I am looking for syntactic sugar with null-safe-operators to do this:
map["key"] == null ? default : (int.tryParse(map["key"]!) ?? default)
This however accesses map twice and requires default twice.
Better, but verbose code that also compiles:
String? val = map["key"];
int? res;
if (val != null) { res = int.tryParse(val) }
res ??= default;
In essence I am looking for a way to only call a function if the parameter is not null. E.g. in kotlin you could do (pseudocode)
map["key"].let{ int.tryParse(it) } ...
I found this related question, however writing helper methods is even more verbose and I cannot edit the function to take nullable parameters.
What i would love to see for dart (but afaik this does not exist):
int.tryParse(map["key"]?) ?? default;
I.e. func(null?) => null, no matter what func is, or sth similar.
Is there a smooth way to do that or is the verbose way for now the "accepted" way?
EDIT
I am aware of the int.tryParse("") or int.tryparse(default.toString() hacks, however both are somewhat naughty as they will call tryParse either way instead of skipping it if the value is null anyways. (imagine replacing tryParse with a very expensive factory method)
There is two things you can do:
int.parse(map["key"] ?? default.toString());
This would work if you are sure that map["key"] can be parsed if it is not null.
If you have to do this operation a lot you can also write your own extension function and then use the null-safe operator:
extension NullSaveParser on String {
int? tryToInt() {
return int.tryParse(this);
}
}
And then use this:
map["key"]?.tryToInt() ?? default;
This extension is neccessary because there is currently no way in dart to not call a method if an argument would be null, only if the object that you are calling it on is null can be caught.
I hope this helps.
It's sort of a hack and maybe ugly but for this case you might want to write something like
int.tryParse(map["key"] ?? '') ?? default
That is, put a fallback value inside the tryParse that you know will make the tryParse return null
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).
I'm working on a CDCL SAT-Solver. I don't know how to implement non-chronological backtracking. Is this even possible with recursion or is it only possible in a iterative approach.
Actually what i have done jet is implemented a DPLL Solver which works with recursion. The great differnece from DPLL and CDCL ist that the backracking in the tree is not chronological. Is it even possible to implement something like this with recursion. In my opionion i have two choices in the node of the binary-decision-tree if one of to path leads i a conlict:
I try the other path -> but then it would be the same like the DPLL, means a chronological backtracking
I return: But then i will never come back to this node.
So am i missing here something. Could it be that the only option is to implement it iterativly?
Non-chronological backtracking (or backjumping as it is usually called) can be implemented in solvers that use recursion for the variable assignments. In languages that support non-local gotos, you would typically use that method. For example in the C language you would use setjmp() to record a point in the stack and longjmp() to backjump to that point. C# has try-catch blocks, Lispy languages might have catch-throw, and so on.
If the language doesn't support non-local goto, then you can implement a substitute in your code. Instead of dpll() returning FALSE, have it return a tuple containing FALSE and the number of levels that need to be backtracked. Upstream callers decrement the counter in the tuple and return it until zero is returned.
You can modify this to get backjumping.
private Assignment recursiveBackJumpingSearch(CSP csp, Assignment assignment) {
Assignment result = null;
if (assignment.isComplete(csp.getVariables())) {
result = assignment;
}
else {
Variable var= selectUnassignedVariable(assignment, csp);
for (Object value : orderDomainValues(var, assignment, csp)) {
assignment.setAssignment(var, value);
fireStateChanged(assignment, csp);
if (assignment.isConsistent(csp.getConstraints(var))) {
result=recursiveBackJumpingSearch(csp, assignment);
if (result != null) {
break;
}
if (result == null)
numberOfBacktrack++;
}
assignment.removeAssignment(var);
}
}
return result;
}
What is the most 'scala-ic' way to capture a value (possibly one that is not idempotent) for logging and returning the same value.
I can think of 'return' statement the only way to do it, but apparently using 'return' should be avoided in scala .
Use case:
def myfunc(argument) : ReturnType{
val response:ReturnType = dependency()
// dependency() is not idemptotent
// so calling more than once will have side-effects
logger.debug(response.member1 , response.member2)
return response
}
Is there a way to achieve this without using a 'return' keyword.
I am a newbie to scala so some (or most) of what I said could be wrong, and would be happy to be corrected.
Just reifying #Shadowlands answer.
def myfunc(argument: ArgType): ReturnType {
val response = dependency()
logger.debug(response.member1, response.member2)
response
}
One advantage of lambda expressions is that you have to evaluate a function only when you need its result.
In the following (simple) example, the text function is only evaluated when a writer is present:
public static void PrintLine(Func<string> text, TextWriter writer)
{
if (writer != null)
{
writer.WriteLine(text());
}
}
Unfortunately, this makes using the code a little bit ugly. You cannot call it with a constant or variable like
PrintLine("Some text", Console.Out);
and have to call it this way:
PrintLine(() => "Some text", Console.Out);
The compiler is not able to "infer" a parameterless function from the passed constant. Are there any plans to improve this in future versions of C# or am I missing something?
UPDATE:
I just found a dirty hack myself:
public class F<T>
{
private readonly T value;
private readonly Func<T> func;
public F(T value) { this.value = value; }
public F(Func<T> func) {this.func = func; }
public static implicit operator F<T>(T value)
{
return new F<T>(value);
}
public static implicit operator F<T>(Func<T> func)
{
return new F<T>(func);
}
public T Eval()
{
return this.func != null ? this.func() : this.value;
}
}
Now i can just define the function as:
public static void PrintLine(F<string> text, TextWriter writer)
{
if (writer != null)
{
writer.WriteLine(text.Eval());
}
}
and call it both with a function or a value.
I doubt that C# will get this feature, but D has it. What you've outlined is a suitable way to implement lazy argument evaluation in C#, and probably compiles very similarly to lazy in D, and in more pure functional languages.
All things considered, the four extra characters, plus optional white space, are not an exceptionally large price to pay for clear overload resolution and expressiveness in what is becoming a multi-paradigm strong-typed language.
The compiler is very good at inferring types, it is not good at inferring intent. One of the tricky things about all the new syntactic sugar in C# 3 is that they can lead to confusion as to what exactly the compiler does with them.
Consider your example:
() => "SomeText"
The compiler sees this and understands that you intend to create an anonymous function that takes no parameters and returns a type of System.String. This is all inferred from the lambda expression you gave it. In reality your lambda gets compiled to this:
delegate {
return "SomeText";
};
and it is a delegate to this anonymous function that you are sending to PrintLine for execution.
It has always been important in the past but now with LINQ, lambdas, iterator blocks, automatically implemented properties, among other things it is of the utmost importance to use a tool like .NET Reflector to take a look at your code after it is compiled to see what really makes those features work.
Unfortunately, the ugly syntax is all you have in C#.
The "dirty hack" from the update does not work, because it does not delay the evaluation of string parameters: they get evaluated before being passed to operator F<T>(T value).
Compare PrintLine(() => string.Join(", ", names), myWriter) to PrintLine(string.Join(", ", names), myWriter) In the first case, the strings are joined only if they are printed; in the second case, the strings are joined no matter what: only the printing is conditional. In other words, the evaluation is not lazy at all.
Well those two statements are completely different. One is defining a function, while the other is a statement. Confusing the syntax would be much trickier.
() => "SomeText" //this is a function
"SomeText" //this is a string
You could use an overload:-
public static void PrintLine(string text, TextWriter writer)
{
PrintLine(() => text, writer);
}
You could write an extension method on String to glue it in. You should be able to write "Some text".PrintLine(Console.Out); and have it do the work for you.
Oddly enough, I did some playing with lazy evaluation of lambda expressions a few weeks back and blogged about it here.
To be honest I don't fully understand your problem, but your solutions seems a tad complicated to me.
I think a problem I solved using lambda call is similar, maybe you could use it as inspiration: I want to see if a key exists in a dictionary, if not, I would need to execute a (costly) load operation.
public static class DictionaryHelper
{
public static TValue GetValueOrLambdaDefault<TKey, TValue> (this IDictionary<TKey, TValue> dictionary, TKey key, Func<TValue> func)
{
if (dictionary.ContainsKey(key))
return dictionary[key];
else
return func.Invoke();
}
}
[TestClass]
public class DictionaryHelperTest
{
[TestMethod]
public void GetValueOrLambdaDefaultTest()
{
var dict = new Dictionary<int, string>();
try
{
var res1 = dict.GetValueOrLambdaDefault(1, () => LoadObject());
Assert.Fail("Exception should be thrown");
}
catch { /*Exception should be thrown*/ }
dict.Add(1, "");
try
{
var res1 = dict.GetValueOrLambdaDefault(1, () => LoadObject());
}
catch { Assert.Fail("Exception should not be thrown"); }
}
public static string LoadObject()
{
throw new Exception();
}
}