When I'm coding in eclipse, I like to be as lazy as possible. So I frequently type something like:
myObject = new MyClass(myParam1, myParam2, myParam3);
Even though MyClass doesn't exist and neither does it's constructor. A few clicks later and eclipse has created MyClass with a constructor inferred from what I typed. My question is, is it possible to also get eclipse to generate fields in the class which correspond to what I passed to the constructor? I realize it's super lazy, but that's the whole joy of eclipse!
If you have a class A.
class A{
A(int a |){}
}
| is the cursor. Crtl + 1 "assign parameter to new field"
Result:
class A{
private final int a;
A(int a){
this.a = a;
}
}
This works also for methods:
void method(int b){}
Will result in:
private int b;
void method(int b){
this.b = b;
}
I know you can do the other way round. Define the fields and let Eclipse generate a constructor using these fields for you: Source | Generate Constructor using Fields
Since Eclipse Neon it is possible to assign all parameters to fields.
Using the quick assist Ctrl + 1 it suggest Assign all parameters to new fields. You can call for the quick assist if the cursor is anywhere between the parenthesis of the constructor.
This option is available for methods as well.
source
Related
I'm a beginner learning dart from the book dart apprentice and I reached where they were discussing constructors in dart classes, the book was implying that constructors create instances of the class which I understood but I needed more info about constructors. So I googled and some results repeated what was already in the book about it being used to create instances of a class while others also showed that it's used to instantiate class properties, but my problem is with the other answer which I found that they are used to instantiate properties of a class, but my question is: I instantiate all class properties when I create the class by declaring the property variables, like this:
class UserClass{
userClassProperty = "";
anotherUserClassProperty = ""; }
why is the constructor also needed to instantiate class properties?
Often, values are unique to every class instance.
Consider the following example:
class Point {
final int x;
final int y;
const Point(this.x, this.y);
double get distanceToOrigin => sqrt(x * x + y * y);
}
If the x and y values were defined inside the class, it would be pretty useless. Instead, different Point objects can be instantiated with different values, which means the same code can be used for different situations.
Ok, so constructors instantiate or start a class by collecting all the data the class needs to start to start working. Constructors are so important that the dart compiler provides one even if you don't explicitly create one. For example, you create a class for mammals like this :
class Mammal{
String name = "cat";
int numberOfLegs = 2;
}
Although you don't explicitly add a constructor the dart compiler adds a default constructor like this :
class Mammal{
Mammal(); //This is added by dart during the class instantiation by default.
String name = "cat";
int numberOfLegs = 2;
}
Yeah, that's how crucial constructors are to the dart compiler.
And on the topic of why are they necessary even when you declare all the properties by yourself in the class, as hacker1024 said it would make the class pretty useless, as the point of the existence of classes is to create variants but with different properties. Not adding a constructor to your class and defining all the properties in the class would mean that your class doesn't take property arguments which in turn also means that different variants of your class can't be created. Again this goes directly against the point of the existence of dart classes. For example, you have a class like this :
class Mammals{
Strig name = "Human";
int numberOfLegs = 2;
bool hasFur = false;
}
final cat = Mammal();
final human = Mammal();
print(cat.numberOfLegs); //Prints 2
//2
print(human.numberOfLegs); //Also prints 2
//2
print(cat.hasFur);
// false
Yeah, this class is problematic. Cats with 2 legs? You would agree with me that that's not how things are in reality. And also the class is pretty useless in the sense that it's not modular, no matter which kind of mammal we create be it a cat, a sheep or even a cow the name property is going to be the default one we set, that is "Human". When we create a class to simulate mammals we want to be able to define what kind of properties it has, not use some fixed values. So you want to create a class which has a constructor like this :
class Mammals{
Mammals(String name,int noOfLegs, bool hasFur){
this.name = name;
this.noOfLegs = noOfLegs;
this.hasFur = hasFur;
}
String name = "";
int noOfLegs = 0;
bool hasFur = False;
}
final cat = Mammal("Cat", 4, True); //Now you can pass in the properties ou want.
final human = Mammal("Human", 2, false);
print(cat.name); //This prints the customized name of the object cat instead of some fixed value
//Cat
print(human.name); //This prints the customized name of the object human
Now we have two instances of the class with separate property values.
Although this adds a little more code, the modularity benefit is worth it.
i'm coming from mainly JS/TS world (NestJS/Angular) and recently i start to building Flutter apps..
i have 2 main questions
there is any difference when instantiate object with or without new keyword?
i saw examples in flutter when people use new Row(children: [Text('Foo'), Text('Bar'),],) instead of just Row(...)
if there is a difference which one is better to use?
inside of my Dart classes in flutter app, i can both use this.property and property again there is any difference and if so which one is better and why?
example:
class Person {
final String name;
final int age;
Person(this.name, this.age);
getNameAge() => '${this.name} is ${this.age}';
getNameAge2() => '$name is $age';
}
both looks the same to me
void main() {
final p = Person('dan', 22);
final p2 = new Person('ben', 20);
print(p.getNameAge()); // dan is 22
print(p2.getNameAge2()); // ben is 20
}
The new keyword is optional in Dart and I think the general consensus is, today, to not use it.
The use of this is useful if you have multiple variables with the same name but in different scope. E.g. (this is just an example. You would not make a setA method in Dart but use properties):
class A {
int a;
A(this.a);
void setA(int a) {
this.a = a;
}
}
Here we use this to distinguish between the argument a and the class variable a. But if you don't have variables with the same name (but in different scope), the use of this is optional. In some projects, you still use this to make it more clear that you are referring to a class variable even if it is not needed.
From time to time, I would like to call a class differently depending on the context or to reduce duplication.
Let's assume, I have the following classes defined:
// in file a.dart
class A {
final String someprop;
A(this.someprop)
}
// in file b.dart
abstract class BInterface {
String get someprop;
}
class B = A with EmptyMixin implements BInterface;
For this syntax to check out, I have to define EmptyMixin so that the syntax is OK.
Do you know of a better/prettier way to do this "aliasing" in Dart?
I'm afraid the way you're doing it is the prettiest way to do this at the moment. There is a very old, but still open and active issue: https://github.com/dart-lang/sdk/issues/2626 that proposes the typedef B = A; syntax for aliasing types.
Is it possible to use existing java static methods as extensions from the box?
Lets consider com.google.common.collect.Iterables.transform. Now, because I don't know how to deal with this, to use proposed method as the extension, I have to write something like:
import com.google.common.collect.Iterables.transform
public fun <F, T> Iterable<F>.transform(function: Function<in F, out T>) : Iterable<T> {
return transform(this, function);
}
So, after this I could use it with iterables:
Iterable<A> input;
Function<A, B> function;
Iterable<B> output = input.transform(function);
But I think that declaring extension myself is unnecessary. How to omit this declaration?
Update
My question has two main subquestions:
Is it possible to import existing (static) methods as extensions?
No, for now it isn't possible.
How to reuse existing guava's Functions, e.g. to transform Iterables?
Instead of transform you should use map extension, as proposed in answers. To reuse Functions it is possible to use extension like this:
public fun <T, R> Function<T, R>.asFun(): (T) -> R
= { input -> apply(input) };
You shouldn't bring Guava's workarounds for Java into Kotlin. Such API is already a part of Kotlin runtime. So you can write:
val input = listOf(1,2,4,8)
val output = input.map { /*transform function*/ it + 1 }
http://kotlinlang.org/api/latest/jvm/stdlib/kotlin/map.html
All others you can easily discover in IDE's suggestions
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.