I've just started using Lambda expressions, and really like the shortcut. I also like the fact that I have scope within the lambda of the encompassing method. One thing I am having trouble with is nesting lambdas. Here is what I am trying to do:
public void DoSomeWork()
{
MyContext context = new MyDomainContext();
context.GetDocumentTypeCount(ci.CustomerId, io =>
{
if (io.HasError)
{
// Handle error
}
// Do some work here
// ...
// make DB call to get data
EntityQuery<AppliedGlobalFilter> query =
from a in context.GetAppliedGlobalFiltersQuery()
where a.CustomerId == ci.CustomerId && a.FilterId == 1
select a;
context.Load<AppliedGlobalFilter>(query, lo =>
{
if (lo.HasError)
{
}
**// Do more work in this nested lambda.
// Get compile time error here**
}
}, null);
}, null);
}
The second lambda is where I get the following compile time error:
Cannot convert Lambda expression to type 'System.ServiceModel.DomainService.Client.LoadBehavior' because it is not a delegate type
The compiler is choosing the wrong overload for the Load method even though I am using the same override I did in the previous Lambda.
Is this because I am trying to nest? Or do I have something else wrong?
Thanks,
-Scott
Found the problem as described in my comment above. I'll head back to work now - red face and all....
I realize this is not the answer you want, but I suggest caution about lengthy and/or nested lambdas. They work, but they often make code harder to read / maintain by other developers. I try to limit my lambdas in length to three statements, with no nesting.
Related
Is there a construct that communicates to the type checker a function's post-condition?
For example, in typescript it is possible to say
function assertIsNumber(value: any): asserts value is number {
if (typeof value !== 'number') {
throw new TypeError();
}
}
I would like to be able to do something like the following in dart:
class SomeClass {
int? value;
_checkPreconditions() {
if(value == null) {
throw MyPreconditionError()
}
// ...
}
somefunc() {
_checkPreconditions();
// here we know `value` is a non-null int.
final sum = value + 5;
}
}
I understand I could coerce the value to non-null sum = value! + 5, but I would prefer to allow the function to inform the type checker if possible.
It looks like the type system of Dart is not so powerful. The only thing that looks (from first glance) possible is to create a custom code analyzer package (or search for one that already exists).
Dart annotations don't actually do anything. They provide hints to tools such as the Dart analyzer (usually so that it can generate additional warnings), but they cannot change program behavior. Even if you could convince the analyzer to treat some variables as different types, you still wouldn't be able to compile and run your code.
Annotations can be used by code generation tools, so one possibility might be to generate a statement such as final value = this.value!; automatically. However, that would be a lot of trouble to go through (and would mean that code then would need to use this.value = 42; for assignments and would prevent your code from being analyzed directly).
From the docs:
Note: HHVM allows syntax such as $x = Vector<int>{5,10};, but Hack
disallows the syntax in this situation, instead opting to infer
it.
Is there a specific reason for this? Isn't this a violation of the fail-fast rule?
There are some situations in which this would cause error to be deffered, which in turn leads to harder backtracing.
For example:
<?hh // strict
function main() : void {
$myVector = new Vector([]); // no generic syntax
$myVector->addAll(require 'some_external_source.php');
}
The above code causes no errors until it is used in a context where the statically-typed collection is actually in place:
class Foo
{
public ?Vector<int> $v;
}
$f = new Foo();
$f->v = $myVector;
Now there is an error if the vector contains something else then int. But one must trace back the error to the point where the flawed data was actually imported. This would not be necessary if one could instantiate the vector using generic syntax in the first place:
$myVector = new Vector<int>([]);
$myVector->addAll(require 'some_external_source.php'); // fail immediately
I work on the Hack type system and typechecker at Facebook. This question has been asked a few times internally at FB, and it's good to have a nice, externally-visible place to have an answer to it written down.
So first of all, your question is premised on the following code:
<?hh // strict
function main() : void {
$myVector = new Vector([]); // no generic syntax
$myVector->addAll(require 'some_external_source.php');
}
However, that code does not pass the typechecker due to the usage of require outside toplevel, and so any result of actually executing it on HHVM is undefined behavior, rendering this whole discussion moot for that code.
But it's still a legitimate question for other potential pieces of code that do actually typecheck, so let me go ahead and actually answer it. :)
The reason that it's unsupported is because the typechecker is actually able to infer the generic correctly, unlike many other languages, and so we made the judgement call that the syntax would get in the way, and decided to disallow it. It turns out that if you just don't worry about, we'll infer it right, and still give useful type errors. You can certainly come up with contrived code that doesn't "fail fast" in the way you want, but it's, well, contrived. Take for example this fixup of your example:
<?hh // strict
function main(): void {
$myVector = Vector {}; // I intend this to be a Vector<int>
$myVector[] = 0;
$myVector[] = 'oops'; // Oops! Now it's inferred to be a Vector<mixed>
}
You might argue that this is bad, because you intended to have a Vector<int> but actually have a Vector<mixed> with no type error; you would have liked to be able to express this when creating it, so that adding 'oops' into it would cause such an error.. But there is no type error only because you never actually tried to use $myVector! If you tried to pull out any of its values, or return it from the function, you'd get some sort of type compatibility error. For example:
<?hh // strict
function main(): Vector<int> {
$myVector = Vector {}; // I intend this to be a Vector<int>
$myVector[] = 0;
$myVector[] = 'oops'; // Oops! Now it's inferred to be a Vector<mixed>
return $myVector; // Type error!
}
The return statement will cause a type error, saying that the 'oops' is a string, incompatible with the int return type annotation -- exactly what you wanted. So the inference is good, it works, and you don't ever actually need to explicitly annotate the type of locals.
But why shouldn't you be able to if you really want? Because annotating only generics when instantiating new objects isn't really the right feature here. The core of what you're getting at with "but occasionally I really want to annotate Vector<int> {}" is actually "but occasionally I really want to annotate locals". So the right language feature is not to let you write $x = Vector<int> {}; but let you explicitly declare variables and write Vector<int> $x = Vector {}; -- which also allows things like int $x = 42;. Adding explicit variable declarations to the language is a much more general, reasonable addition than just annotating generics at object instantiation. (It's however not a feature being actively worked on, nor can I see it being such in the near to medium term future, so don't get your hopes up now. But leaving the option open is why we made this decision.)
Furthermore, allowing either of these syntaxes would be actively misleading at this point in time. Generics are only enforced by the static typechecker and are erased by the runtime. This means that if you get untyped values from PHP or Hack partial mode code, the runtime cannot possibly check the real type of the generic. Noting that untyped values are "trust the programmer" and so you can do anything with them in the static typechecker too, consider the following code, which includes the hypothetical syntax you propose:
<?hh // partial
function get_foo() /* unannotated */ {
return 'not an int';
}
<?hh // strict
function f(): void {
$v = Vector<int> {};
$v[] = 1; // OK
// $v[] = 'whoops'; // Error since explicitly annotated as Vector<int>
// No error from static typechecker since get_foo is unannotated
// No error from runtime since generics are erased
$v[] = get_foo();
}
Of course, you can't have unannotated values in 100% strict mode code, but we have to think about how it interacts with all potential usages, including untyped code in partial mode or even PHP.
I'm studying Swift language, and in github.com, i found SwiftHelper.
In it's IntHelper.swift file, I found below code:
extension Int {
var isEven: Bool {
let remainder = self % 2
return remainder == 0
}
var isOdd: Bool {
return !isEven
}
}
why isEven and isOdd were written as properties, not method calls?
In this situation, Using property has any advantage over using method calls?
In purely technical terms, there are no advantages or disadvantages to using a property over a method or vice versa* : the only difference is in readability.
In this particular case, I think that using an extension property makes for better readability than using a method call, because it reads better. Compare
if myInt.isOdd {
... // Do something
}
vs.
if myInt.isOdd() {
... // Do something
}
vs.
if isOdd(myInt) {
... // Do something
}
The first (property) and second (method) code fragments keeps words in the same order as they are in English, contributing to somewhat better readability. However, the second one adds an unnecessary pair of parentheses. For completeness, the third way of accomplishing the same task (a function) is less readable than the other two.
* This also applies to other languages that support properties, for example, Objective-C and C#.
The properties used in the extension are what's known as 'computed properties' - which in a lot of ways are like a method :) in that they don't store any state themselves, but rather return some computed value.
The choice between implementing a 'property' vs. a 'method' for something like this can be thought of in semantic terms; here, although the value is being computed, it simply serves to represent some information about the state of the object (technically 'struct' in the case of Int) in the way that you would expect a property to, and asking for that state isn't asking it to modify either itself or any of its dependencies.
In terms of readability, methods in Swift (even those without arguments) still require parens - you can see the difference that makes in this example:
// as a property
if 4.isEven { println("all is right in the world") }
// as a method
if 5.isEven() { println("we have a problem") }
I'm trying to replace a function call like (simplified) Utility.GetString(MyEntity.SomePropertyWithRelatedEntity)=="abc" with an expression visitor into something like p => p.SubRelatedEntities.FirstOrDefault(sre => sre.SomeFlag==true).SomePropertyWithRelatedEntity.
It means, the datamodel goes like:
MyEntity -> RelatedEntity -> SubRelatedEntity
I'm trying to return a string value from the SubRelatedEntity, based on some rules in the RelatedEntity, so I don't have to re-write / copy/paste the whole filtering rules in every usage; that's why I put inside a "call-signature", so my expression visitor can identify it and replace the fake-call to Utility.GetString to some complicated lambda expressions.
My expression visitor contains something like:
public override Expression Visit(Expression node)
{
if (node == null)
return null;
Expression result = null;
if (node.NodeType == ExpressionType.Call)
{
MethodCallExpression mce = node as MethodCallExpression;
if (mce.Method.DeclaringType == typeof(Utility) && mce.Method.Name == "GetString")
{
Expression<Func<RelatedEntity, string>> exp = re => re.SubRelatedEntities.FirstOrDefault(sre => sre.SomeFlag == true).SomeStringValue;
result = exp.Body;
}
else
result = base.Visit(node);
}
else
result = base.Visit(node);
return result;
}
Now, the problem is, the "sre" parameter is not bound when called the injected lambda expression. After much research, I see the lambda parameters should be replaced with another expression visitor, specifically searching for the new parameters and replacing them with the old ones. In my situation, however, I don't have an "old parameter" - I have the expression MyEntity.SomePropertyWithRelatedEntity (e.g. an property filled with the related entities) which I need to insert somehow in the generated lambda.
I hope my problem is understandable. Thank you for any insights!
After getting no answers for long time and trying hard to find a solution, I've solved it at the end :o)! It goes like this:
The newly injected lambda expression gets an ParameterExpression - well, this is a 'helper', used when directly calling the lambda, what I don't want (hence, 'parameter not bound' exception when ToEnumerable is called). So, the clue is to make a specialized ExpressionVisitor, which replaces this helper with the original expression, which is of course available in the Arguments[] for the method call, which I try to replace.
Works like a charm, like this you can reuse the same LINQ expressions, something like reusable sub-queries, instead of writing all the same LINQ stuff all time. Notice as well, that expression calling a method is not allowed in EF, in Linq2Sql it worked. Also, all the proposed web articles only replace the parameter instances, when constructing/merging more LINQ expressions together - here, I needed to replace a parameter with an faked-method-call argument, e.g. the method should not be called, it only stands for a code-marker, where I need to put my LINQ sub-query.
Hope this helps somebody, at the end it's pretty simple and logical, when one knows how the expression trees are constructed ;-).
Bye,
Andrej
I'm trying to write a class for a scala project and I get this error in multiple places with keywords such as class, def, while.
It happens in places like this:
var continue = true
while (continue) {
[..]
}
And I'm sure the error is not there since when I isolate that code in another class it doesn't give me any error.
Could you please give me a rule of thumb for such errors? Where should I find them? are there some common syntactic errors elsewhere when this happens?
It sounds like you're using reserved keywords as variable names. "Continue", for instance, is a Java keyword.
You probably don't have parentheses or braces matched somewhere, and the compiler can't tell until it hits a structure that looks like the one you showed.
The other possibility is that Scala sometimes has trouble distinguishing between the end of a statement with a new one on the next line, and a multi-line statement. In that case, just drop the ; at the end of the first line and see if the compiler's happy. (This doesn't seem like it fits your case, as Scala should be able to tell that nothing should come after true, and that you're done assigning a variable.)
Can you let us know what this code is inside? Scala expects "expressions" i.e. things that resolve to a particular value/type. In the case of "var continue = true", this does not evaluate to a value, so it cannot be at the end of an expression (i.e. inside an if-expression or match-expression or function block).
i.e.
def foo() = {
var continue = true
while (continue) {
[..]
}
}
This is a problem, as the function block is an expression and needs to have an (ignored?) return value, i.e.
def foo() = {
var continue = true
while (continue) {
[..]
}
()
}
() => a value representing the "Unit" type.
I get this error when I forget to put an = sign after a function definition:
def function(val: String):Boolean {
// Some stuff
}