I have two methods like so:
Foo[] GetFoos(Type t) { //do some stuff and return an array of things of type T }
T[] GetFoos<T>()
where T : Foo
{
return GetFoos(typeof(T)) as T[];
}
However, this always seems to return null. Am I doing things wrong or is this just a shortfall of C#?
Nb:
I know I could solve this problem with:
GetFoos(typeof(T)).Cast<T>().ToArray();
However, I would prefer to do this wothout any allocations (working in an environment very sensitive to garbage collections).
Nb++:
Bonus points if you suggest an alternative non allocating solution
Edit:
This raises an interesting question. The MSDN docs here: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa664572%28v=vs.71%29.aspx say that the cast will succeed if there is an implicit or explicit cast. In this case there is an explicit cast, and so the cast should succeed. Are the MSDN docs wrong?
No, C# casting isn't useless - you simply can't cast a Foo[] to a T[] where T is a more derived type, as the Foo[] could contain other elements different to T. Why don't you adjust your GetFoos method to GetFoos<T>()? A method only taking a Type object can easily be converted into a generic method, where you could create the array directly via new T[].
If this is not possible: Do you need the abilities an array offers (ie. indexing and things like Count)? If not, you can work with an IEnumerable<T> without having much of a problem. If not: you won't get around going the Cast<T>.ToArray() way.
Edit:
There is no possible cast from Foo[] to T[], the description in your link is the other way round - you could cast a T[] to a Foo[] as all T are Foo, but not all Foo are T.
If you can arrange for GetFoos to create the return array using new T[], then you win. If you used new Foo[], then the array's type is fixed at that, regardless of the types of the objects it actually holds.
I haven't tried this, but it should work:
T[] array = Array.ConvertAll<Foo, T>(input,
delegate(Foo obj)
{
return (T)obj;
});
You can find more at http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/exc45z53(v=VS.85).aspx
I think this converts in-place, so it won't be doing any re-allocations.
From what I understand from your situation, using System.Array in place of a more specific array can help you. Remember, Array is the base class for all strongly typed arrays so an Array reference can essentially store any array. You should make your (generic?) dictionary map Type -> Array so you may store any strongly typed array also while not having to worry about needing to convert one array to another, now it's just type casting.
i.e.,
Dictionary<Type, Array> myDict = ...;
Array GetFoos(Type t)
{
// do checks, blah blah blah
return myDict[t];
}
// and a generic helper
T[] GetFoos<T>() where T: Foo
{
return (T[])GetFoos(typeof(T));
}
// then accesses all need casts to the specific type
Foo[] f = (Foo[])GetFoos(typeof(Foo));
DerivedFoo[] df = (DerivedFoo[])GetFoos(typeof(DerivedFoo));
// or with the generic helper
AnotherDerivedFoo[] adf = GetFoos<AnotherDerivedFoo>();
// etc...
p.s., The MSDN link that you provide shows how arrays are covariant. That is, you may store an array of a more derived type in a reference to an array of a base type. What you're trying to achieve here is contravariance (i.e., using an array of a base type in place of an array of a more derived type) which is the other way around and what arrays can't do without doing a conversion.
Related
I want to have a method that takes a parameter of type enum as a parameter and then operates on it to get all possible values of the enum type, and do some work with each of those values.
I'd be hoping for something like:
Widget foo (EnumType enumType) {
for(var value in enumType.values) {
print(value.name);
}
}
I've looked for solutions but the only ones I can find are addressed by passing a list of the values as a parm, however this doesn't solve my problem as, even with the list of objects, I can't know that they are enum values so if I try do the .name operation on them, dart throws an error Error: The getter 'name' isn't defined for the class 'Object'.
Maybe my only problem is that I don't know how to specify a variable as an EnumType but I haven't been able to find a correct type for this.
EnumType.values is the equivalent of an automatically generated static method on EnumType and as such is not part of any object's interface. You therefore will not be able to directly call .values dynamically.
I've looked for solutions but the only ones I can find are addressed by passing a list of the values as a [parameter], however this doesn't solve my problem as, even with the list of objects, I can't know that they are enum values so if I try do the .name operation on them, dart throws an error
You can use a generic function that restricts its type parameter to be an Enum:
enum Direction {
north,
east,
south,
west,
}
List<String> getNames<T extends Enum>(List<T> enumValues) =>
[for (var e in enumValues) e.name];
void main() {
print(getNames(Direction.values)); // Prints: [north, east, south, west]
}
The problem with enums is that they can't be passed as a parameter, what you can do instead is that pass all the values and then extract the name from the toString method.
void printEnumValues<T>(List<T> values){
for(var value in values){
final name = value.toString().split('.')[1];
print(name);
}
}
Also I would recommend you look into freezed union classes as that might allow you an alternative approach towards the problem you're trying to solve.
I am working with Q# on a generic grover search implementation and I wanted to define a custom Oracle type
newtype ModelOracle = ((Qubit[], Qubit[], Int[], Qubit) => Unit);
// ...
function GroverMaxMatchingOracle(search_set: (Int,Int)[], vertices: Int[], marked_pts: Bool[]): ModelOracle {
return ModelOracle(ApplyMaxMatchingOracle(_,_,_,_,search_set, vertices, marked_pts));
}
that will fit into my model. But when I try to use it (kind of in the same way as they use StateOracle in the DatabaseSearch sample), I get an error saying that the new type ModelOracle is not a valid operation
fail: Microsoft.Quantum.IQSharp.Workspace[0]
QS5021: The type of the expression must be a function or operation type. The given expression is of type OracleHelper.ModelOracle.
What am I getting wrong about the types here?
It looks like you have defined things ok, so it might be that you have to unwrap the user defined type first with the ! operator.
So where you are using it you may have to do something like GroverMaxMatchingOracle!(...)
Another approach could be to name the tuple in your UDT:
newtype ModelOracle = (Apply: (Qubit[], Qubit[], Int[], Qubit) => Unit);
Then wherever you want to use it you can directly used the named item Apply like this: GroverMaxMatchingOracle::Apply(...)
If its helpful, there is a section on user defined types (8.2) in the book #cgranade and I are working on, Learn Quantum Computing with Python and Q#
I get an error when I put the type and size of an array of classes
I have tried:
fun main(args :Array<String>) {
class modul() {
var nommodul: String? = null
var coeff: Int? = null
var note: Int? = null
}
var releve
class notes() {
var releve: array<modul>(10){""} here the erreur
}
}
First of all, your code has several errors. This might be an MCVE and/or copy-paste issue, but I need to address these before I get started on the arrays.
var releve before the notes class isn't allowed. You don't assign it, you don't declare a type, and the compiler will complain if you copy-paste the code from your question.
Second, the array var itself: Array is upper-case, and initialization is separate. This would be more valid (note that this still does not work - the solution for that comes later in this answer):
var releve: Array<modul> = Array(10) {...}
// or
var releve = Array<modul>(10) {...}
And the last thing before I start on the array itself: please read the language conventions, especially the naming ones. Your classes should all start with an upper-case letter.
Kotlin arrays are quite different from Java arrays in many ways, but the most notable one being that direct array initialization also requires an initializer.
The brackets are expected to create a new instance, which you don't. You create a String, which isn't, in your case, a modul.
There are several ways to fix this depending on how you want to do this.
If you have instances you want to add to the array, you can use arrayOf:
arrayOf(modulInstance, modulInstance2, ...)
If you want to create them directly, you can use your approach:
var releve = Array(10) { modul() }
A note about both of these: because of the initialization, you get automatic type inference and don't need to explicitly declare <modul>
If you want Java-style arrays, you need an array of nulls.
There's two ways to do this:
var releve = arrayOfNulls<modul>(10)
// or
var releve = Array<modul?>(10) { null }
I highly recommend the first one, because it's cleaner. I'm not sure if there's a difference performance-wise though.
Note that this does infer a nullable type to the array, but it lets you work with arrays in a similar way to Java. Initialization from this point is just like Java: releve[i] = modul(). This approach is mostly useful if you have arguments you want to add to each of the classes and you need to do so manually. Using the manual initializers also provides you with an index (see the documentation) which you can use while initializing.
Note that if you're using a for loop to initialize, you can use Array(10) { YourClass() } as well, and use the supplied index if you need any index-sensitive information, such as function arguments. There's of course nothing wrong with using a for loop, but it can be cleaner.
Further reading
Array
Lambdas
here some example of kotlin array initialization:
array of Library Method
val strings = arrayOf("January", "February", "March")
Primitive Arrays
val numbers: IntArray = intArrayOf(10, 20, 30, 40, 50)
Late Initialization with Indices
val array = arrayOfNulls<Number>(5)
for (i in array.indices) {
array[i] = i * i
}
See Kotlin - Basic Types for details
I am looking for examples of Chapel passing by reference. This example works but it seems like bad form since I am "returning" the input. Does this waste memory? Is there an explicit way to operate on a class?
class PowerPuffGirl {
var secretIngredients: [1..0] string;
}
var bubbles = new PowerPuffGirl();
bubbles.secretIngredients.push_back("sugar");
bubbles.secretIngredients.push_back("spice");
bubbles.secretIngredients.push_back("everything nice");
writeln(bubbles.secretIngredients);
proc kickAss(b: PowerPuffGirl) {
b.secretIngredients.push_back("Chemical X");
return b;
}
bubbles = kickAss(bubbles);
writeln(bubbles.secretIngredients);
And it produces the output
sugar spice everything nice
sugar spice everything nice Chemical X
What is the most efficient way to use a function to modify Bubbles?
Whether Chapel passes an argument by reference or not can be controlled by the argument intent. For example, integers normally pass by value but we can pass one by reference:
proc increment(ref x:int) { // 'ref' here is an argument intent
x += 1;
}
var x:int = 5;
increment(x);
writeln(x); // outputs 6
The way that a type passes when you don't specify an argument is known as the default intent. Chapel passes records, domains, and arrays by reference by default; but of these only arrays are modifiable inside the function. ( Records and domains pass by const ref - meaning they are passed by reference but that the function they are passed to cannot modify them. Arrays pass by ref or const ref depending upon what the function does with them - see array default intent ).
Now, to your question specifically, class instances pass by "value" by default, but Chapel considers the "value" of a class instance to be a pointer. That means that instead of allowing a field (say) to be mutated, passing a class instance by ref just means that it could be replaced with a different class instance. There isn't currently a way to say that a class instance's fields should not be modifiable in the function (other than making them to be explicitly immutable data types).
Given all of that, I don't see any inefficiencies with the code sample you provided in the question. In particular, here:
proc kickAss(b: PowerPuffGirl) {
b.secretIngredients.push_back("Chemical X");
return b;
}
the argument accepting b will receive a copy of the pointer to the instance and the return b will return a copy of that pointer. The contents of the instance (in particular the secretIngredients array) will remain stored where it was and won't be copied in the process.
One more thing:
This example works but it seems like bad form since I am "returning" the input.
As I said, this isn't really a problem for class instances or integers. What about an array?
proc identity(A) {
return A;
}
var A:[1..100] int;
writeln(identity(A));
In this example, the return A in identity() actually does cause a copy of the array to be made. That copy wasn't created when passing the array in to identity(), since the array was passed by with a const ref intent. But, since the function returns something "by value" that was a reference, it's necessary to copy it as part of returning. See also arrays return by value by default in the language evolution document.
In any case, if one wants to return an array by reference, it's possible to do so with the ref or const ref return intent, e.g.:
proc refIdentity(ref arg) ref {
return arg;
}
var B:[1..10] int;
writeln(refIdentity(B));
Now there is no copy of the array and everything is just referring to the same B.
Note though that it's currently possible to write programs that return a reference to a variable that no longer exists. The compiler includes some checking in that area but it's not complete. Hopefully improvements in that area are coming soon.
I could use some really good links that explain Generics and how to use them. But I also have a very specific question, relater to working on a current project.
Given this class constructor:
public class SecuredDomainViewModel<TDomainContext, TEntity> : DomainViewModel<TDomainContext, TEntity>
where TDomainContext : DomainContext, new()
where TEntity : Entity, new()
public SecuredDomainViewModel(TDomainContext domainContext, ProtectedItem protectedItem)
: base(domainContext)
{
this.protectedItem = protectedItem;
}
And its creation this way:
DomainViewModel d;
d = new SecuredDomainViewModel<MyContext, MyEntityType>(this.context, selectedProtectedItem);
Assuming I have 20 different EntityTypes within MyContext, is there any easier way to call the constructor without a large switch statement?
Also, since d is DomainViewModel and I later need to access methods from SecuredDomainViewModel, it seems I need to do this:
if (((SecuredDomainViewModel<MyContext, MyEntityType>)d).CanEditEntity)
But again "MyEntityType" could actually be one of 20 diffent types. Is there anyway to write these types of statements where MyEntityType is returned from some sort of Reflection?
Additional Info for Clarification:
I will investigate ConstructorInfo, but I think I may have incorrectly described what I'm looking to do.
Assume I have the DomainViewModel, d in my original posting.
This may have been constructed via three possible ways:
d = new SecuredDomainViewModel<MyContext, Order>(this.context, selectedProtectedItem);
d = new SecuredDomainViewModel<MyContext, Invoice>(this.context, selectedProtectedItem);
d = new SecuredDomainViewModel<MyContext, Consumer>(this.context, selectedProtectedItem);
Later, I need to access methods on the SecuredDomainViewModel, which currently must be called this way:
ex: if (((SecuredDomainViewModel<MyContext, Order)d).CanEditEntity)
ex: if (((SecuredDomainViewModel<MyContext, Invoice)d).CanEditEntity)
ex: if (((SecuredDomainViewModel<MyContext, Consumer)d).CanEditEntity)
Assuming I have N+ entity types in this context, what I was hoping to be able to do is
something like this with one call:
ex: if (((SecuredDomainViewModel<MyContext, CurrentEntityType)d).CanEditEntity)
Where CurrentEntityType was some sort of function or other type of call that returned Order, Invoice or Consumer based on the current item entity type.
Is that possible?
You can create a non-generic interface that has the CanEditEntity property on it, make SecuredDomainViewModel inherit off that, then call the property through the interface...
Also, the new() constructor allows you to call a constructor on a generic type that has no arguments (so you can just write new TEntity()), but if you want to call a constructor that has parameters one handy trick I use is to pass it in as a delegate:
public void Method<T>(Func<string, bool, T> ctor) {
// ...
T newobj = ctor("foo", true);
// ...
}
//called later...
Method((s, b) => new MyClass(s, b));
I can't help on the links, and likely not on the type either.
Constructor
If you have the Type, you can get the constructor:
ConstructorInfo construtor = typeof(MyEntityType).GetConstructor(new object[]{TDomainContext, ProtectedItem});
Type
I'm not really sure what you're looking for, but I can only see something like
if (((SecuredDomainViewModel<MyContext, entityType>)d).CanEditEntity)
{
entityType=typeof(Orders)
}
being what you want.