How do I create a template that each time when I create a class that extends MyClass, it will automatically add 3 functions.
EDIT:
In other words I am trying to implement Abstract functionality in AS3. Assume that MyClass have both private and protected methods.
I see the only way to write own code template and call it every time you need, in Flash Builder: window->preference->flash builder->editors->code template->action script->new and give the name to the template, for instance myclass.
You can use existed templates as an example for template syntax.
Template code for MyClass child class with three methods:
import my.package.MyClass
/**
* #author ${user}
*/
public class ${enclosing_type} extends MyClass
{
public function ${enclosing_type}()
{
}
override public function publicMethod():void
{
}
override protected function protectedMethod():void
{
}
override private function privateMethod():void
{
}
${cursor}
}
Usage:
Create new "action script file" or "new class",
remove all file content
type myclass and choose from auto-complete options template myclass
If you are actually extending MyClass, all of MyClass's functions are already available to your descendants. You can also override either of them with old header and desired new body, and still be able to call older versions of those functions via super qualifier. So, you add those functions to MyClass and let them be.
Another way is to make an interface - it's a set of declarations without any function bodies, which you have to implement in any class that wants this interface in its content. A short introduction to interfaces. Then your MyClass will be an interface, with 3 function declarations in it, and whichever class will be declared as implements MyClass will have to provide bodies for these functions.
Check other keywords on that page, including extends and implements.
Hope this helps.
EDIT: There are no abstract classes in AS3, however you can emulate abstract functions in a normal class via exception throwing:
protected function abstractFunction(...params):void {
throw new Error("Abstract!");
}
Related
I have a common interface that describes access to the output stream like this:
interface IOutput {
function writeInteger(aValue:Int):Void;
}
And I have an abstract implementation of this interface based on standard haxe.io.BytesOutput class:
abstract COutput(BytesOutput) from BytesOutput {
public inline function new(aData:BytesOutput) {
this = aData;
}
public inline function writeInteger(aValue:Int):Void {
this.writeInt32(aValue);
}
}
Though this abstract is truly implementing interface described above there's no direct reference to interface and when I'm trying to use it like this:
class Main {
public static function out(aOutput:IOutput) {
aOutput.writeInteger(0);
}
public static function main() {
var output:COutput = new BytesOutput();
out(output); // type error
}
}
Compiler throws an error: COutput should be IOutput. I can solve this problem only through using common class that wraps BytesOutput and implements IOutput.
My question is how to show the Haxe compiler that the abstract implements the interface.
Abstracts can't implement interfaces because they're a compile-time feature and don't exist at runtime. This conflicts with interfaces, they do exist at runtime and dynamic runtime checks like Std.is(something, IOutput) have to work.
Haxe also has a mechanism called structural subtyping that can be used as an alternative to interfaces. With this approach, there's no need for an explicit implements declaration, it's good enough if something unifies with a structure:
typedef IOutput = {
function writeInteger(aValue:Int):Void;
}
Unfortunately, abstracts aren't compatible with structural subtyping either due to the way they're implemented.
Have you considered using static extensions instead? At least for your simple example, that seems like the perfect solution for making a writeInteger() method available for any haxe.io.Output:
import haxe.io.Output;
import haxe.io.BytesOutput;
using Main.OutputExtensions;
class Main {
static function main() {
var output = new BytesOutput();
output.writeInteger(0);
}
}
class OutputExtensions {
public static function writeInteger(output:Output, value:Int):Void {
output.writeInt32(value);
}
}
You could even combine this with structural subtyping so writeInteger() becomes available on anything that has a writeInt32() method (try.haxe link):
typedef Int32Writable = {
function writeInt32(value:Int):Void;
}
As #Gama11 states, abstracts cannot implement interfaces. In Haxe, for type to implement an interface, it must be able to be compiled to something class-like that can be called using the interface’s methods without any magic happening. That is, to use a type as its interface, there needs to be a “real” class implementing that type. Abstracts in Haxe compile down to their base type—the abstract itself is entirely invisible after compilation happens. Thus, at runtime, there is no instance of a class with the methods defined in your abstract which implement the interface.
However, you can make your abstract appear to implement an interface by defining an implicit conversion to the interface you are trying to implement. For your example, the following might work:
interface IOutput {
function writeInteger(aValue:Int):Void;
}
abstract COutput(BytesOutput) from BytesOutput {
public inline function new(aData:BytesOutput) {
this = aData;
}
#:to()
public inline function toIOutput():IOutput {
return new COutputWrapper((cast this : COutput));
}
public inline function writeInteger(aValue:Int):Void {
this.writeInt32(aValue);
}
}
class COutputWrapper implements IOutput {
var cOutput(default, null):COutput;
public function new(cOutput) {
this.cOutput = cOutput;
}
public function writeInteger(aValue:Int) {
cOutput.writeInteger(aValue);
}
}
class Main {
public static function out(aOutput:IOutput) {
aOutput.writeInteger(0);
}
public static function main() {
var output:COutput = new BytesOutput();
out(output);
out(output);
}
}
Run on try.haxe.org
Note that, each time an implicit conversion happens, a new instance of the wrapper will be constructed. This may have performance implications. If you only access your value through its interface, consider setting the type of your variable to the interface rather than the abstract.
This is similar to “boxing” a primitive/value type in C#. In C#, value types, defined using the struct keyword, are allowed to implement interfaces. Like an abstract in Haxe, a value type in C# is compiled (by the JITter) into untyped code which simply directly accesses and manipulates the value for certain operations. However, C# allows structs to implement interfaces. The C# compiler will translate any attempt to implicitly cast a struct to an implemented interface into the construction of a wrapper class which stores a copy of the value and implements the interface—similar to our manually authored wrapper class (this wrapper class is actually generated by the runtime as part of JITing and is performed by the IL box instruction. See M() in this example). It is conceivable that Haxe could add a feature to automatically generate such a wrapper class for you like C# does for struct types, but that is not currently a feature. You may, however, do it yourself, as exemplified above.
I try to extend my MyDSLProposalProvider from an external Eclipse RCP Project. I created an extension point schema which requires a class property which extends my ProposalProvider. In the new project I extend the class an overrode some methods justs to give me some output so I can see that the external method is called. But this is currently not happening. Is there anything I have to consider?
Currently the hirachy looks like:
MyDSLProposalProvider extends AbstractMyDSLProposalProvider
ExternalProposalProvider extends MyDSLProposalProvider
I rewrote a Method generated in the AbstractMyDSLProposalProvider but when its triggered the predefined Method in the AbstractMyDSLProposalProvider is called and not my new implementation.
public class ExternalMyDSLProposalPovider extends MyDSLProposalProvider
{
#Override
public void completeComponent_Name(EObject model, Assignment
assignment, ContentAssistContext context,
ICompletionProposalAcceptor acceptor) {
System.err.println("extern");
if(model instanceof Component)
{
createProposal("foo", "foo", context, acceptor);
}
super.completeComponent_Name(model, assignment, context, acceptor);
}
}
This is the class in the external Eclipse Project.
Thanks for the help.
When you declare an extension point using a schema that you have defined Eclipse puts that declaration in the extension point registry. That is all that is does, you must then write code to make uses of those declarations.
You read the extension point registry using something like:
IExtensionRegistry extRegistry = Platform.getExtensionRegistry();
IExtensionPoint extPoint = extRegistry.getExtensionPoint("your extension point id");
IConfigurationElement [] elements = extPoint.getConfigurationElements();
elements is now an array of the declarations in the various plugins using the extension point.
IConfigurationElement has various methods to get the values of the attributes of the declaration.
If you have defined a class in one of the attributes you can create an instance of the class using:
IConfigurationElement element = .... a config element
Object obj = element.createExecutableExtension("attribute name");
In your case the result should be your ExternalMyDSLProposalPovider.
You will then need to hook this object up with whatever is doing to proposals.
Lets assume i have a class which has the same name as an previously defined type which is defined inside lib.d.ts. How would i make use of that type within this class.
For example, i have the class Event, which has to deal with the browsers Event object, which is defined as an interface in lib.d.ts.
export class Event { // own definition of Event which hides original Event
public dealWithBrowserEvent(event: Event): void { // Event object defined by lib.d.ts
// deal with it
}
}
How would i tell Typescript that this are two different types. Of course i could simply rename my class, but i don't want to do that, because the name is perfect for my use case.
You can archive this by doing so:
E.ts:
class CustomEvent
{
public dealWithBrowserEvent(event: Event): void
{
}
}
export default CustomEvent;
A.ts:
import Event from './E'
export class SomeClass
{
//Parameter e here is instance of your CustomEvent class
public someMethod(e: Event): void
{
let be: any;
//get browser event here
e.dealWithBrowserEvent(be)
}
}
More on declaration merging, and what can be merged and what not: link
I strongly recommend you not doing so. This code will lead to a lot of confusion for your colleagues reading/modifying it later, let alone headache of not being able to use in the same file standard class for Event.
In the meantime i found a quite doable solution. I defined an additional module which exports renamed interfaces. If i import this module, i can use the renamed types as if they would be original types.
browser.ts
// Event will be the one from lib.d.ts, because the compiler does not know anything about
// the class Event inside this module/file.
// All defined properties will be inherited for code completion.
export interface BrowserEvent extends Event {
additionalProperty1: SomeType;
additionalProperty2: SomeType;
}
If you don't need additional properties you can just do type aliasing:
browser.ts
// Alias for Event
export type BrowserEvent = Event;
event.ts
import {BrowserEvent} from './browser.ts';
export class Event { // Definition of Event hides original Event, but not BrowserEvent
public dealWithBrowserEvent(event: BrowserEvent): void {
// deal with it
}
}
I'm quite happy with this solution, but maybe there is a even better solution.
Is it possible to write a normal function in the controller?
I want to clean up my code a bit, so I want to write some methods for repeated code segments, but I don't want to create a special class.
How is it possible to do this?
If I do a normal
private function xyz () {}
I got a function not found error.
You should use protected, not private unless you have very good reasons to do so. Anyway, defining additional methods work fine for me.
You need to call this method with $this->xyz().
A good solution might be using an abstract class if you want to share methods accross controllers:
abstract class AbstractController extends \TYPO3\CMS\Extbase\Mvc\Controller\ActionController{
protected function myFunction(){}
}
Your controllers inherit from the abstract class and will have all methods available:
class FirstController extends AbstractController {
public function firstAction(){
// has access to myFunction()
}
}
class SecondController extends AbstractController {
public function secondAction(){
// has access to myFunction()
}
}
I have C++ code (not mine, so it is not editable). Problem is with extending protected functions and class.
#include "ExtraClass.h"
...
MyClass::MyClass()
{
...
protected:
bool Func{}
ExtraClass m_Foo;
...
}
I need access in Python to m_Foo methods and protected functions like Func() like
from MyClass import *
bar = MyClass()
bar.m_Foo.Run() //something like this
but have an compiler error:
*error: ‘ExtraClass MyApp::m_Foo’ is protected*
PS. If I change protected with public (just for try). I can access *m_Foo* only in readonly mode:
class_<MyClass>("MyClass", init<>())
.def_readonly("m_Foo", &MyClass::m_Foo)
Changing to *def_readwrite* went to compiler error:
/boost_1_52_0/boost/python/data_members.hpp:64:11: error: no match for ‘operator=’ in ‘(((ExtraClass)c) + ((sizetype)((const boost::python::detail::member<ExtraClass, MyClass>*)this)->boost::python::detail::member<ExtraClass, MyClass>::m_which)) = d’
Thank you for any help!
In general, if you want to wrap protected members, then you need to derive a (wrapper) class from the parent that makes the members public. (You can simply say using Base::ProtectedMember in a public section to expose it instead of wrapping it). You will then have wrap it normally. Like this:
class MyWrapperClass : public MyClass {
public:
using MyClass::m_Foo;
};
In this particular example (which is really not fully baked), if you want to access m_Foo, then you need to wrap ExtraClass. Assuming that you have The problem with readwrite is likely the implementation of ExtraClass (which probably doesn't supply a operator= that you can use).