I have a class with a field of type long and I would like to pass either an Int or a Long value.
So I thought I can make a second setter with the same name, but different argument.
Kotlin does not complain and I can even call both setters from Java (same name, one automatically created with long from Kotlin). In Java I just call setMyNumber(long or int) value and the compiler will assign the correct method.
But why can't I do myNumber = 4 in Kotlin, why does it not call the other setter?
Is there a different way I can achieve this functionality, but still keep the property notation (yes I know I can write to setter methods, but then I have to call them with a method call rather just assigning a value)?
class MyClass {
var myNumber: Long = 0L // internal setMyNumber(value: Long)
fun setMyNumber(newNumber: Int) {
myNumber = newNumber.toLong()
}
}
As of writing, what you're trying to do is not supported. (See: Allow setters overloading for properties)
A workaround would be using the Superclass for all platform classes representing numeric values:
class MyClass {
var myNumber: Number = 0L
set (value) { field = value.toLong() }
}
val myClass = MyClass()
val anInt: Int = 1
val aLong: Long = 1L
myClass.myNumber = anInt
myClass.myNumber = aLong
Try it online!
Related
I am aware that an argument passed to a function will be seen as "val", even if the variable was initialized as "var". But this has been a problem for me. In this example code below, I want to modify the value of variable "num" by using the function "changeNum". But of course, Kotlin won't allow me to modify it. How do I get around this? How can I use the function "changeNum" to modify the variable "num"?
fun main() {
var num: Int = 5
changeNum(num)
}
fun changeNum(num: Int){
num += 2
print(num)
}
Kotlin is pass-by-value, so you can't do that directly with primitive types like Int.
The usual approach is to just return a new value instead of modifying what you receive as argument (a functional approach). It makes it clearer from the calling code's perspective:
fun main() {
var num: Int = 5
num = changeNum(num)
}
fun changeNum(num: Int): Int {
val newValue = num + 2
print(newValue)
return newValue
}
If you really want to mutate the variable instead of returning a new value, here are 2 approaches I'm thinking of to do this:
put all the code operating on this value into a class, and make the local variable a property of that class (this is the OO approach)
put this primitive variable into a class, and pass an instance of that class
Option 1 would look like this:
class SomeClass(var num: Int) {
fun changeNum() {
num += 2
print(num)
}
}
fun main() {
val container = SomeClass(5)
container.changeNum()
}
Option 2 would look like this:
class SomeMutableContainer(var num: Int)
fun main() {
val container = SomeMutableContainer(5)
changeNum(container)
}
fun changeNum(container: SomeMutableContainer) {
container.num += 2
print(container.num)
}
It's possible to do this in Kotlin with a property
import kotlin.reflect.KMutableProperty0
var num = 1
fun main() {
println(num)
changeNum(::num)
println(num)
}
fun changeNum(numProperty: KMutableProperty0<Int>) {
numProperty.set(12345)
}
>> 1
>> 12345
A KMutableProperty0 represents a basic var, so you can pass in a property reference using the ::num syntax (same as how you'd pass a function reference). That way, instead of passing the current value, you're providing the function with a reference to the property itself, and then you can call set on it.
But the question is, do you really want to do this? Or are you overcomplicating something that should be done in a more simple way, or a more readable one? You can't actually do this with a variable, like you're trying to do inside fun main(), only properties on an object (top-level vars, basically) - but even if you could, why wouldn't you just do this instead?
fun main() {
var num: Int = 5
...
num = changeNum(num) // this would need renaming but y'know
}
it's still a one-line call, your changeNum function can still have side effects, do validation etc, it just returns the result instead of setting it as a side effect. This is a lot easier to follow, especially when it's the usual way of setting a value on a thing.
If you really want to use references, but making them top-level in your class is messy, then maybe consider creating a state object instead:
import kotlin.reflect.KMutableProperty0
data class AllThemNums(var num1 :Int = 1, var num2: Int = 9999)
fun main() {
val nums = AllThemNums(num1 = 5)
changeNum(nums::num1)
println(nums)
}
fun changeNum(numProperty: KMutableProperty0<Int>) {
numProperty.set(numProperty.get() + 2)
}
>> AllThemNums(num1=7, num2=9999)
you could even put the changeNum function inside the data class!
Im my project, I've defined a generic type for enclosing all scalar types, both primitives and user-defined.
data class pTp<T>(var v: T)
So I can create
fun PercAcumNorm(percAcum:pTp<Double>, perc:pTp<Double>,
valor:Double, Soma:Double)
{
perc.v = valor/soma
parcAcum.v += perc.v
}
Then one just needs to call
....
var pAcum:pTp<Double> = pTp(0.40)
var p = 0
var valor = 5
var soma = 100
percCalc(pAcum, p, soma, valor)
println(pAcum.v) // it prints 0.45
It's not the cleanest solution, but it's what can be done without using Kotlin's built-in features, which may be modified in the future.
I'm trying to access the delegate of the property (id) of a class (FooImpl). The problem is, this class implements an interface (Foo), and the property in question overrides a property of this interface. The delegate only exists in the class (not that it could exist in the interface).
The problem is that using the :: operator on a variable of type Foo always returns the property of Foo, not that of the actual instance. The problem in code:
import kotlin.reflect.KProperty
import kotlin.reflect.KProperty0
import kotlin.reflect.jvm.isAccessible
interface Foo {
val id: Int
}
class FooImpl(
id: Int,
) : Foo {
override val id: Int by lazy { id }
}
val <T> KProperty<T>.hasDelegate: Boolean
get() = apply { isAccessible = true }.let { (it as KProperty0<T>).getDelegate() != null }
fun main() {
val foo: Foo = FooImpl(1)
println("foo::id.hasDelegate = ${foo::id.hasDelegate}")
println("(foo as FooImpl)::id.hasDelegate = ${(foo as FooImpl)::id.hasDelegate}")
}
This prints:
foo::id.hasDelegate = false
(foo as FooImpl)::id.hasDelegate = true
But this requires compile-time knowledge of the correct implementation. What I'm looking for is accessing the correct propert without having to specify FooImpl there.
The information is present at runtime because the least (!) intrusive workaround I have found so far is adding fun idProp(): KProperty0<*> to Foo and override fun idProp() = ::id to FooImpl and accessing the property using that.
Is there any better way than that?
I came up with this, but I don't know if there's a better way. The problem to work around is that getDelegate() has to return an actual instance of the delegate, so you need an instance of the class to be able to retrieve a delegate instance. It would really be nice if there was a hasDelegate property built in. Your version of hasDelegate will crash from the cast on unbound KProperty1's, which is all we have to work with when the specific class is unknown.
So to retrieve the delegate instance, we need to do search the class instance's member properties by name, which gives us a KProperty with covariant class type of the super-class type. Since it's covariant, we can call a consuming function like getDelegate() without casting to the invariant type. I think this logically should be safe, since we are passing an instance that we know has the matching type for the ::class that we retrieved the property with.
#Suppress("UNCHECKED_CAST")
fun <T: Any> KProperty1<T, *>.isDelegated(instance: T): Boolean =
(instance::class.memberProperties.first { it.name == name } as KProperty1<T, *>).run {
isAccessible = true
getDelegate(instance) != null
}
fun main() {
val foo: Foo = Foo2()
println("foo::id.hasDelegate = ${Foo::id.isDelegated(foo)}")
}
The problem here is that the owner of the property is resolved on compile time, not on runtime. When you do foo::id then foo (so FooImpl) become its bound receiver, but owner is still resolved to Foo. To fix this we wound need to "cast" property to another owner. Unfortunately, I didn't find a straightforward way to do this.
One solution I found is to use foo::class instead of foo::id as it resolves KClass on runtime, not on compile time. Then I came up with almost exactly the same code as #Tenfour04.
But if you don't mind using Kotlin internals that are public and not protected with any annotation, you can use much cleaner solution:
val KProperty0<*>.hasDelegate: Boolean
get() = apply { isAccessible = true }.getDelegate() != null
fun KProperty0<*>.castToRuntimeType(): KProperty0<*> {
require(this is PropertyReference0)
return PropertyReference0Impl(boundReceiver, boundReceiver::class.java, name, signature, 0)
}
fun main() {
val foo: Foo = FooImpl(1)
println(foo::id.castToRuntimeType().hasDelegate) // true
}
We basically create a new instance of KProperty, copying all its data, but changing the owner to the same type as its bound receiver. As a result, we "cast" it to the runtime type. This is much simpler and it is also cleaner because we separated property casting and checking for a delegate.
Unfortunately, I think Kotlin reflection API is still missing a lot of features. There should be hasDelegate() function, so we don't have to provide receivers, which is not really needed to check if property is delegated. It should be possible to cast KProperty to another type. It should be possible to create bound properties with some API call. But first of all, it should be possible to do something like: Foo::id(foo), so create KProperty of the runtime type of foo. And so on.
My goal: I have a simple class with a public
val reds = IntArray(10)
val greens = IntArray(10)
val blues = IntArray(10)
val lums = IntArray(10)
If someone modifies any red value, I'd like to update the lum value.
myObj.reds[5] = 100 // Should update myObj.lums[5] = reds[5]+greens[5]+blues[5]
The problems is that the by Delegates.observable seem to only be used for var objects - nothing mentions "and if you modify an element of an array, here is what gets triggered"
Maybe this isn't possible and I have to do all modifications through getters and setters - but I'd much rather have something trigger like an observable!
You will have to use a custom class instead, IntArray is mapped to primitive int[] array so it doesn't provide any place to inject callback - changing value like your example (myObj.reds[5] = 100) you only know when array is returned, but have no control over changes after that.
For example you can create class like this:
class IntArrayWrapper(size: Int,
val setterObs : ((index: Int, value: Int) -> Unit)? = null){
val field = IntArray(size)
val size
get() = field.size
operator fun iterator() = field.iterator()
operator fun get(i: Int) : Int {
return field[i]
}
operator fun set(i: Int, value: Int){
field[i] = value
setterObs?.invoke(i, value)
}
}
Operator functions will let you get values from underlying array with same syntax as if you were accessing it directly. setterObs argument in constructor lets you pass the "observer" for setter method:
val reds = IntArrayWrapper(10){index, value ->
println("$index changed to $value")
invalidateLums(index) // method that modifies lums or whatever you need
}
val a = reds[2] // getter usage
reds[3] = 5 // setter usage that triggers the setter observer callback
reds.field[4] = 3 // set value in backing array directly, allows modification without setter callback
Note that this imposes limitations, as you won't be able to freely use IntArray extension methods without referencing backing field nor will you be able to pass this class as an Array argument.
I do not know if it is the cleanest way of solving your problem but, you could use the ObservableList (FX observable collections):
var numbers: ObservableList<Int> = FXCollections.observableArrayList()
numbers.addListener(ListChangeListener<Int> {
//Do things on change
})
But as I mentioned, by adding these collections you are mixing FX components into your application, which I do not know if it is wanted or even if it works on various platforms like android!
Simply put, I have a variable that tells me which property I need to modify on an object, but cannot call that property AS the variable.
data class MyDataClass(var one: String, var two: Int)
fun doSomething() {
myData = MyDataClass("first", 2)
val propertyImInterestedIn = "one"
myData.{propertyImInterestedIn} = "second" // How do I do this?
assertEquals("second", myData.one)
}
You can either do it at compile time if You can directly reference the fields, or at runtime but you will lose compile-time safety:
// by referencing KProperty directly (compile-time safety, does not require kotlin-reflect.jar)
val myData = MyDataClass("first", 2)
val prop = myData::one
prop.set("second")
// by reflection (executed at runtime - not safe, requires kotlin-reflect.jar)
val myData2 = MyDataClass("first", 2)
val reflectProp = myData::class.memberProperties.find { it.name == "one" }
if(reflectProp is KMutableProperty<*>) {
reflectProp.setter.call(myData2, "second")
}
You can use the Kotlin reflection API to do that, and bound callable references in particular:
val propertyImInterestedIn = myData::one
propertyImInterestedIn.set("second")
Note that you need to add kotlin-reflect as a dependency to your project.
I am trying to create a swap function which takes in two parameters as shown below:
fun swap(a :Int, b:Int) {
}
I call it like this:
var a = 10
var b = 5
swap(a,b)
// a should be 5
// b should be 10
The problem is that even if I swap the values inside the swap function it won't be reflected on the caller's side because it is passed as a copy and not as a reference.
Is there anyway to pass value types to swap function and allow the function the ability to change them.
There is absolutely no way to do it directly. Kotlin copies a value for scalar types (Double, Float, Boolean, Int, etc.). So any internal changes are lost.
For any other type, Kotlin copy a reference of parameter passed to the function. So any property/field alteration of parameter, also changes the caller parameter.
There is no way to change this behaviour.
After trying many ways to overcome the impossibility of passing scalar by reference, as happens in Kotlin, Java and some other languages; my current strategy is using for any scalar type a plain and generic wrap, as an above comment suggest.
Recently, I'm using this trick for everything, including inside a function that otherwise would demand that I return multiple values. The alternative is joining the returns in a artificial class or destructuring declarations: val (a, b, c) = function-call() syntax. However, I hate articial classes and destructuring declaration is for local variables only, and it's annoying when some needs visibility out of current block of commands.
My code is very simple:
data class p<T>( // It's a generic wrap class for scalar type T
var v:T
)
fun <T>swap(a:p<T>, b:p<T>){ // It's a generic swap for scalar types
var aux:p<T> = a.copy()
a.v = b.v
b.v =aux.v
}
fun main() {
var a:p<Int> = p<Int>(2) // 'a' is a kind of 'Int' variable
var b:p<Int> = p<Int>(3) // and so is 'b'
swap(a,b) // Exchange 'a' and 'b' values
println(a.v) // 3
println(b.v) // 2
}
The only drawback is not being able to use syntax sugar of a real scalar type.
I am forced to add .v on any use of a scalar variable.
I only uses that for variables that I need pass by reference in some function and it's not so common. I try, when possible, avoid collateral effects.
You can have a function that gets the references of variables
var x = 10
var y = 20
fun main() {
println("x=$x, y=$y") // x=10, y=20
swap(::x, ::y)
println("x=$x, y=$y") // x=20, y=10
}
fun <T> swap(firstRef: KMutableProperty0<T>, secRef: KMutableProperty0<T>) {
val temp = firstRef.get()
firstRef.set(secRef.get())
secRef.set(temp)
}
and you can pass the references of properties of some class like this swap(someClass::x, someClass::y)
the only limitation is that you can't pass references of local variables which is not the end of the world.
if you don't like the messy syntax you can always define a typealias and make it pretty:
typealias Ref<T> = KMutableProperty0<T>
fun <T> swap(firstRef: Ref<T>, secRef: Ref<T>) {
...
}
I know that OP didn´t ask for this, but idiomatic Kotlin would look like:
var a = 1
var b = 2
a = b.also { b = a }
Seems like Kotlin behaves pretty much like Java does:
Is Kotlin "pass-by-value" or "pass-by-reference"?
simple way to swap is make support class
private fun swap(pair: Pair) {
pair.a += pair.b
pair.b = pair.a - pair.b
pair.a = pair.a - pair.b
}
private data class Pair(var a: Int, var b: Int)
fun main() {
val pair = Pair(10, 5)
swap(pair)
println(pair)
}