Let's say I create the following class in Python:
class SomeClass(object):
variable_1 = "Something"
def __init__(self, variable_2):
self.variable_2 = variable_2 + self.variable_1
I do not understand why variables lying outside the method (should I say function?) definition, but inside the body of class, are not named using the dot notation like variable_1, and variables inside the method definition are named - for example: self.variable_2 - or referenced - for example: self.variable_1 using the dot notation. Is this just a notation specific to Python or is this for some other reason?
It is not something you will find in C++ or java. It is not only a notation. See the documentation documentation:
classes partake of the dynamic nature of Python: they are created at
runtime, and can be modified further after creation.
And it is the same for functions.
Here is a valid way to define a class:
def f1(self, x, y):
return min(x, x+y)
class C:
text = 'hello world'
f = f1
def g(self):
return self.text
h = g
f, gand hare attributes of C. To make it work, it is important to pass the object as an argument of the functions. By convention, it is named self.
This is very powerful. It allows to really use a function as an attribute. For example:
c = C()
class B:
text = 'hello word 2'
g = c.g
The call to B.g() will return 'hello word 2'. It is only possible because of the use of self.
For the record, you may also read the documentation of global and of the variable scope in general.
Related
I'm writing some widgets for Ubersicht. It uses a node.js server and treats each .coffee file as a standalone widget object. I'm having issues defining constant settings to be used throughout one file. Currently I know of two ways to define this type of constant at the top of the file.
# Way 1
foo_1 = true
bar_1 = false
# Way 2
foo_2: true
bar_2: false
Further down in the same file either a property is assigned as a string or as a function. Each of the above two ways of defining an option only works in one of the two property types.
staticProperty: """Output #{foo_1} works here
but output of #{foo_2} doesn't work
"""
methodProperty: (input) ->
if foo_1 # Raises foo_1 is not defined
if #foo_1 # foo_1 is undefined which is expected
if #foo_2 # This works fine
I understand that way 2 add to the object's properties, but I'm not too sure how the way 1 assignment works given that the file is essentially defining an object. Can you explain this?
Also is there a way to define a variable that can be accessed from both places?
We'll look at a big ugly example to see what's going on:
class C
a: 6
b: #::a
c = 11
d: c
#e = 23
f: #e
g: -> #a
h: -> C::b
i: -> c
j: -> #constructor.e
a is a normal old property, in JavaScript it looks like:
C.prototype.a = 6;
b is also a normal old property that is attached to the prototype; here:
b: #::a
# is the class itself so in JavaScript this is:
C.prototype.b = C.prototype.a
and everything works just fine.
c is sort of a private variable. In JavaScript it looks like this:
var C = (function() {
function C() {}
var c = 11;
//...
})();
I've included more JavaScript context here so that you can see c's scope. c is visible to anything inside the definition of C but nowhere else.
d is another property that is on the prototype and looks like this in JavaScript:
C.prototype.d = c
This assignment happens inside the SIF wrapper that is used to build the class so var c = 11 is visible here.
e is a class property and in JavaScript is just:
C.e = 23;
f is another property on the prototype. # is the class itself in this context (just like in b):
f: #e
so we can get at e as #e and the JavaScript looks like:
C.prototype.f = C.e;
The g and h methods should be pretty clear. The i method works because it is a closure inside the SIF that is used to define C:
C.prototype.i = function() { return c; };
The j method works because it uses the standard constructor property to get back to C itself.
Demo: http://jsfiddle.net/ambiguous/tg8krgh2/
Applying all that to your situation,
class Pancakes
foo_1 = true
foo_2: true
We see that you can use either approach if you reference things properly:
staticProperty: """Output #{foo_1} works here
and so does #{#::foo_2}
"""
methodProperty: (input) ->
# foo_1 should work fine in here.
# #foo_1 is undefined which is expected
# #foo_2 works fine
I'm not sure why you're having a problem referencing foo_1 inside your methodProperty, it should work fine and does work fine with the current version of CoffeeScript.
I am a beginning practitioner in Scala and I saw a few different syntax for calling a method. Some are nice, as ignoring parenthesis for a parameterless method, or ignoring the dot as in
1 to 10
but some really puzzle me. for instance:
breakable { ... }
this is simply a method call right? Can I also do that for more than one parameter or a parameter which is not a parameterless function?
Thanks
There are two standard ways of calling methods:
obj.method(params) // dot notation
obj method (params) // operator notation
The above can be modified in the following ways:
If params is a single parameter, you can replace () with {}.
If params is a single parameter and you are using operator notation, you can drop the parenthesis.
If method doesn't take parameters, you can drop (params) (that is, drop the empty ()).
If method ends with :, then it actually binds to the right in operator notation. That is, (params) method_: obj is equivalent to obj.method_:(params).
Either way, spaces are optional as long as identifiers can be told apart. So one can add spaces to the dot notation, like obj . method ( params ) or write .method(params) on the next line -- as often happens with call chaining --, as well as remove spaces from the operator notation, as in a+b.
There's also some stuff with tuple inference, but I try to avoid it, so I'm not sure of the exact rules.
None of these will explain the example you are confused about, however. Before I explain it, however, I'd like to show some syntactic sugars that can also be used to call methods:
obj(params) // equivalent to obj.apply(params)
obj.x = y // equivalent to obj.x_=(y), if obj.x also exists
obj(x) = y // equivalent to obj.update(x, y)
obj op= y // equivalent to obj = obj op y, if op is symbolic
~obj // equivalent to obj.unary_~; also for !, + and -, but no other symbol
Ok, now to the example you gave. One can import members of stable values. Java can do it for static methods with its static import, but Scala has a more general mechanism: importing from packages, objects or common instances is no different: it brings both type members and value members. Methods fall in the latter category.
So, imagine you have val a = 2, and you do import a._. That will bring into scope all of Int methods, so you can call them directly. You can't do +(2), because that would be interpreted as a call to unary_+, but you could call *(4), for example:
scala> val a = 2
a: Int = 2
scala> import a._
import a._
scala> *(4)
res16: Int = 8
Now, here's the rule. You can call
method(params)
If:
method was imported into scope.
You keep the parenthesis (even if there's only one parameter)
Note that there's a precedence issue as well. If you write obj method(params), Scala will presume method belongs to obj, even if it was imported into scope.
If we desugar this we will have:
breakable({ ... })
this matches signature
breakable: (op: ⇒ Unit): Unit
and uses so named call-by-name arguments (you may think of this as pass a block of code as argument)
More over scala allows you to write this:
scala> def foo (op1: => Unit)(op2: => Unit) = {op1;op2;}
foo: (op1: => Unit)(op2: => Unit)Unit
scala> foo { println(1) } { println(2) }
1
2
Above is the example of curried function
I never understood it from the contrived unmarshalling and verbing nouns ( an AddTwo class has an apply that adds two!) examples.
I understand that it's syntactic sugar, so (I deduced from context) it must have been designed to make some code more intuitive.
What meaning does a class with an apply function give? What is it used for, and what purposes does it make code better (unmarshalling, verbing nouns etc)?
how does it help when used in a companion object?
Mathematicians have their own little funny ways, so instead of saying "then we call function f passing it x as a parameter" as we programmers would say, they talk about "applying function f to its argument x".
In mathematics and computer science, Apply is a function that applies
functions to arguments.
Wikipedia
apply serves the purpose of closing the gap between Object-Oriented and Functional paradigms in Scala. Every function in Scala can be represented as an object. Every function also has an OO type: for instance, a function that takes an Int parameter and returns an Int will have OO type of Function1[Int,Int].
// define a function in scala
(x:Int) => x + 1
// assign an object representing the function to a variable
val f = (x:Int) => x + 1
Since everything is an object in Scala f can now be treated as a reference to Function1[Int,Int] object. For example, we can call toString method inherited from Any, that would have been impossible for a pure function, because functions don't have methods:
f.toString
Or we could define another Function1[Int,Int] object by calling compose method on f and chaining two different functions together:
val f2 = f.compose((x:Int) => x - 1)
Now if we want to actually execute the function, or as mathematician say "apply a function to its arguments" we would call the apply method on the Function1[Int,Int] object:
f2.apply(2)
Writing f.apply(args) every time you want to execute a function represented as an object is the Object-Oriented way, but would add a lot of clutter to the code without adding much additional information and it would be nice to be able to use more standard notation, such as f(args). That's where Scala compiler steps in and whenever we have a reference f to a function object and write f (args) to apply arguments to the represented function the compiler silently expands f (args) to the object method call f.apply (args).
Every function in Scala can be treated as an object and it works the other way too - every object can be treated as a function, provided it has the apply method. Such objects can be used in the function notation:
// we will be able to use this object as a function, as well as an object
object Foo {
var y = 5
def apply (x: Int) = x + y
}
Foo (1) // using Foo object in function notation
There are many usage cases when we would want to treat an object as a function. The most common scenario is a factory pattern. Instead of adding clutter to the code using a factory method we can apply object to a set of arguments to create a new instance of an associated class:
List(1,2,3) // same as List.apply(1,2,3) but less clutter, functional notation
// the way the factory method invocation would have looked
// in other languages with OO notation - needless clutter
List.instanceOf(1,2,3)
So apply method is just a handy way of closing the gap between functions and objects in Scala.
It comes from the idea that you often want to apply something to an object. The more accurate example is the one of factories. When you have a factory, you want to apply parameter to it to create an object.
Scala guys thought that, as it occurs in many situation, it could be nice to have a shortcut to call apply. Thus when you give parameters directly to an object, it's desugared as if you pass these parameters to the apply function of that object:
class MyAdder(x: Int) {
def apply(y: Int) = x + y
}
val adder = new MyAdder(2)
val result = adder(4) // equivalent to x.apply(4)
It's often use in companion object, to provide a nice factory method for a class or a trait, here is an example:
trait A {
val x: Int
def myComplexStrategy: Int
}
object A {
def apply(x: Int): A = new MyA(x)
private class MyA(val x: Int) extends A {
val myComplexStrategy = 42
}
}
From the scala standard library, you might look at how scala.collection.Seq is implemented: Seq is a trait, thus new Seq(1, 2) won't compile but thanks to companion object and apply, you can call Seq(1, 2) and the implementation is chosen by the companion object.
Here is a small example for those who want to peruse quickly
object ApplyExample01 extends App {
class Greeter1(var message: String) {
println("A greeter-1 is being instantiated with message " + message)
}
class Greeter2 {
def apply(message: String) = {
println("A greeter-2 is being instantiated with message " + message)
}
}
val g1: Greeter1 = new Greeter1("hello")
val g2: Greeter2 = new Greeter2()
g2("world")
}
output
A greeter-1 is being instantiated with message hello
A greeter-2 is being instantiated with message world
TLDR for people comming from c++
It's just overloaded operator of ( ) parentheses
So in scala:
class X {
def apply(param1: Int, param2: Int, param3: Int) : Int = {
// Do something
}
}
Is same as this in c++:
class X {
int operator()(int param1, int param2, int param3) {
// do something
}
};
1 - Treat functions as objects.
2 - The apply method is similar to __call __ in Python, which allows you to use an instance of a given class as a function.
The apply method is what turns an object into a function. The desire is to be able to use function syntax, such as:
f(args)
But Scala has both functional and object oriented syntax. One or the other needs to be the base of the language. Scala (for a variety of reasons) chooses object oriented as the base form of the language. That means that any function syntax has to be translated into object oriented syntax.
That is where apply comes in. Any object that has the apply method can be used with the syntax:
f(args)
The scala infrastructure then translates that into
f.apply(args)
f.apply(args) has correct object oriented syntax. Doing this translation would not be possible if the object had no apply method!
In short, having the apply method in an object is what allows Scala to turn the syntax: object(args) into the syntax: object.apply(args). And object.apply(args) is in the form that can then execute.
FYI, this implies that all functions in scala are objects. And it also implies that having the apply method is what makes an object a function!
See the accepted answer for more insight into just how a function is an object, and the tricks that can be played as a result.
To put it crudely,
You can just see it as custom ()operator. If a class X has an apply() method, whenever you call X() you will be calling the apply() method.
I'm following a groovy tutorial and there is a code like this:
def fruit = ["apple", "orange" , "pear"] //list
def likeIt = { String fruit -> println "I like " + fruit + "s" } //closure
fruit.each(likeIt)
Eclipse reports an error at closure definition line:
Line breakpoint:SimpleClosuresTest
[line: 27] The current scope already
contains a variable of the name fruit
# line 27, column 14.
If i omit 'def' from 'def fruit' Eclipse doesn't complaint and code runs fine.
Could someone explain what is going on with the scopes in both cases?
Thanks.
first a general review of a groovy script:
// file: SomeScript.groovy
x = 1
def x = 2
println x
println this.x
is roughly compiled as:
class SomeScript extends groovy.lang.Script {
def x
def run() {
x = 1
def x = 2
println x // 2
println this.x // 1
}
}
in a groovy script (roughly speaking, a file without the class declaration), assigning a value to an undefined variable is interpreted as a field assignment.
your example tries to defines a closure with a parameter named fruit.
if you defined fruit with the def keyword you get an error message because the name is already taken as a local variable, and you can't duplicate a local variable name.
when you leave the def keyword out, you are actually assigning the value to a field of the class generated for the script, and thus the name fruit can be redefined as a local variable.
regarding scopes, it's pretty much like java...
in the example, you can see x is defined first as a field and then as a variable local to the run() method. there's nothing wrong with that and you can access both the variable and the field.
but once you define a local variable, you cannot create duplicates.
edit --
had to add this before anyone gets me wrong: the translation is not exactly like this (thus the "roughly"). Instead of a field you add a value to the binding of the script, quite like args for commandline scripts or request, session or response for groovlets.
but that is much a longer story...
ok if you really want to know just ask again and i'll explain it better
edit 2 --
i just can't leave it like this, if you ever need more info...
every groovy script has a field named binding, an instance of groovy.lang.Binding or one of its a subclasses.
this binding is basically a map, with methods setVariable and setVariable.
when you omit the def keyword when assigning a value in a script you are actually calling the method setVariable, and when you do something like this.x you are calling the getVariable method.
this is actually because class groovy.lang.Script overrides the methods getProperty and setProperty to call those methods first. that's the reason they behave like fields.
you might have also noticed that there is no type associated to those variables... that's because we are dealing with just a Map inside the binding.
standard groovy scrips are created with an instance of a binding with the args set to the array of parameters.
others, like groovy.servlet.ServletBinding define more variables and behavior, like block the assignment of certain variables, or adding a lazy initialization capabilities...
then the real reason behind the error is... if the def keyword is not used, fruits is not a real variable. still, i believe the behavior is somewhat analog to a field.
sorry about all that.
i was not satisfied with my own oversimplification :S
That String fruit shouldn't be having the same name as your def fruit. (you are defining first a list and then a string with the same name)
def likeIt = { String fruit -> println "I like " + fruit + "s" }
In the second case you are defining the type of the variable with def a posteriori, so it works but it is not a good practice as far as I know.
I think that you don't even need to write ->. The groovy manual says that "The -> token is optional and may be omitted if your Closure definition takes fewer than two parameters", which is the case here.
Second line
String fruit
the same variable name 'fruit' is being used again
Edit: The bug which prompted this question has now been fixed.
In the Scala Reference, I can read (p. 86):
The interpretation of an assignment to
a simple variable x = e depends on the
definition of x. If x denotes a
mutable variable, then the assignment
changes the current value of x to be
the result of evaluating the
expression e. The type of e is
expected to conform to the type of x.
If x is a parameterless function
defined in some template, and the same
template contains a setter function
x_= as member, then the assignment x =
e is interpreted as the invocation
x_=(e) of that setter function.
Analogously, an assignment f .x = e to
a parameterless function x is
interpreted as the invocation f.x_=(e).
So, for instance, something like this works fine:
class A {
private var _a = 0
def a = _a
def a_=(a: Int) = _a = a
}
I can then write
val a = new A
a.a = 10
But if I define the class like this, adding a type parameter to method a:
class A {
private var _a = 0
def a[T] = _a
def a_=(a: Int) = _a = a
}
then it doesn't work any more; I get an error: reassignment to val if I write a.a = 10. Funny enough, it still works with no type parameter and an implicit parameter list, for instance.
Arguably, in this example, the type parameter is not very useful, but in the design of DSLs, it would be great to have the setter method called even if the getter has type parameters (and by the way, adding type parameters on the setter is allowed and works fine).
So I have three questions:
Is there a workaround?
Should the current behavior be considered a bug?
Why does the compiler enforce a getter method to allow using the syntactic sugar for the setter?
UPDATE
Here's what I'm really trying to do. It's rather long, sorry, I meant to avoid it but I realized it was more confusing to omit it.
I'm designing GUIs with SWT in Scala, and having huge fun using Dave Orme's XScalaWT, which immensely reduces the amount of needed code. Here's an example from his blog post on how to create an SWT Composite that converts °C to °F degrees:
var fahrenheit: Text = null
var celsius: Text = null
composite(
_.setLayout(new GridLayout(2, true)),
label("Fahrenheit"),
label("Celsius"),
text(fahrenheit = _),
text(celsius = _),
button(
"Fahrenheit => Celsius",
{e : SelectionEvent => celcius.setText((5.0/9.0) * (fahrenheit - 32)) }
),
button(
"Celsius -> Fahrenheit",
{e : SelectionEvent => fahrenheit.setText((9.0/5.0) * celsius + 32) })
)
)
The argument to each of the widget-constructing methods is of type (WidgetType => Any)*, with a few useful implicit conversions, which for instance allow to directly specify a string for widgets that have a setText() method. All constructor functions are imported from a singleton object.
In the end, I'd like to be able to write something along these lines:
val fieldEditable = new WritableValue // observable value
composite(
textField(
editable <=> fieldEditable,
editable = false
),
checkbox(
caption = "Editable",
selection <=> fieldEditable
)
)
This would bind the editable property of the textfield to the selection of the checkbox through the WritableValue variable.
First: named arguments are not applicable here, so the line editable = false has to come from somewhere. So, along the widget-constructing methods in the singleton object, I could write, conceptually,
def editable_=[T <: HasEditable](value: Boolean) = (subject: T) => subject.setEditable(value)
... but this works only if the getter is also present. Great: I'd need the getter anyway in order to implement databinding with <=>. Something like this:
def editable[T <: HasEditable] = new BindingMaker((widget: T) => SWTObservables.observeEditable(widget))
If this worked, life would be good because I can then define <=> in BindingMaker and I can use this nice syntax. But alas, the type parameter on the getter breaks the setter. Hence my original question: why would this simple type parameter affect whether the compiler decides to go ahead with the syntactic sugar for calling the setter?
I hope this makes it a bit clearer now. Thanks for reading…
UPDATE Deleted the entire previous answer in light of new information.
There's a lot of very odd stuff going on here, so I'm going try try and explain my understanding of what you have so far:
def editable_=[T <: HasEditable](value: Boolean) = (subject: T) => subject.setEditable(value)
This is a setter method, and exists purely so that it can give the appearance of beinng a named parameter
in your DSL. It sets nothing and actually returns a Function.
textField(
editable <=> fieldEditable,
editable = false
)
This is calling the textField factory method, with what looks like a named param, but is actually the setter method defined previously.
Amazingly, the approach seems to work, despite my initial concern that the compiler would recognize this as a named parameter and produce a syntax error. I tested it with simple monomorphic (non-generic) methods, though it does require the getter method to be defined for the setter to be seen as such - a fact that you've already noted.
Some amount of "cleverness" is often required in writing a DSL (where it would otherwise be totally forbidden), so it's no surprise that your original intent was unclear. This is perhaps a completely new technique never before seen in Scala. The rules for setter and getter definitions were based on using them as getters and setters, so don't be surprised if things crack a little when you push at the boundaries like this.
It seems the real problem here is the way you're using type params. In this expression:
def editable_=[T <: HasEditable](value: Boolean) = (subject: T) => subject.setEditable(value)
The compiler has no way of inferring a particular T from the supplied argument, so it will take the most general type allowed (HasEditable in this case). You could change this behaviour by explicitly supplying a type param when using the method, but that would seem to defeat the entire point of what you're seeking to achieve.
Given that functions can't be generic (only methods can), I doubt that you even want type bounds at all. So one approach you could try is to just drop them:
def editable_=(value: Boolean) = (subject: HasEditable) => subject.setEditable(value)
def editable = new BindingMaker((widget: HasEditable) => SWTObservables.observeEditable(widget))