprOf<String> {
var type:Type = Context.typeof(f);
if (!Reflect.hasField(type, 'args')) {
throw "Parameter has no field 'args'";
}
var t = type.getParameters()[0];
var args:Array<Dynamic> = Reflect.field(type, 'args')[0];
var signature:String = "";
for (i in 0...args.length) {
switch(args[i].t) {
case TAbstract(t, p):
var underlyingTypeName = Std.string(t.get().type.getParameters()[0]);
switch(underlyingTypeName) {
case "Bool":
signature += TypeMapping.BOOL;
case "Float":
signature += TypeMapping.FLOAT;
case "Int":
signature += TypeMapping.INT;
case "String":
signature += TypeMapping.STRING;
default:
throw "Unhandled abstract function parameter type: " + underlyingTypeName;
}
case CString:
signature += TypeMapping.STRING;
default:
throw "Unhandled function parameter type: " + args[i];
}
}
return macro $v{signature};
}
}
A further problem is how to make this work for all types, rather than just ones you handle explicitly. To do that, you might populate an array of Strings with the type name/class name/path of each function parameter instead, and return that instead of a single String. Here's an attempt at that, note it doesn't work with function parameters (and probably other stuff) yet:
public macro static function getFullParameterTypes(f:Expr):ExprOf<Array<String>> {
var type:Type = Context.typeof(f);
if (!Reflect.hasField(type, 'args')) {
throw "Parameter has no field 'args'";
}
var args:Array<Dynamic> = Reflect.field(type, 'args')[0];
var pos = haxe.macro.Context.currentPos();
var signature:Array<Expr> = [];
for (i in 0...args.length) {
var argType:Type = args[i].t;
var s;
switch(argType) {
case TFun(t, r):
s = EConst(CString("Function"));
throw "Not working with function parameters yet";
case _:
s = EConst(CString(argType.getParameters()[0].toString()));
}
signature.push({expr: s, pos: pos});
}
return macro $a{signature};
}
A more up to date approach..
macro function deflate(fun:haxe.macro.Expr) {
var type = haxe.macro.Context.typeof(fun);
final paramNames = extractFunction(type);
return macro $v{paramNames};
}
// Extract function parameter names
function extractFunction(type):Array<Dynamic> {
return switch type {
case TFun(args, ret): {
var paramNames:Array<Dynamic> = [];
for (p in args) {
final pName = p.name;
paramNames.push(pName);
}
return paramNames;
}
case _: {throw "unable to extract function information";};
}
}
Use it like this
using Macros;
function func(name:String, greeting:String){};
final args = fun.deflate();
trace(args) // output: [name, greeting]
A problem you may face is how to collect the default value of a parameter, consider the example below.
function func(name:String = "Josh", greeting:String = "Hello"){ return '$greeting $name'};
final args = fun.deflate();
trace(args) // output: [name, greeting]
Now let's account for default parameter values by slightly modifying the code:
// Extract function parameter names
function extractFunction(type):Array<Dynamic> {
return switch type {
case TFun(args, ret): {
var paramNames:Array<Dynamic> = [];
for (p in args) {
final pName = p.name;
final v = {name: pName, value: null}; // <= anticipate a value
paramNames.push(v);
}
return paramNames;
}
case _: {throw "unable to extract function information";};
}
}
macro function deflate(fun:haxe.macro.Expr) {
var type = haxe.macro.Context.typeof(fun);
final paramNames:Array<Dynamic> = extractFunction(type);
// extract default param values
switch fun.expr {
case EFunction(f, m):{
for(a in m.args){
for(p in paramNames){
if(p.name == a.name){
if(a.value != null){
switch (a.value.expr){
case EConst(c):{
switch(c){
case CString(v, _):{
p.value = v;
}
case CFloat(f): {
p.value = Std.parseFloat(f);
}
case CInt(i):{
p.value = Std.parseInt(i);
}
case _: throw "unsupported constant value for default parameter";
}
}
case _:
}
}
}
}
}
}
case _:
}
return macro $v{paramNames};
}
So we can now use it like this
function func(name:String = "Josh", greeting:String = "Hello"){ return '$greeting $name'};
final args = Macros.deflate(func);
trace(args) // output: [{name: 'name', value:'Josh', {name:'greeting', value:'Hello'}]
The general question of why the following code fails has been answered already. But my question is, if it's never possible, why isn't this a compiler error?
Here's a minimal example: I can define this function and the compiler doesn't complain even though the unsafeBitCast will always fail:
func foo() -> [Int] {
let arr: [Int?] = [1, 2, 3, 4]
guard let barr = arr as? [Int] else { return [] }
return barr
}
This doesn't fail until we actually try to call foo() at runtime.
It is a compiler bug, because [Int] is not subtype of [Int?] So, your code shouldn't compile without any error. However, next code should work as expected
let i: [Int?] = [1,2,3]
let d: [Double?] = [1,2,3]
func foo<T>(arr:[T?]?) -> [T] {
guard let barr = arr where T.self == Int.self else { return [] }
return barr.flatMap{ $0 }
}
print(foo(i), foo(i).dynamicType)
print(foo(d), foo(d).dynamicType)
/*
[1, 2, 3] Array<Int>
[] Array<Double>
*/
Please, fill the bug report! More interestingly next code doesn't compile
let j = [Optional(1),Optional(2)] as? [Int]
but
let j = [Optional(1),Optional(2)]
let k = j as? [Int]
compile and crash ...
let arr0:[Int?]? = [1,2,3]
if let r = arr0 where r.dynamicType == [Int].self {
print(r, r.dynamicType)
} else {
print("not [Int]")
}
// prints
// not [Int]
// but
func foo()->[Int] {
let arr0:[Int?]? = [1,2,3]
if let r = arr0 where r.dynamicType == [Int].self {
print(r, r.dynamicType)
// !!!!! ERROR !!!!!
// next line doesn't compile wihout flatMap !!!!
//
// error: cannot convert return expression of type '[Int?]' to return type '[Int]'
//
// even though that it is clear from the where clause that r type must be [Int]
return r.flatMap{ $0 }
} else {
print("arr0 is not [Int]")
return []
}
}
foo() // [] and prints: arr0 is not [Int]
I'm trying to write a function literal in swift with a recursive body - in this case it's simply to add all the values in a list. I'm getting an error that "Variable used within it's own initial value". Any thoughts on what might be wrong here? Also I'm aware that what I'm doing here is a simple reduce and that it's build into Array, I'm just using this as an illustrative example of what I'm seeing elsewhere.
let list: Slice = [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10]
var closure = { (memo: Int, list: Slice<Int>) -> Int in
if (list.count == 0) {
return memo
} else {
return closure(memo + list[0], list[1..<list.count])
}
}
let value = closure(0,list)
Try this:
let list: Slice = [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10]
var closure:((Int, Slice<Int>) -> Int)!
closure = { (memo, list) in
if (list.count == 0) {
closure = nil // remove retain cycle
return memo
} else {
return closure(memo + list[0], list[1..<list.count])
}
}
let value = closure(0, list)
EDIT:
see this video: Advanced Swift at WWDC14. from around 41:00. it shows the down side of this method, and better workaround.
I know this is quite old, but I've found another alternative:
let list : ArraySlice<Int> = [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10]
let closure = { (Void) -> ((Int, ArraySlice<Int>) -> Int) in
func f(memo: Int, list: ArraySlice<Int>) -> Int {
if (list.count == 0) {
return memo
} else {
return f(memo + list[list.startIndex], list: list[(list.startIndex + 1)..<list.endIndex])
}
}
return f
}()
let value = closure(0, list)