Function in NP API plugin creates NPObject and returns into javascript. Then javascript variable with returned NPObject is used as parameter for some other function of plugin. e.g.
var obj = plugin.GetObject()
plugin.UseObject( obj )
But in second function (UseObject) value of parameter is not original NPObject but NPObject JS wrapper class.
Is there way to get original NPObject from instance of NPObject JS wrapper class?
Short answer: you can't.
More involved answer: Some browsers will give you the originating object, but most these days won't, and there is no way to dereference past their opaque NPObject interface to get back to the underlying object.
Alternate solution: Instead of trying to get it that way, add a unique id to your NPObject and a global map to the pointer. Then when you get an NPObject that you think might be the object, call a method (or get a property) to get the unique ID and then you can look up the pointer.
this is the only method that I've found that works consistently across all browsers.
Related
Within a subclass constructor, what is the difference between calling obj#SuperClass(a,b); and obj = obj#SuperClass(a,b);
Both are found in doc, for ex. here
The canonical syntax for calling a superclass constructor is
obj = obj#SuperClass(args)
(see the documentation).
This is comparable to calling any constructor, where the output of the function call is assigned to a variable:
obj = SuperClass(args)
However, because the superclass constructor must initialize fields inside a (larger) derived object, the obj to be modified must be passed in some way to the function call, hence the (awkward) obj# syntax.
But because we pass the object to be initialized, which is modified, we don’t really need to capture that output any more. Hence the other form,
obj#SuperClass(args)
does exactly the same things in all situations I have encountered.
There is no difference that I can see. I would be surprised if the first syntax did any data copying whatsoever, that has most certainly been optimized out, just like obj = obj.method(args) doesn’t copy the object.
I am using ClrMd to examine memory in a C# app and successively created a runtime object on a process.
I use the runtime object to call EnumerateObjects(). This returns a collection of ulongs that are references to all the objects on the heap. If the reference is to a string, I have no problem reconstituting the string using the ClrType GetValue(). However, when I call GetValue() on a reference to other objects, GetValue returns what appears to be another reference (i.e. ulong).
Do I need to execute some kind of C# unsafe code?
By the way, I get the same result with EnumerateObjectAddresses() (is there a difference between the two?)
After evolving my project code for months, I've finally hit a need to define a new class. Having to romp through my previous class definitions as a refresher of the conventions, I noticed that all constructors and property setters all have an output argument, even though nothing is assigned to it, e.g.:
function o = myConstructor( arg1, arg2, ... )
function o = set.SomeProperty( o, arg1 )
I've been looking through the documentation for upward of an hour without finding the explanation for this. It doesn't look like it depends on whether a function is defined in the class definition file or in its own separate m-file.
Can anyone please explain?
The best place to start is the documentation "Comparison of Handle and Value Classes". From the very top:
A value class constructor returns an object that is associated with the variable to which it is assigned. If you reassign this variable, MATLAB® creates an independent copy of the original object. If you pass this variable to a function to modify it, the function must return the modified object as an output argument.
A handle class constructor returns a handle object that is a reference to the object created. You can assign the handle object to multiple variables or pass it to functions without causing MATLAB to make a copy of the original object. A function that modifies a handle object passed as an input argument does not need to return the object.
In other words, value classes need to return a modified object (which is a new object distinct from the original), while handle classes don't. The constructor of either class will always have to return an object, since it is actually constructing it.
Some good additional reading is "Which Kind of Class to Use", which links to a couple helpful examples of each type of class object. Looking at the DocPolynom value class example, you can see that property set methods have to return the modified object, while the dlnode handle class example only requires an output for its constructor. Note that you could still return an object from a handle class method (if desired), but it's not required.
I just read that the init method can't be used as a value. Meaning:
var x = SomeClass.someClassFunction // ok
var y = SomeClass.init // error
Example found on Language reference
Why should it be like that? Is it a way to enforce language level that too dirty tricks come into place, because of some cohertion or maybe because it interferes with another feature?
Unlike Obj-C, where the init function can be called multiple times without problems, in Swift there actually is no method called init.
init is just a keyword meaning "the following is a constructor". The constructor is called always via MyClass() during the creation of a new instance. It's never called separately as a method myInstance.init(). You can't get a reference to the underlying function because it would be impossible to call it.
This is also connected with the fact that constructors cannot be inherited. Code
var y = SomeClass.init
would also break subtyping because the subtypes are not required to have the same initializers.
Why should it be like that?
init is a special member, not a regular method.
Beyond that, there's no reason that you'd ever need to store init in a variable. The only objects that could use that function in a valid way are instances of the class where that particular init is defined, and any such object will have already been initialized before you could possibly make the assignment.
Initializers don't have a return value. In order to assign it to something, it should be able to return something - and it doesn't.
I'm using Eclipse JDT AST to parse a given java source code. While parsing the code, when it hits a method invocation, I want to find out whether that particular method returns or sets a value of an instance variable (basically to find out whether the callee method is a getter/setter of the same class of caller method).
E.g.:
public void test(){
//when parsing the following line I want to check whether "getName"
//returns a value of an instance variable.
String x = getName();
//when parsing the following line I want to check whether "setName"
//sets the value of an instance variable.
setName("some-name");
}
I've used the AST plugin also find out a possible path which would help me to refer it from the API, but couldn't.
Please let me know whether this is possible and if so, which approach that would help me to get the required information.
Don't think that there is an api which tells you whether a method is a getter or a setter.
You will have to write code to do this. For a getter, you can probably simply check if the last statement in the method is a return statement which returns an instance variable.