Is there a compiler meta for Class declaration, that prevents creating Class instance before extending it? In other words - some sort of opposite of #:final meta.
Like so (last line of code):
class A {
// ...
}
class B extends A {
// ...
}
// ...
var b = new B(); // OK
var a = new A(); // induce compiler-error
Simply don't declare a constructor at all for class A
Both the other answers are correct (no constructor or private constructor), but there are a few more details that you may interest you:
Here's an example of no constructor. Of note is that A simply doesn't have a constructor, and B simply doesn't call super(). Other than that, everything else works as you'd expect.
Here's an example of a private constructor. You still can't instantiate a new A(), but you do still need to call super() from B's constructor.
Technicalities:
Use of some features (like a default value on a member variable) will cause A to get an implicit constructor, automatically. Don't worry, this doesn't affect constructability or whether you need to call super(). But know that it is there, and if necessary an implicit super() call is prepended to B's constructor. See the JS output to verify this.
In any case, know that you can still instantiate an A at runtime with var a = Type.createInstance(A,[]); as compile-time type checks do not limit RTTI.
Related discussion:
Aside from private/no constructor, Haxe doesn't have a formal notion of abstract classes1 (base classes not expected to be instantiated) or abstract methods2 (functions on abstract base classes with no implementation that must be implemented by a derived class.) However, Andy Li wrote a macro for enforcing some of those concepts if you use them. Such a macro can detect violations of these rules and throw compile-time errors.
1. Not to be confused with Haxe abstracts types, which are an entirely different topic.
2. Not to be confused with virtual functions, which wikipedia describes as a function which can be overridden (though various docs for various languages describe this highly loaded term differently.)
One way of achieving this is to create private Class constructor:
class A {
private function new() {
// ...
}
}
// ...
var a = new A(); // Error: Cannot access private constructor
I'm trying to write class types and having an issue expressing what I want.
I have
class type event_emitter = object
method on : string -> unit
end
and then I want to do this:
class type socket = object
inherit event_emitter
method on : int -> unit
end
But I get a compiler error about a type signature mismatch between the two. I've also tried using the virtual keyword, doing class type virtual event_emitter = method virtual on : string -> unit but this also doesn't work as I guess these are class type definitions, not implementations anyway.
I really want this method override to work and this seemed straightforward, not sure why its not allowed.
What you are trying to do is overloading, not overriding. You are trying to create a new method in socket with the same name as in event_emitter, but with a different type. Overriding would be creating a new method with the same name and type. This description would hold for other languages like Java and C++, as well. The difference is that I don't believe OCaml allows this kind of overloading – the same as for regular functions.
Note that if you entered the analogous declarations for Java, it would work, but socket would have two on methods, not one. OCaml doesn't allow this.
This doesn't contradict antron's answer, but you can do this:
class type ['a] event_emitter = object
method on : 'a -> unit
end
class type socket = object
inherit [int] event_emitter
end
I'm playing around with value classes (class that extends AnyVal) in Scala 2.10.3 but are running into a strange compiler error when using them as parameter to abstract methods.
As the following example demonstrates:
class ValueClass(val x: Int) extends AnyVal
trait Test {
def foo(v: ValueClass): Int
}
new Test {
override def foo(v: ValueClass): Int = 1
}
The compiler spits out the following error:
error: bridge generated for member method foo: (v: ValueClass)Int in anonymous class $anon
which overrides method foo: (v: ValueClass)Int in trait Test
clashes with definition of the member itself;
both have erased type (v: Int)Int
override def foo(v: ValueClass): Int = 1
Why doesn't this work? And is there a way to pass a value class into an abstract method?
So as others noted, this issue has been fixed in later versions. If you are curious at all as to what was changed, I suggest you take a look into this pull request.
SI-6260 Avoid double-def error with lambdas over value classes Post-erasure of value classs in method signatures to the underlying
type wreaks havoc when the erased signature overlaps with the generic
signature from an overriden method. There just isn't room for both.
But we really need both; callers to the interface method will be
passing boxed values that the bridge needs to unbox and pass to the
specific method that accepts unboxed values.
This most commonly turns up with value classes that erase to Object
that are used as the parameter or the return type of an anonymous
function.
This was thought to have been intractable, unless we chose a different
name for the unboxed, specific method in the subclass. But that sounds
like a big task that would require call-site rewriting, ala
specialization.
But there is an important special case in which we don't need to
rewrite call sites. If the class defining the method is anonymous,
there is actually no need for the unboxed method; it will only ever
be called via the generic method.
I came to this realisation when looking at how Java 8 lambdas are
handled. I was expecting bridge methods, but found none. The lambda
body is placed directly in a method exactly matching the generic
signature.
This commit detects the clash between bridge and target, and recovers
for anonymous classes by mangling the name of the target method's
symbol. This is used as the bytecode name. The generic bridge forward
to that, as before, with the requisite box/unbox operations.
In an abstract class, I wish to define static methods, but I'm having problems.
In this simple example
abstract class Main {
static String get name;
bool use( Element el );
}
class Sub extends Main {
static String get name => 'testme';
bool use( Element el ) => (el is Element);
}
I receive the error:
function body expected for method 'get:name' static String get name;
Is there a typo in the declaration, or are static methods incompatible with abstract classes?
Dart doesn't inherit static methods to derived classes. So it makes no sense to create abstract static methods (without implementation).
If you want a static method in class Main you have to fully define it there and always call it like Main.name
== EDIT ==
I'm sure I read or heard some arguments from Gilad Bracha about it but can't find it now.
This behaviour is IMHO common mostly in statically typed languages (I don't know many dynamic languages). A static method is like a top level function where the class name just acts as a namespace. A static method has nothing to do with an instantiated object so inheritance is not applicable. In languages where static methods are 'inherited' this is just syntactic sugar. Dart likes to be more explicit here and to avoid confusion between instance methods and static methods (which actually are not methods but just functions because they don't act on an instance). This is not my primary domain, but hopefully may make some sense anyways ;-)
Looks like you are trying to 'override' a static method. I'm not sure what you are trying to achieve there. I'm not aware of any OO languages that support that (and not sure how they could).
A similar question in Java might help clarify Polymorphism and Static Methods
Note also that it is considered bad practice to refer to statics from an instance of the class in Java (and other OO languages). Interestingly I noticed Dart does not let you do this so is in effect removing this bad practice entirely.
So you couldn't even fool yourself into thinking it would behave polymorphically in Dart because you can't call the static from the instance.
Can I specify interfaces when I declare a member?
After thinking about this question for a while, it occurred to me that a static-duck-typed language might actually work. Why can't predefined classes be bound to an interface at compile time? Example:
public interface IMyInterface
{
public void MyMethod();
}
public class MyClass //Does not explicitly implement IMyInterface
{
public void MyMethod() //But contains a compatible method definition
{
Console.WriteLine("Hello, world!");
}
}
...
public void CallMyMethod(IMyInterface m)
{
m.MyMethod();
}
...
MyClass obj = new MyClass();
CallMyMethod(obj); // Automatically recognize that MyClass "fits"
// MyInterface, and force a type-cast.
Do you know of any languages that support such a feature? Would it be helpful in Java or C#? Is it fundamentally flawed in some way? I understand you could subclass MyClass and implement the interface or use the Adapter design pattern to accomplish the same thing, but those approaches just seem like unnecessary boilerplate code.
A brand new answer to this question, Go has exactly this feature. I think it's really cool & clever (though I'll be interested to see how it plays out in real life) and kudos on thinking of it.
As documented in the official documentation (as part of the Tour of Go, with example code):
Interfaces are implemented implicitly
A type implements an interface by implementing its methods. There is
no explicit declaration of intent, no "implements" keyword.
Implicit interfaces decouple the definition of an interface from its
implementation, which could then appear in any package without
prearrangement.
How about using templates in C++?
class IMyInterface // Inheritance from this is optional
{
public:
virtual void MyMethod() = 0;
}
class MyClass // Does not explicitly implement IMyInterface
{
public:
void MyMethod() // But contains a compatible method definition
{
std::cout << "Hello, world!" "\n";
}
}
template<typename MyInterface>
void CallMyMethod(MyInterface& m)
{
m.MyMethod(); // instantiation succeeds iff MyInterface has MyMethod
}
MyClass obj;
CallMyMethod(obj); // Automatically generate code with MyClass as
// MyInterface
I haven't actually compiled this code, but I believe it's workable and a pretty trivial C++-ization of the original proposed (but nonworking) code.
Statically-typed languages, by definition, check types at compile time, not run time. One of the obvious problems with the system described above is that the compiler is going to check types when the program is compiled, not at run time.
Now, you could build more intelligence into the compiler so it could derive types, rather than having the programmer explicitly declare types; the compiler might be able to see that MyClass implements a MyMethod() method, and handle this case accordingly, without the need to explicitly declare interfaces (as you suggest). Such a compiler could utilize type inference, such as Hindley-Milner.
Of course, some statically typed languages like Haskell already do something similar to what you suggest; the Haskell compiler is able to infer types (most of the time) without the need to explicitly declare them. But obviously, Java/C# don't have this ability.
I don't see the point. Why not be explicit that the class implements the interface and have done with it? Implementing the interface is what tells other programmers that this class is supposed to behave in the way that interface defines. Simply having the same name and signature on a method conveys no guarantees that the intent of the designer was to perform similar actions with the method. That may be, but why leave it up for interpretation (and misuse)?
The reason you can "get away" with this successfully in dynamic languages has more to do with TDD than with the language itself. In my opinion, if the language offers the facility to give these sorts of guidance to others who use/view the code, you should use it. It actually improves clarity and is worth the few extra characters. In the case where you don't have access to do this, then an Adapter serves the same purpose of explicitly declaring how the interface relates to the other class.
F# supports static duck typing, though with a catch: you have to use member constraints. Details are available in this blog entry.
Example from the cited blog:
let inline speak (a: ^a) =
let x = (^a : (member speak: unit -> string) (a))
printfn "It said: %s" x
let y = (^a : (member talk: unit -> string) (a))
printfn "Then it said %s" y
type duck() =
member x.speak() = "quack"
member x.talk() = "quackity quack"
type dog() =
member x.speak() = "woof"
member x.talk() = "arrrr"
let x = new duck()
let y = new dog()
speak x
speak y
TypeScript!
Well, ok... So it's a javascript superset and maybe does not constitute a "language", but this kind of static duck-typing is vital in TypeScript.
Most of the languages in the ML family support structural types with inference and constrained type schemes, which is the geeky language-designer terminology that seems most likely what you mean by the phrase "static duck-typing" in the original question.
The more popular languages in this family that spring to mind include: Haskell, Objective Caml, F# and Scala. The one that most closely matches your example, of course, would be Objective Caml. Here's a translation of your example:
open Printf
class type iMyInterface = object
method myMethod: unit
end
class myClass = object
method myMethod = printf "Hello, world!"
end
let callMyMethod: #iMyInterface -> unit = fun m -> m#myMethod
let myClass = new myClass
callMyMethod myClass
Note: some of the names you used have to be changed to comply with OCaml's notion of identifier case semantics, but otherwise, this is a pretty straightforward translation.
Also, worth noting, neither the type annotation in the callMyMethod function nor the definition of the iMyInterface class type is strictly necessary. Objective Caml can infer everything in your example without any type declarations at all.
Crystal is a statically duck-typed language. Example:
def add(x, y)
x + y
end
add(true, false)
The call to add causes this compilation error:
Error in foo.cr:6: instantiating 'add(Bool, Bool)'
add(true, false)
^~~
in foo.cr:2: undefined method '+' for Bool
x + y
^
A pre-release design for Visual Basic 9 had support for static duck typing using dynamic interfaces but they cut the feature* in order to ship on time.
Boo definitely is a static duck-typed language: http://boo.codehaus.org/Duck+Typing
An excerpt:
Boo is a statically typed language,
like Java or C#. This means your boo
applications will run about as fast as
those coded in other statically typed
languages for .NET or Mono. But using
a statically typed language sometimes
constrains you to an inflexible and
verbose coding style, with the
sometimes necessary type declarations
(like "x as int", but this is not
often necessary due to boo's Type
Inference) and sometimes necessary
type casts (see Casting Types). Boo's
support for Type Inference and
eventually generics help here, but...
Sometimes it is appropriate to give up
the safety net provided by static
typing. Maybe you just want to explore
an API without worrying too much about
method signatures or maybe you're
creating code that talks to external
components such as COM objects. Either
way the choice should be yours not
mine.
Along with the normal types like
object, int, string...boo has a
special type called "duck". The term
is inspired by the ruby programming
language's duck typing feature ("If it
walks like a duck and quacks like a
duck, it must be a duck").
New versions of C++ move in the direction of static duck typing. You can some day (today?) write something like this:
auto plus(auto x, auto y){
return x+y;
}
and it would fail to compile if there's no matching function call for x+y.
As for your criticism:
A new "CallMyMethod" is created for each different type you pass to it, so it's not really type inference.
But it IS type inference (you can say foo(bar) where foo is a templated function), and has the same effect, except it's more time-efficient and takes more space in the compiled code.
Otherwise, you would have to look up the method during runtime. You'd have to find a name, then check that the name has a method with the right parameters.
Or you would have to store all that information about matching interfaces, and look into every class that matches an interface, then automatically add that interface.
In either case, that allows you to implicitly and accidentally break the class hierarchy, which is bad for a new feature because it goes against the habits of what programmers of C#/Java are used to. With C++ templates, you already know you're in a minefield (and they're also adding features ("concepts") to allow restrictions on template parameters).
Structural types in Scala does something like this.
See Statically Checked “Duck Typing” in Scala
D (http://dlang.org) is a statically compiled language and provides duck-typing via wrap() and unwrap() (http://dlang.org/phobos-prerelease/std_typecons.html#.unwrap).
Sounds like Mixins or Traits:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixin
http://www.iam.unibe.ch/~scg/Archive/Papers/Scha03aTraits.pdf
In the latest version of my programming language Heron it supports something similar through a structural-subtyping coercion operator called as. So instead of:
MyClass obj = new MyClass();
CallMyMethod(obj);
You would write:
MyClass obj = new MyClass();
CallMyMethod(obj as IMyInterface);
Just like in your example, in this case MyClass does not have to explicitly implement IMyInterface, but if it did the cast could happen implicitly and the as operator could be omitted.
I wrote a bit more about the technique which I call explicit structural sub-typing in this article.