I'm currently experimenting with using OCaml and GTK together (using the lablgtk bindings). However, the documentation isn't the best, and while I can work out how to use most of the features, I'm stuck with changing notebook pages (switching to a different tab).
I have found the function that I need to use, but I don't know how to use it. The documentation seems to suggest that it is in a sub-module of GtkPackProps.Notebook, but I don't know how to call this.
Also, this function has a type signature different to any I have seen before.
val switch_page : ([> `notebook ], Gpointer.boxed option -> int -> unit) GtkSignal.t
I think it returns a GtkSignal.t, but I have no idea how to pass the first parameter to the function (the whole part in brackets).
Has anyone got some sample code showing how to change the notebook page, or can perhaps give me some tips on how to do this?
What you have found is not a function but the signal. The functional type you see in its type is the type of the callback that will be called when the page switch happen, but won't cause it.
by the way the type of switch_page is read as: a signal (GtkSignal.t) raised by notebook [> `notebook ], whose callbacks have type Gpointer.boxed option -> int -> unit
Generally speaking, with lablgtk, you'd better stay away of the Gtk* low level modules, and use tge G[A-Z] higher level module. Those module API look like the C Gtk one, and I always use the main Gtk doc to help myself.
In your case you want to use the GPack.notebook object and its goto_page method.
You've found a polymorphic variant; they're described in the manual in Section 4.2, and the typing rules always break my head. I believe what the signature says is that the function switch_page expects as argument a GtkSignal.t, which is an abstraction parameterized by two types:
The first type parameter,
[> `notebook]
includes as values any polymorphic variant including notebook (that's what the greater-than means).
The second type parameter is an ordinary function.
If I'm reading the documentation for GtkSignal.t correctly, it's not a function at all; it's a record with three fields:
name is a string.
classe is a polymorphic variant which could be ``notebook` or something else.
marshaller is a marshaller for the function type Gpointer.boxed option -> int -> unit.
I hope this helps. If you have more trouble, section 4.2 of the manual, on polymorphic variants, might sort you out.
Related
I am learning Editor Script of Unity recently, and I come across a piece of code in Unity Manual like this:
EditorWindowTest window = (EditorWindowTest)EditorWindow.GetWindow(typeof(EditorWindowTest), true, "My Empty Window");
I don't know why bother casting the result with (EditorWindowTest) again since the type has been specified in the parameter field of GetWindow().
Thanks in advance :)
There are multiple overloads of the EditorWindow.GetWindow method.
The one used in your code snippet is one of the non-generic ones. It accepts a Type argument which it can use at runtime to create the right type of window. However, since it doesn't use generics, it's not possible to know the type of the window at compile time, so the method just returns an EditorWindow, as that's the best it can do.
You can hover over a method in your IDE to see the return type of any method for yourself.
When using one of the generic overloads of the GetWindow method, you don't need to do any manual casting, since the method already knows at compile time the exact type of the window and returns an instance of that type directly.
The generic variants should be used when possible, because it makes the code safer by removing the need for casting at runtime, which could cause exceptions.
If you closely look, GetWindow's return type is EditorWindow. Not the EditorWindowTest, so typecasting makes sense.
https://docs.unity3d.com/ScriptReference/EditorWindow.GetWindow.html
Quite commonly while programming I find it necessary to document the value that a function returns. In Java/Scala world, you often use comments above the function to do this.
However, this can stand out in contrast to the first-class documentation that function parameters get in all languages. For example:
def exponent(base: Int, power: Int): Int
Here we have the signature for a method that raises base to the power power and returns... probably the result of that computation? I know for certain it returns an Int, and it seems quite reasonable to infer that the return value is indeed the result of calculating base ^ power, but in many functions I've written and read it is not possible to infer the return value's semantic meaning quite so easily and you need to study the documentation and/or actually use the method to find out.
Which leads me to wonder, do any languages provide support for optionally declaring a semantic name for the return value?
def exponent(base: Int, power: Int): Int(exitCode)
A hah! Turns out this function actually returns an indication of whether the operation succeeded or failed! Look it is so clear right there in the method signature! My IDE could also intelligently create a variable with the same name when I call this method, a la:
// Typing in IntelliJ
exponent(5, 5)<TAB>
// Autocompletes to:
val exitCode = exponent(5, 5)
I'm not under any illusion that this is some sort of ground-breaking idea, but it seems like it could be generally useful, and I'm struck that I have never seen this concept implemented in any programming language.
Can you name any single programming language that does have this kind of semantic naming of return values?
In APL, for instance, the result of a function is declared as a variable. The function declaration in your example could be written like
exitCode ← base exponent power
in APL. However, a function with no side effects should always be named after the result it returns. If the function can fail I would use a value that is never returned on success, for instance -1 in this case.
I don't quite understand why this is not failing:
def hello(name: str) -> int:
ending:int = '!!!'
return f'Hello {name} {ending}'
print(hello('John')) # Hello John !!!
And if there is already possibility to strong type python?
The reason is explained in PEP 484 by Guido himself:
It should also be emphasized that Python will remain a dynamically typed language, and the authors have no desire to ever make type hints mandatory, even by convention.
So the answer is NO. Type hints are only hints. They help to indicate what type of data a variable or function should/may contain/returns/etc. It wasn't designed to transform Python into a statically typed language.
As I wrote in comment it is nice to use mypy myproject.py to run it before project/code run. Then you could verify data types structure and correct flow.
In the syntax analysis phase, an imperative compiler can build an AST out of nodes that already contain a type field that is set to null during construction, and then later, in the semantic analysis phase, fill in the types by assigning the declared/inferred types into the type fields.
How do purely functional languages handle this, where you do not have the luxury of assignment? Is the type-less AST mapped to a different kind of type-enriched AST? Does that mean I need to define two types per AST node, one for the syntax phase, and one for the semantic phase?
Are there purely functional programming tricks that help the compiler writer with this problem?
I usually rewrite a source (or an already several steps lowered) AST into a new form, replacing each expression node with a pair (tag, expression).
Tags are unique numbers or symbols which are then used by the next pass which derives type equations from the AST. E.g., a + b will yield something like { numeric(Tag_a). numeric(Tag_b). equals(Tag_a, Tag_b). equals(Tag_e, Tag_a).}.
Then types equations are solved (e.g., by simply running them as a Prolog program), and, if successful, all the tags (which are variables in this program) are now bound to concrete types, and if not, they're left as type parameters.
In a next step, our previous AST is rewritten again, this time replacing tags with all the inferred type information.
The whole process is a sequence of pure rewrites, no need to replace anything in your AST destructively. A typical compilation pipeline may take a couple of dozens of rewrites, some of them changing the AST datatype.
There are several options to model this. You may use the same kind of nullable data fields as in your imperative case:
data Exp = Var Name (Maybe Type) | ...
parse :: String -> Maybe Exp -- types are Nothings here
typeCheck :: Exp -> Maybe Exp -- turns Nothings into Justs
or even, using a more precise type
data Exp ty = Var Name ty | ...
parse :: String -> Maybe (Exp ())
typeCheck :: Exp () -> Maybe (Exp Type)
I cant speak for how it is supposed to be done, but I did do this in F# for a C# compiler here
The approach was basically - build an AST from the source, leaving things like type information unconstrained - So AST.fs basically is the AST which strings for the type names, function names, etc.
As the AST starts to be compiled to (in this case) .NET IL, we end up with more type information (we create the types in the source - lets call these type-stubs). This then gives us the information needed to created method-stubs (the code may have signatures that include type-stubs as well as built in types). From here we now have enough type information to resolve any of the type names, or method signatures in the code.
I store that in the file TypedAST.fs. I do this in a single pass, however the approach may be naive.
Now we have a fully typed AST you could then do things like compile it, fully analyze it, or whatever you like with it.
So in answer to the question "Does that mean I need to define two types per AST node, one for the syntax phase, and one for the semantic phase?", I cant say definitively that this is the case, but it is certainly what I did, and it appears to be what MS have done with Roslyn (although they have essentially decorated the original tree with type info IIRC)
"Are there purely functional programming tricks that help the compiler writer with this problem?"
Given the ASTs are essentially mirrored in my case, it would be possible to make it generic and transform the tree, but the code may end up (more) horrendous.
i.e.
type 'type AST;
| MethodInvoke of 'type * Name * 'type list
| ....
Like in the case when dealing with relational databases, in functional programming it is often a good idea not to put everything in a single data structure.
In particular, there may not be a data structure that is "the AST".
Most probably, there will be data structures that represent parsed expressions. One possible way to deal with type information is to assign a unique identifier (like an integer) to each node of the tree already during parsing and have some suitable data structure (like a hash map) that associates those node-ids with types. The job of the type inference pass, then, would be just to create this map.
I've been reading a lot of other people's Scala code recently, and one of the things that I have difficultly with (coming from Java) is a lack of explicit type annotations.
It's certainly convenient when writing code to be able to leave out type annotations -- however when reading code I often find that explicit type annotations help me to understand at a glance what code is doing more easily.
The Scala style guide (http://docs.scala-lang.org/style/types.html) doesn't seem to provide any definitive guidance on this, stating:
Use type inference where possible, but put clarity first, and favour explicitness in public APIs.
To my mind, this is a bit contradictory. While it's clearly obvious what type this variable is:
val tokens = new HashMap[String, Int]
It's not so obvious what type this one is:
val tokens = readTokens()
So, if I was putting clarity first I would probably annotate all variables where the type is not already declared on the same line.
Do any Scala practitioners have guidance on this? Am I crazy to be considering adding type annotations to my local variables? I'm particularly interested in hearing from folks who spend a lot of time reading scala code (for example, in code reviews), as well as writing it.
It's not so obvious what type this one is:
val tokens = readTokens()
Good names are important: the name is plural, ergo it returns some collection of some kind. The most general collection types in Scala are Traversable and Iterator, and they mostly share a common interface, so it's not really important which one of the two it is. The name also talks about "reading tokens", ergo it obviously should return Tokens in some fashion. And last but not least, the method call has parentheses, which according to the style guide means it has side-effects, so I wouldn't count on being able to traverse the collection more than once.
Ergo, the return type is something like
Traversable[Token]
or
Iterator[Token]
and which of the two it is doesn't really matter because their client interfaces are mostly identical.
Note also that the latter constraint (only traversing the collection once) isn't even captured in the type, even if you were providing an explicit type, you would still have to look at the name and the style!