I wanted to write something like ((IStringer)object).ToString() (in C#) in Erlang. After some studying I've learnt that Elixir has something called Protocols that pretty much resembles the same thing of C# (in an inside-out manner). Then I came up with this idea/code in Erlang - which is nice enough to me like:
?stringer(my_val):to_string().
And it either returns the expected value or not_implemented atom!
But 2 questions:
1 - Why nobody use this or promote things based on stateful modules in Erlang? (OTP aside and from talking to some Erlangers they did not know that actually OTP is built around this! So really there is a need to change how Erlang is being taught and promoted. It's possible that I am confused.).
2 - Why I get this warning? That call actually can never fails.
The warning:
stringer.erl:18: Warning: invalid module and/or function name; this call will always fail
stringer.erl:19: Warning: invalid module and/or function name; this call will always fail
stringer.erl:20: Warning: invalid module and/or function name; this call will always fail
The code:
-module(stringer).
-export([to_string/1,sample/0]).
-define(stringer(V), {stringer, V}).
to_string({stringer, V}) when is_list(V) ->
to_string(V, nop);
to_string({stringer, V}) when is_atom(V) ->
to_string(V, nop);
to_string({stringer, _V}) ->
not_implemented.
to_string(V, _Nop) ->
Buffer = io_lib:format("~p",[V]),
lists:flatten(Buffer).
sample() ->
io:format("~p~n", [?stringer([1,2]):to_string()]),
io:format("~p~n", [?stringer(cute_atom):to_string()]),
io:format("~p~n", [?stringer(13):to_string()]).
And the output is:
"[1,2]"
"cute_atom"
not_implemented
I am doing this on Erlang R16 B2 (V5.10.3) 32 bit on Windows 8 64 bit.
The warning you see is an Erlang bug. If Erlang sees you are invoking a function in a literal tuple, it shows the warning. I have seen this while working with Elixir, I have silenced it in Elixir's compiler but forgot to report it to the Erlang team as a bug. Sorry.
The stateful module thing is actually avoided in Erlang by the majority of developers. They were added to support a feature called "parameterized modules", which has then since been removed, but the underlying dispatching mechanism still exists. If you search the Erlang Questions mailing list you can find plenty of discussion on the topic. Note that protocols in Elixir are not implemented like that though.
In fact, it seems your implementation does not seem to add anything compared to a regular function. For example, you could have simply written:
to_string(V) when is_list(V); is_atom(V) ->
Buffer = io_lib:format("~p",[V]),
lists:flatten(Buffer);
to_string(V) ->
not_implemented.
and called the function directly. Your implementation is simply using the classic ad-hoc polymorphism provided by Erlang at the end of the day. The limitation of this approach is that, since dispatch is hardcoded to ?stringer, the only way to extend the to_string/1 behaviour to work with a new data type is to reimplement and replace the whole stringer module.
Here is an example of an issue that helps you ponder about this: if application A defines a "protocol" named stringer, how can applications B and C extend this protocol to their own data types and all be used by application D without loss of functionality?
In very simple words, the way protocols work in Elixir is by making the stringer module an intermediate dispatch module. So the stringer module actually works like this:
to_string(V) when is_list(V) ->
string_list:to_string(V);
to_string(A) when is_atom(A) ->
string_atom:to_string(A);
%% ...
to_string(A) when is_tuple(A) ->
string_tuple:to_string(A).
and imagine that code is wrapped around something that checks if the module exists and fails accordingly if not. Of course, all of that is defined automatically for you by simply defining the protocol. There is also a mechanism (called consolidation) to compile protocols down to a fast dispatch mechanism on releases.
Related
While compiling and Xcode swift project for MacOS, not used functions are removed from the binary (removed by the optimizer I guess). Is there a way to tell the compiler to not remove unused functions, perhaps with a compiler option (--force-attribute?) so that even with optimization enabled those functions remain in the binary?
I know that if a global function is declared as public (public func test()) then it's not removed even if not used (Since it can be used by other modules), but I can't use public since that would export the symbol for that function.
Any suggestion?
If this is indeed removed by the optimiser, then the answer is two-fold.
The optimiser removes only things that it can prove are safely removable. So to make it not remove something, you remove something that the optimiser uses to prove removability.
For example, you can change the visibility of a function in the .bc file by running a pass that makes the functions externally callable. When a function is private to the .bc file (also called module) and not used, then the compiler can prove that nothing will ever call it. If it's visible beyong the .bc file, then the compiler must assume that something can come along later and call it, so the function has to be left alive.
This is really the generic answer to how to prevent an optimisation: Prevent the compiler from inferring that the optimisation is safe.
Writing and invoking a suitable pass is left as an exercise for the reader. Writing should be perhaps 20 lines of code, invoking… might be simple, or not, it depends on your setting. Quite often you can add a call to opt to your build system.
As I discovered, the solution here is to use a magic compiler flag -enable-private-imports (described here: "...Allows this module's internal and private API to be accessed") which basically add the function name to the list #llvm.used that you can see in the bitcode, the purpose of the list is:
If a symbol appears in the #llvm.used list, then the compiler,
assembler, and linker are required to treat the symbol as if there is
a reference to the symbol that it cannot see (which is why they have
to be named)
(cit.) As described here.
This solves my original problem as the private function even if not used anywhere and not being public, during compilation is not stripped out by the optimiser.
I have a Swift application that uses a module, and I need to call a global function that is in the application from the module, is this possible?
To perhaps explain a little better, this is a test app structure:
CallbackTestApp contains a function foo(), I would like to call it from Module1 or File, will swift allow this?
edit #1
More details have been requested on what is the background of my issue, hopefully, this will not turn out to be an XY situation.
There's a tool developed by my company that process the application source* code and in some places add function call (ignore the why etc, have to be generic here.). Those function calls are exactly to foo() which then does some magic (btw, no return value and no arguments are allowed), if the application does not use modules or if modules are excluded from the processing then all is fine (Linker does not complain that the function is not defined), if there are modules then nothing works since I did not found a way to inject foo() (yet).
*Not exactly the source code, actually the bitcode is processed, the tool get the source, use llvm toolchain to generate bitcode, do some more magic and then add the call to foo() by generating it's mangled name and adding a swiftcall
Not actually sure those additional details will help.
I'm using GWT 2.9 with elemental2-1.0.0-RC1.
The following code throws a ClassCastException at runtime:
DocumentRange documentRange = Js.cast(DomGlobal.document); // Fails
Range range = documentRange.createRange(); // Never reaches here
When I change to use an Js.uncheckedCast() instead, it succeeds:
DocumentRange documentRange = Js.uncheckedCast(DomGlobal.document);
Range range = documentRange.createRange(); // Works
The documentation for Js.uncheckedCast() says:
"You should always prefer regular casting over this (unless you know what you are doing!)."
I don't know why I'm having to use it, so I'm feeling nervous. Can someone explain how Js.cast() performs its type-checking and why I need to use an Js.uncheckedCast() in this instance?
Js.cast() is a way to cheat a bit, and do something that the Java language will not permit, but might actually be legal. Ignoring "how it actually works", the idea is that you can now get past issues where Java would complain, even if it turns out to be legit.
An example could be where you take a java.lang.Double or double and want to treat it as a JsNumber so you can call toPrecision(2) on it. Since java.lang.Double is final, it isn't legal to cast to an unrelated type, but Java doesn't know that in GWT, Double is really just a js Number. So, instead you can perform the cast with Js.cast(). The compiler will insert a runtime type check in there, verifying at runtime that your number is in fact a JS Number instance.
Another example could be trying to extend some native type that elemental2 provides, either to implement a workaround for a missing feature, or to do something browser-specific. Your new class may not extend the existing class - from JS's perspective this is okay, you are just describing the API that you know will exist at runtime. As such, we need to avoid the Java language check of "does this cast even make sense?", and just tell the compiler to try it.
On the other hand, you can "lie" to the compiler with Js.uncheckedCast(). This is used in cases where you are even asking the runtime to skip the check, and just pretend that it will work. This can let you do weird things, like treating Strings as if they were arrays, or solve cross-frame problems. No runtime check will be emitted, so instead you might just get a TypeError if a method/property is missing, instead of a proper ClassCastException.
In elemental2-dom 1.0.0-RC1, there is a class called DocumentRange, but it doesnt really make any sense - it is declared as a class, which means it can be type checked in JS, but the browser spec says that it should be an "interface" (which in JS-land means that it just is a description of a type, rather than something you can typecheck). https://www.w3.org/TR/DOM-Level-2-Traversal-Range/ranges.html#Level2-DocumentRange-method-createRange
This bug is inherited from closure-compiler, which claims that this has a constructor: https://github.com/google/closure-compiler/blob/6a418aa/externs/browser/w3c_range.js#L241-L251
The fix is for closure-compiler to refer to this as an interface, and for a new release of elemental2 to be made so you can use this.
There are two workarounds you can make here. The first is to cheat with Js.uncheckedCast(DomGlobal.document) and say "yes, I know that the Document is not instanceof DocumentRange, but that's because there is no such class as DocumentRange, so just pretend it worked so I can call createRange() on it". This is what you are doing already - it hides the fact there is a bug, but at the end of the day it works.
The "correct" answer is to declare your own DocumentRange, and do a Js.cast() to that instead. This is still gross - you have to keep your new interface around until closure gets fixed, and then elemental2 gets released, and then you have to remember to clean it up.
In this case, I would suggest lying to GWT and using Js.uncheckedCast() - there is only a single method on here, and it is unlikely to change in a meaningful way.
I need to disable nagle algorithm in python2.6.
I found out that patching HTTPConnection in httplib.py that way
def connect(self):
"""Connect to the host and port specified in __init__."""
self.sock = socket.create_connection((self.host,self.port),
self.timeout)
self.sock.setsockopt(socket.IPPROTO_TCP, socket.TCP_NODELAY, True) # added line
does the trick.
Obviously, I would like to avoid patching system lib if possible. So, the question is: what is right way to do such thing? (I'm pretty new to python and can be easily missing some obvious solution here)
Please note that if using the socket library directly, the following is sufficient:
self.socket.setsockopt(socket.IPPROTO_TCP, socket.TCP_NODELAY, True)
I append this information to the accepted answer because it satisfies the information need that brought me here.
It's not possible to change the socket options that httplib specifies, and it's not possible to pass in your own socket object either. In my opinion this sort of lack of flexibility is the biggest weakness of most of the Python HTTP libraries. For example, prior to Python 2.6 it wasn't even possible to specify a timeout for the connection (except by using socket.setdefaulttimeout() globally, which wasn't very clean).
If you don't mind external dependencies, it looks like httplib2 already has TCP_NODELAY specified.
You could monkey-patch the library. Because python is a dynamic language and more or less everything is done as a namespace lookup at runtime, you can simply replace the appropriate method on the relevant class:
:::python
import httplib
def patch_httplib():
orig_connect = httplib.HTTPConnection.connect
def my_connect(self):
orig_connect(self)
self.sock.setsockopt(...)
However, this is extremely error-prone as it means that your code becomes quite specific to a particular Python version, as these library functions and classes do change. For example, in 2.7 there's a _tunnel() method called which uses the socket, so you'd want to hook in the middle of the connect() method - monkey-patching makes that extremely tricky.
In short, I don't think there's an easy answer, I'm afraid.
I've been assigned to pick up a webapplication written in some old Perl Legacy code, get it working on our server to later extend it. The code was written 10 years ago by a solitary self-taught developer...
The code has weird stuff going on - they are not afraid to do lib-param.pl on line one, and later in the file do /lib-pl/lib-param.pl - which is offcourse a different file.
Including a.pl with methods b() and c() and later including d.pl with methods c() and e() seems to be quite popular too... Packages appear to be unknown, so you'll just find &c() somewhere in the code later.
Interesting questions:
Is there a tool that can draw relations between perl-files? Show a list of files used by each other file?
The same for MySQL databases and tables? Can it show which schema's/tables are used by which files?
Is there an IDE that knows which c() is called - the one in a.pl or the one in d.pl?
How would you start to try to understand the code?
I'm inclined to go through each file and refactor it, but am not allowed to do that - only the strict minimum to get the code working. (But since the code never uses strict, I don't know if I'm gonna...)
Not using strict is a mistake -- don't continue it. Move the stuff in d.pl to D.pm (or perhaps a better name alltogether), and if the code is procedural use Sub::Exporter to get those subs back into the calling package. strict is lexical, you can turn it on for just one package. Such as your new package D;. To find out which code is being called, use Devel::SimpleTrace.
perl -MDevel::SimpleTrace ./foo.pl
Now any warnings will be accompanied by a full back-log -- sprinkle warnings around the code and run it.
I think the MySQL question should be removed, from this. Schema Table mappings have nothing to do with perl, it seems an out of place distraction on this question.
I would write a utility to scan a complete list of all subs and which file they live in; then I would write a utility to give me a list of all function calls and which file they come from.
By the way - it is not terribly hard to write a fairly mindless static analysis tool to generate a call graph.
For many cases, in well-written code, that will be enough to help me out...