Is it possible to take a string/AST of source code and evaluate it (like eval()) at runtime in Fantom? I found some suggesting features in the documentation but not obvious evidence.
It's not as easy as calling an eval() function, but it is possible. You need to first compile your Fantom code into a class before you can execute it.
Plastic, a library from Alien-Factory, does just that. Example:
using afPlastic
class Example {
Void main() {
eval("2 + 2") // --> 4
}
Obj? eval(Str code) {
model := PlasticClassModel("MyClass", true)
model.addMethod(Obj?#, "eval", "", code)
myType := PlasticCompiler().compileModel(model.toFantomCode)
return myType.make->eval()
}
}
The PlasticCompiler class does the job of compiling Fantom code into a usable Type.
It uses the Fantom compiler library and is based on code found in Fansh - a Fantom shell, part of the Fantom distribution.
Related
After migrating from scala.js 0.6.x to 1.0, I've got some code related to #JSGlobalScope broken.
My use case is like this:
there's a 3rd-party library that expects some global var to be set to a function
when loaded and ready, it calls this function (by name)
I set this function in global scope from scala.js
The code looks like this:
#js.native
#JSGlobalScope
object Globals extends js.Object {
var callbackFunctionFor3rdPartyLib: js.Function0[Unit] = js.native
}
then I set this var like this:
Globals.callbackFunctionFor3rdPartyLib = () => {
// do things
}
and then I add the script into the DOM.
This was working with scala.js 0.6.x, but with 1.0 I'm getting an exception like the following:
scala.scalajs.js.JavaScriptException: ReferenceError: callbackFunctionFor3rdPartyLib is not defined
In the changelog for 1.0.0 there's a "Breaking changes" section that mentions this:
Accessing a member that is not declared causes a ReferenceError to be thrown
...
js.Dynamic.global.globalVarThatDoesNotExist = 42
would previously create said global variable. In Scala.js 1.x, it also throws a ReferenceError.
My question is:
what is the right way to do something like this (create a new global var) in scala.js 1.0?
If you know you'll always be in a browser context, you can use #JSGlobal("window") instead of #JSGlobalScope on your Globals, which will then be equivalent to doing window.myGlobalVarFor3rdPartyLib in JS. So that will work.
#js.native
#JSGlobal("window")
object Globals extends js.Object {
var callbackFunctionFor3rdPartyLib: js.Function0[Unit] = js.native
}
If not, but you are using a script (so not a CommonJS nor an ES module), the best thing is actually to use
object Globals {
#JSExportTopLevel("myGlobalVarFor3rdPartyLib")
var foo: js.Function[Unit] = ...
}
Note that Globals is a normal Scala object now, not a JS one.
The #JSExportTopLevel creates a top-level var myGlobalVarFor3rdPartyLib at the top of the script, and then assigning Globals.foo will also assign that top-level var.
If you're not using a script nor know that you're going to always be in a browser, then you need to figure out the global object yourself. Scala.js 0.6.x tried to do that for you, but could fail, so we don't do that anymore. You can at least follow the "instructions" on the documentation of js.special.fileLevelThis to reproduce what Scala.js 0.6.x was doing. I repeat the instructions here:
Using this value should be rare, and mostly limited to writing code
detecting what the global object is. For example, a typical detection
code--in case we do not need to worry of ES modules--looks like:
val globalObject = {
import js.Dynamic.{global => g}
if (js.typeOf(g.global) != "undefined" && (g.global.Object eq g.Object)) {
// Node.js environment detected
g.global
} else {
// In all other well-known environment, we can use the global `this`
js.special.fileLevelThis
}
}
Note that the above code is not comprehensive, as there can be JavaScript
environments where the global object cannot be fetched neither through
global nor this. If your code needs to run in such an environment, it
is up to you to use an appropriate detection procedure.
I am using Play Framework 2.3 I am using the scala template engine to create my views and Java elsewhere.
My model extends an abstract parameterised object like so... (pseudo code)
Abstract object:
public abstract class MyObject<T> {
// various bits
public class MyInnerObject {
// more stuff
}
}
Model object (singleton)
public class SomeModel extends MyObject<SomeBean> {
public static SomeModel getInstance() {
if (instance == null)
instance = new SomeModel();
return instance;
}
// more bits
}
I then pass the model to the view from another view helper:
#MyHelper(SomeModel.getInstance())
MyHelper scala view template:
#*******************************************
* My helper
*******************************************#
#(myObj: some.namespace.MyObject[_])
#import some.namespace.MyObject
#doSomething(myInnerObj: MyObject[_]#MyInnerObject) = {
#* do some stuff *#
}
#for(myInnerObj <- myObj.getInnerObjects()) {
#doSomething(myInnerObj)
}
However I get an error on the line #doSomething(myInnerObj: MyObject[_]#MyInnerObject) stating
unbound wildcard exception
I am not sure the correct Scala syntax to avoid this error I had naively assumed that I could use the _ to specify arbitrary tyope but it won't let me do this.
What is the correct syntax?
UPDATE 1
Changing the method definition to:
#doSomething[T](myInnerObj: MyObject[T]#MyInnerObject)
gives further errors:
no type parameters for method doSomething: (myInnerObj:[T]#MyInnerObject)play.twirl.api.HtmlFormat.Appendable exist so that it can be applied to arguments (myObj.MyInnerObject)
--- because ---
argument expression's type is not compatible with formal parameter type;
found : myObj.MyInnerObject
required: MyObject[?T]#MyInnerObject
It would seem that the Twirl templating engine does not support this syntax currently, although I'm not 100% sure.
I can solve the problem by removing the doSomething method completely...
#*******************************************
* My helper
*******************************************#
#(myObj: some.namespace.MyObject[_])
#import some.namespace.MyObject
#for(myInnerObj <- myObj.getInnerObjects()) {
<div>#myInnerObj.getSomeProperty()</div>
}
But I am bout 10% happy with the solution... It works at least but it feels very restricting that I cannot delegate to methods to help keep my code maintainable. By the look of the comments the problem seems to be a limitation in Twirl, not allowing type arguments for functions in views.
Note: I have accepted this answer as it removes the original problem of the exception however this is only because the solution I want doesn't exist... yet.
I have some TypeScript code that is being generated by a tool. I'd like to extend this class in another file. As of 0.9.1.1, what's the best way to go about this?
I thought maybe I could staple my additional functions onto the prototype, but this is giving various errors (which change depending what mood the compiler is in).
For example:
Foo.ts (generated by a tool)
module MyModule {
export class Dog { }
}
Bar.ts
module MyModule {
function bark(): string {return 'woof';}
Dog.prototype.bark = bark;
}
You cannot split a class definition between multiple files in TypeScript. However typescript understands how JavaScript works and will let you write idomatic JavaScript classes just fine:
module MyModule {
export function Dog(){};
}
module MyModule {
function bark(): string {return 'woof';}
Dog.prototype.bark = bark;
}
Try it online
One way around this is to use inheritance:
class BigDog extends Dog{
bark(){}
}
I have encountered your problem as well before, but I had some deeper problems. You can see from basarat's example, that simple functions can be added as an extension to the prototype, but when it comes to static functions, or other static values you might want to extend your (presumably third party) class, then the TSC will warn you, that there is no such method defined on the class statically.
My workaround was the following little hack:
module MyModule {
export function Dog(){};
}
// in the other file
if (typeof MyModule !== 'undefined'){
Cast<any>(MyModule.Dog).Create = ()=>{return new Dog();};
}
// where Cast is a hack, for TS to forcefully cast types :)
Cast<T>(element:any):T{ return element; }
This should cast MyModule.Dog, to an any object, therefore allowing attachment of any kinds of properties, functions.
i have a wrapper for the scala REPL api (ILoop etc...) using the refactored 2.9.x classes.
this works well.
as this is a tool shipped to users, it is possible the user will type something like :
while(-1 < 1) {}
how can the user break from the currentlly executing code?
other posts talk about
<ctrl> + <c>
kind of working on some platforms under appropriate key bindings.
inspecting the scala REPL api and any available docs, it isnt obious how to actually implement this.
Check out how the Scala REPL does it in the file ILoopInit.scala. There the following signal interrupt handler is installed,
protected def installSigIntHandler() {
// ....
SignalManager("INT") = {
if (intp == null || intp.lineManager == null)
onExit()
else if (intp.lineManager.running)
intp.lineManager.cancel()
// ...
}
}
Note that the field intp: IMain is defined in class ILoop, which is the self-type of ILoopInit.
To summarize: in your SIGINT handler you can interrupt the REPL with intp.lineManager.cancel.
Solved. IntelliJ didn't highlight the fact that my imports were incomplete.
Hi,
I have a simple Scala program that I'm trying to develop using jMock. Setting basic expectations works nicely but for some reason Scala does not understand my attempt to return a value from a mock object. My maven build spews out the following error
TestLocalCollector.scala:45: error: not found: value returnValue
one (nodeCtx).getParameter("FilenameRegex"); will( returnValue(regex))
^
And the respective code snippets are
#Before def setUp() : Unit = { nodeCtx = context.mock(classOf[NodeContext]) }
...
// the value to be returned
val regex = ".*\\.data"
...
// setting the expectations
one (nodeCtx).getParameter("FilenameRegex"); will( returnValue(regex))
To me it sounds that Scala is expecting that the static jMock method returnValue would be a val? What am I missing here?
Are you sure about the ';'?
one (nodeCtx).getParameter("FilenameRegex") will( returnValue(regex))
might work better.
In this example you see a line like:
expect {
one(blogger).todayPosts will returnValue(List(Post("...")))
}
with the following comment:
Specify what the return value should be in the same expression by defining "will" as Scala infix operator.
In the Java equivalent we would have to make a separate method call (which our favorite IDE may insist on putting on the next line!)
one(blogger).todayPosts; will(returnValue(List(Post("..."))))
^
|
-- semicolon only in the *Java* version
The OP explains it himself:
the returnValue static method was not visible, thus the errors.
And the will method just records an action on the latest mock operation, that's why it can be on the next line or after the semicolon :)
import org.jmock.Expectations
import org.jmock.Expectations._
...
context.checking(
new Expectations {
{ oneOf (nodeCtx).getParameter("FilenameRegex") will( returnValue(".*\\.data") ) }
}
)