Related
I see some usages of Extension functions in Kotlin I don't personally think that makes sense, but it seems that there are some guidelines that "apparently" support it (a matter of interpretation).
Specifically: defining an extension function outside a class (but in the same file):
data class AddressDTO(val state: State,
val zipCode: String,
val city: String,
val streetAddress: String
)
fun AddressDTO.asXyzFormat() = "${streetAddress}\n${city}\n${state.name} $zipCode"
Where the asXyzFormat() is widely used, and cannot be defined as private/internal (but also for the cases it may be).
In my common sense, if you own the code (AddressDTO) and the usage is not local to some class / module (hence behing private/internal) - there is no reason to define an extension function - just define it as a member function of that class.
Edge case: if you want to avoid serialization of the function starting with get - annotate the class to get the desired behavior (e.g. #JsonIgnore on the function). This IMHO still doesn't justify an extension function.
The counter-response I got to this is that the approach of having an extension function of this fashion is supported by the Official Kotlin Coding Conventions. Specifically:
Use extension functions liberally. Every time you have a function that works primarily on an object, consider making it an extension function accepting that object as a receiver.
Source
And:
In particular, when defining extension functions for a class which are relevant for all clients of this class, put them in the same file where the class itself is defined. When defining extension functions that make sense only for a specific client, put them next to the code of that client. Do not create files just to hold "all extensions of Foo".
Source
I'll appreciate any commonly accepted source/reference explaining why it makes more sense to move the function to be a member of the class and/or pragmatic arguments support this separation.
That quote about using extension functions liberally, I'm pretty sure means use them liberally as opposed to top level non-extension functions (not as opposed to making it a member function). It's saying that if a top-level function conceptually works on a target object, prefer the extension function form.
I've searched before for the answer to why you might choose to make a function an extension function instead of a member function when working on a class you own the source code for, and have never found a canonical answer from JetBrains. Here are some reasons I think you might, but some are highly subject to opinion.
Sometimes you want a function that operates on a class with a specific generic type. Think of List<Int>.sum(), which is only available to a subset of Lists, but not a subtype of List.
Interfaces can be thought of as contracts. Functions that do something to an interface may make more sense conceptually since they are not part of the contract. I think this is the rationale for most of the standard library extension functions for Iterable and Sequence. A similar rationale might apply to a data class, if you think of a data class almost like a passive struct.
Extension functions afford the possibility of allowing users to pseudo-override them, but forcing them to do it in an independent way. Suppose your asXyzFormat() were an open member function. In some other module, you receive AddressDTO instances and want to get the XYZ format of them, exactly in the format you expect. But the AddressDTO you receive might have overridden asXyzFormat() and provide you something unexpected, so now you can't trust the function. If you use an extension function, than you allow users to replace asXyzFormat() in their own packages with something applicable to that space, but you can always trust the function asXyzFormat() in the source package.
Similarly for interfaces, a member function with default implementation invites users to override it. As the author of the interface, you may want a reliable function you can use on that interface with expected behavior. Although the end-user can hide your extension in their own module by overloading it, that will have no effect on your own uses of the function.
For what it's worth, I think it would be very rare to choose to make an extension function for a class (not an interface) when you own the source code for it. And I can't think of any examples of that in the standard library. Which leads me to believe that the Coding Conventions document is using the word "class" in a liberal sense that includes interfaces.
Here's a reverse argument…
One of the main reasons for adding extension functions to the language is being able to add functionality to classes from the standard library, and from third-party libraries and other dependencies where you don't control the code and can't add member functions (AKA methods). I suspect it's mainly those cases that that section of the coding conventions is talking about.
In Java, the only option in this cases is utility methods: static methods, usually in a utility class gathering together lots of such methods, each taking the relevant object as its first parameter:
public static String[] splitOnChar(String str, char separator)
public static boolean isAllDigits(String str)
…and so on, interminably.
The main problem there is that such methods are hard to find (no help from the IDE unless you already know about all the various utility classes). Also, calling them is long-winded (though it improved a bit once static imports were available).
Kotlin's extension methods are implemented exactly the same way down at the bytecode level, but their syntax is much simpler and exactly like member functions: they're written the same way (with this &c), calling them looks just like calling a member function, and your IDE will suggest them.
(Of course, they have drawbacks, too: no dynamic dispatch, no inheritance or overriding, scoping/import issues, name clashes, references to them are awkward, accessing them from Java or reflection is awkward, and so on.)
So: if the main purpose of extension functions is to substitute for member functions when member functions aren't possible, why would you use them when member functions are possible?!
(To be fair, there are a few reasons why you might want them. For example, you can make the receiver nullable, which isn't possible with member functions. But in most cases, they're greatly outweighed by the benefits of a proper member function.)
This means that the vast majority of extension functions are likely to be written for classes that you don't control the source code for, and so you don't have the option of putting them next to the class.
I'm trying to learn PyQt5 and I am finding it very difficult since I can't just guess what methods are available. I've just spent an entire week trying to find a method to simulate a button push. I eventually found the solution ( QPushButton.animateClick() ) only after stumbling across an example someone left out there (how did this person know this?). It's very difficult to develop without some reference to what's available for tools!
Riverbank has a version of what I'm looking for but it is not complete making it virtually useless.
pyqt5 being a qt5 binding has almost all the functionalities (there are minimal known incompatibilities) so the qt5 documentation: https://doc.qt.io/ is valid for pyqt5 except for small exceptions.
Although the target of the documentation is c++ the description of the classes and methods are generic, so they also validly apply for pyqt5, on the other hand many of the examples are written in c++ but the translation to python in many cases is trivial .
So to avoid doing a double task it seems that Riverbank Computing Limited only documents the exceptions indicated in the pyqt5 docs: https://www.riverbankcomputing.com/static/Docs/PyQt5/
The next part of my answer will propose tips to handle the Qt documentation.
The Qt documentation also has an easy to understand structure, for example let's analyze the QPushButton class (https://doc.qt.io/qt-5/qpushbutton.html):
At the top there is a table:
This table indicates how to include the class in a C++ project, how to add it to qmake, from which class it inherits, and which classes inherit from it. From the above, relevant information for PyQt5 can be extracted, such as to which sub-module the class belongs to: In this case we use QT += widgets that inform us that it belongs to the QtWidgets sub-module, in general if Qt += submodulefoo belongs to QtSubModuleFoo (camelcase)
If you want to know all the methods of the QPushButton class, you must use the "List of all members, including inherited members" link below the table, in this case the link will be https://doc.qt.io/qt-5/qpushbutton-members.html where is the complete list of all class methods, enumerations, etc.
Other tips to understand the conversion between Qt/C++ and PyQt5/Python are:
Some methods use pointers to receive information such as:
void QLayout::getContentsMargins(int *left, int *top, int *right, int *bottom) const
bool QProcess::startDetached(qint64 *pid = nullptr), etc
those transformed to PyQt5 as:
lay = QtWidgets.QXLayout()
left, top, right, bottom = lay.getContentsMargins()
process = QProcess()
# ...
ok, pid = process.startDetached()
Some methods collide with reserved words such as exec , raise, print, etc so to avoid incompatibilities, the underscore is added at the end: exec_, raise_, print_, etc
In Qt, the Q_SLOT and Q_SIGNAL that are translated into python are used through the #pyqtSlot and #pyqtSignal decorators.
In conclusion, my recommendation is that you use the Qt and PyQt5 documentation at the same time to know all the functionalities, in addition there are many Q&A in SO about translations from one language to another so you could learn from there.
The Qt documentation can also be consulted using the Qt Assistant tool.
The main PyQt5 documentation is on the official website:
https://www.riverbankcomputing.com/static/Docs/PyQt5/
But it's still incomplete, and most parts refer to the official Qt documentation:
https://doc.qt.io/qt-5/
While that's C++ oriented, consider that almost every module, class and function behave exactly in the same way as it does in python, so it's usually better to use that.
Consider that:
in the function lists you'll always see the returned type on the left of each function;
"void" means that the function returns None;
when overriding some existing method (expecially private and virtual), you always have to return the expected types listed for that function;
function arguments are usually written in the form [const] Type argName=default: you can usually ignore the "const" part (it's a C++ term), while the argName for keyword arguments might be different in PyQt;
some functions could have different names, since they're reserved on python (print, raise, etc); in those cases, an underscore is always appended;
some positional or keyword arguments might be different, or the return type signature might; that's because in C++ you can use a pointer to a variable as an argument, and the function will change that variable using the pointer (this is an oversimplification);
all "properties" are not python properties, and they are only accessible through their parenthesis functions, such as self.width() an self.setWidth();
some methods have different overrides, in some cases python has special cases with different arguments that are not available in C++, and viceversa; also, some methods don't exist at all in one case or the other;
My suggestion is to always use the official documentation, it's only a matter of habit to get used to the C++ references (and you'll see that it is educational too); whenever some doubt raises, check the PyQt documentation to see what's different and use the help command in the python shell.
I was wondering, why does Math.sin(double) delegate to StrictMath.sin(double) when I've found the problem in a Reddit thread. The mentioned code fragment looks like this (JDK 7u25):
Math.java :
public static double sin(double a) {
return StrictMath.sin(a); // default impl. delegates to StrictMath
}
StrictMath.java :
public static native double sin(double a);
The second declaration is native which is reasonable for me. The doc of Math states that:
Code generators are encouraged to use platform-specific native libraries or microprocessor instructions, where available (...)
And the question is: isn't the native library that implements StrictMath platform-specific enough? What more can a JIT know about the platform than an installed JRE (please only concentrate on this very case)? In ther words, why isn't Math.sin() native already?
I'll try to wrap up the entire discussion in a single post..
Generally, Math delegates to StrictMath. Obviously, the call can be inlined so this is not a performance issue.
StrictMath is a final class with native methods backed by native libraries. One might think, that native means optimal, but this doesn't necessarily has to be the case. Looking through StrictMath javadoc one can read the following:
(...) the definitions of some of the numeric functions in this package require that they produce the same results as certain published algorithms. These algorithms are available from the well-known network library netlib as the package "Freely Distributable Math Library," fdlibm. These algorithms, which are written in the C programming language, are then to be understood as executed with all floating-point operations following the rules of Java floating-point arithmetic.
How I understand this doc is that the native library implementing StrictMath is implemented in terms of fdlibm library, which is multi-platform and known to produce predictable results. Because it's multi-platform, it can't be expected to be an optimal implementation on every platform and I believe that this is the place where a smart JIT can fine-tune the actual performance e.g. by statistical analysis of input ranges and adjusting the algorithms/implementation accordingly.
Digging deeper into the implementation it quickly turns out, that the native library backing up StrictMath actually uses fdlibm:
StrictMath.c source in OpenJDK 7 looks like this:
#include "fdlibm.h"
...
JNIEXPORT jdouble JNICALL
Java_java_lang_StrictMath_sin(JNIEnv *env, jclass unused, jdouble d)
{
return (jdouble) jsin((double)d);
}
and the sine function is defined in fdlibm/src/s_sin.c refering in a few places to __kernel_sin function that comes directly from the header fdlibm.h.
While I'm temporarily accepting my own answer, I'd be glad to accept a more competent one when it comes up.
Why does Math.sin() delegate to StrictMath.sin()?
The JIT compiler should be able to inline the StrictMath.sin(a) call. So there's little point creating an extra native method for the Math.sin() case ... and adding extra JIT compiler smarts to optimize the calling sequence, etcetera.
In the light of that, your objection really boils down to an "elegance" issue. But the "pragmatic" viewpoint is more persuasive:
Fewer native calls makes the JVM core and JIT easier to maintain, less fragile, etcetera.
If it ain't broken, don't fix it.
At least, that's how I imagine how the Java team would view this.
The question assumes that the JVM actually runs the delegation code. On many JVMs, it won't. Calls to Math.sin(), etc.. will potentially be replaced by the JIT with some intrinsic function code (if suitable) transparently. This will typically be done in an unobservable way to the end user. This is a common trick for JVM implementers where interesting specializations can happen (even if the method is not tagged as native).
Note however that most platforms can't simply drop in the single processor instruction for sin due to suitable input ranges (eg see: Intel discussion).
Math API permits a non-strict but better-performing implementations of its methods but does not require it and by default Math simply uses StrictMath impl.
I am not a program designer by any means but I would really like to start getting a better grasp of how to do it and a better understanding of the .NET languages in general (VB, C#). I was reading a book by Wrox - Professional Visual Basic 2008. In it I believed it mentioned that Modules are slowly going out of existence. I can see why most coding would go into a class object but I would assume modules would always be necessary to at least keep the code clean.
Could anybody clarify this up for me? Also, I have been searching for a good source on software design but I can't seem to find any recent books published. I might be searching in the wrong places but I would really like to get my hands on one.
Thank you.
While in general they don't quite fit with OOP, they are still used and are required in some cases.
In VB.Net, if you wish to write extension methods, you are going to have to use a Module - The compiler will only allow Extension Methods to be defined in one.
You could of course get round not using Modules - an Non Inheritable Class with a private constructor and nothing but Shared Methods will achieved the same thing as a Module.
Like everything in programming (and many other things), they have their uses, and as long as they are not miss-used there is no problem with them. Right tool for the job!
The Module keyword in VB.NET primarily exists for compatibility with VB6 and earlier. Back then, most VB code was procedural with free-standing non-class Subs and Functions. The language acquired the Class keyword somewhere around VB4. Not true classes in the OOP sense, it didn't support inheritance. A feature missing from the underlying COM architecture.
It doesn't fit very well with the execution model provided by the CLR. There is no support for free functions, every method must be a member of a class. The VB.NET compiler emulates modules by declaring a class, the module procedures become Shared methods of that class. You can see this with Ildasm.exe:
.class private auto ansi sealed ConsoleApplication1.Module1
extends [mscorlib]System.Object
{
.custom instance void [Microsoft.VisualBasic]Microsoft.VisualBasic.CompilerServices.StandardModuleAttribute::.ctor() = ( 01 00 00 00 )
} // end of class ConsoleApplication1.Module1
Note how it is private, so that code can't get a reference to it, and sealed, so that no code can derive a class from a module.
The C# compiler does the exact same thing with a "static class", the CLR doesn't have a notion of static classes either. There are plenty of good reasons for static classes, the idea of "Module" isn't obsolete. You could accomplish the same by declaring a NotInheritable Class in VB.NET code, having only Shared methods. The VB.NET compiler however doesn't enforce methods to be Shared like the C# compiler does and doesn't allow you to declare the class private. As such, a Module is just fine.
Modules are the closest thing VB has to static classes, which can be very useful, even when programming in an object-oriented environment.
And since VB has no static classes, modules are as far as I know the only way to create extension methods.
You need modules in order to define your own Extension methods
I have a Util module in my VB.NET program that has project-wide methods such as logging and property parsing. The general practice where I work seems to be to call these methods directly without prefixing them with Util. When I was new to VB, it took me a while to figure out where these methods/functions were coming from. As I use my own Util methods now, I can't help thinking that it's a lot clearer and more understandable to add Util. before each method call (you know immediately that it's user-defined but not within the current class, and where to find it), and is hardly even longer. What's the general practice when calling procedures/functions of VB modules? Should we prefix them with the module name or not?
Intellisense (and "Goto Definition") should make it trivial to find where things are located, but I always preface the calls with a better namespace, just for clarity of reading. Then it's clear that it's a custom function, and not something built in or local to the class you're working with.
Maybe there's a subtle difference I'm missing, but I tend to use shared classes instead of modules for any code that's common and self-contained - it just seems easier to keep track of for me, and it would also enforce your rule of prefacing it, since you can't just call it from everywhere without giving a namespace to call it from.
I usually put the complete namespace for a shared function, for readibility.
Call MyNameSpace.Utils.MySharedFunction()
Util is such a generic name.
Example from the .Net framework. You have System.Web.HttpUtility.UrlEncode(...). Usually you refer to this as HttpUtility.UrlEncode since you have an import statement at the top.
The name of the class which has the static utility methods should be readable and explainable. That is good practice. If you have good class names they might just as well reside in a Utils namespace, but the class name should not be Utils.
Put all your logging in a Logger class. All your string handing in a StringUtils class etc. And try to keep the class names as specific as possible, and I'd rather have more classes with fewer functions than the other way around.