Functional interfaces work well when you want to inject a function as an interface, example:
fun interface MakeCoffee {
operator fun invoke()
}
class CoffeeManager(private val makeCoffee: MakeCoffee) {...}
fun provideCoffeeManager(): CoffeeManager = CoffeeManager { }
However if I try to return a function when the return type is a fun interface like this:
fun provideMakeCoffee(): MakeCoffee = {}
it will fail for a mismatch KFunction0<Unit> vs MakeCoffee.
Is there any workaround?
fun interface enables two features. It does not make your interface fully interchangeable with matching Function type.
When calling a function with that interface as a parameter, you can use any functional reference or lambda, and it will be auto-converted into that interface type. This is the only situation where functions are auto-converted into your interface, which is why the code you show doesn't work.
An implicit constructor is created for your interface, where the parameter is a function matching the signature of the interface's function. This constructor creates an instance of your interface by using that function. You can use lambda syntax with this constructor to create an instance of your interface.
So in your case, you could use
fun provideMakeCoffee(): MakeCoffee = MakeCoffee {}
which calls the implicit MakeCoffee constructor, and is passing a trailing lambda parameter to it.
I’m using the word constructor loosely. It looks like a constructor call but it’s really a factory function since interfaces don’t have constructors.
I found the solution to the problem in the end.
#Tenfour04 answer works but it doesn't answer the question of "how to return a function as fun interface".
The example provided was very simple and maybe that's why the question was a bit misleading, but imagine you have the following case:
fun interface MakeCoffee {
operator fun invoke(sugarAmount: Double, milkAmount: Double, coffeeAmount: Double)
}
//function you already have
fun doCoffee(sugarAmount: Double, milkAmount: Double, coffeeAmount: Double) { ... }
How do you return your doCoffee as MakeCoffee?
Solution
fun provideMakeCoffee(): MakeCoffee = MakeCoffee(::doCoffee)
Related
I struggle with providing a type as parameter for a procedure that uses the enumValues<MyEnum>() function.
Got it to work with reified but using inline functions all the way is no option for me.
fun <T: Enum<Trait>> traits(
selectionState: SnapshotStateMap<Trait, Boolean>
) {
val chunks = enumValues<T>().toList().chunked(5)
chunks.forEach {
Row {
it.forEach {
TraitIcon(it, selectionState)
}
}
}
}
My enums all derive from enum class Trait. So in fact I want to pass enum class TraitFoo: Trait, enum class TraitBar: Trait and so on into the function.
Cannot use 'T' as reified type parameter. Use a class instead.
Is the compile error I receive here. Any idea of solving this? I am somewhat confused why this is not working.
Looking at the implementation of enumValues:
public inline fun <reified T : Enum<T>> enumValues(): Array<T>
I see it uses reified. That does mean the type has to be known at compile time. Therefore I can not pass a generic but need to pass an explicit type? Is that the issue?
If yes - is there another way to achieve this rather than using reified ?
If you want to be able to use T in your function as if it's a real type then it must be reified. And in order for a type parameter to be reified it must be part of an inline function. So you're going to need an inline function.
The next bit is figuring out the generics. You currently have:
<T : Enum<Trait>>
That means, due to the nature of enums, that T can't possibly be anything other than Trait. However, you have since clarified that Trait is not an enum but is actually an interface that's implemented by various enum classes. So what you really want is T to be bounded by both Enum<T> and Trait.
Given all this, I believe what you're looking for is the following:
inline fun <reified T> traits(
selectionState: SnapshotTraitMap<Trait, Boolean>
) where T : Enum<T>, T : Trait {
val chunks = enumValues<T>().toList().chunked(5)
chunks.forEach {
Row {
it.forEach {
TraitIcon(it, selectionState)
}
}
}
}
With Kotlin 1.4 we now have Functional Interfaces
fun interface Todo {
fun run()
}
fun runBlock(todo: Todo){
if(condition)
todo.run()
}
fun runBlock{
println("Hello world")
}
Before i was always using (T) -> T
inline fun runBlock(block: ()-> Unit){
if(condition)
block()
}
fun runBlock{
println("Hello world")
}
So basically I can make the same task with both methods , there is any performance advantage by using Functional SAM() Interfaces over Function Type?.
It's a performance dis-advantage because the lambda is no longer inlined (unless the JIT decides to, but it won't be instant). Even if you mark runBlock as inline, the compiler will warn you that the argument won't be inlined.
There are only two reasons to use fun interfaces instead of function types:
Backwards compatibility when porting code using Java functional interfaces.
Not exposing Kotlin function types in API intended for use from Java.
To expand on point 1: before Kotlin 1.4 it was advised to keep functional interfaces as Java code, even if all your other code was Kotlin. This way you could use lambdas for parameters of those types both in Java and Kotlin code. But if you declared the interface in Kotlin, you could only use lambdas for them in Java.
https://kotlinlang.org/docs/reference/whatsnew14.html#sam-conversions-for-kotlin-interfaces
the compiler automatically converts the lambda to an instance of the class that implements the abstract member function.
So, no performance advantage, it’s the same thing as before. The compiler now does what you had to do before.
As other answers and comments have pointed out, in your case, using inlined lambda is faster, since there is no function call overhead when invoking it.
However, there is one specific use case where using SAM interface is faster, that is when you 1. do not inline the lambda and 2. the arguments/return value of the lambda is a primitive (or any other type that may cause boxing when used with generics).
For example, using SAM interface like so:
fun interface Foo() {
fun run(i: Int): Int
}
fun foo(fn: Foo) {
fn.run(42)
}
foo { it * 2 }
Will not cause any boxing when invoked, while:
fun foo(fn: (Int) -> Int) {
fn(42)
}
foo { it * 2 }
Will box the integer argument since (Int) -> Int is essentially Function1<Integer, Integer> in Java, which uses generic.
I came across something and wondered all the time why you should do this.
You implement an interface in Kotlin through a simple function type:
"It is possible for a class to implement a function type as if it were an interface. It must then supply an operator function called invoke with the given signature, and instances of that class may then be assigned to a variable of that function type:"
class Divider : (Int, Int) -> Double {
override fun invoke(numerator: Int, denominator: Int): Double = ...
}
But why should I do this? Why should I add an interface in that way? I think its only possible to add one function and not more.
Or is it an advantage that I can implement a function with a function body and not only the function head like in normal interfaces? I think it is possible in Java to add default methods to interfaces with a function body. So maybe it is something like that?
Function as a class can have state. For example you could store the last invocations and use the history as a cache:
class Divider : (Int, Int) -> Double {
val history = mutableMapOf<Pair<Int, Int>, Double>()
override fun invoke(numerator: Int, denominator: Int): Double {
return history.computeIfAbsent(Pair(numerator, denominator)) {
numerator.toDouble() / denominator.toDouble()
}
}
}
fun main() {
val divider = Divider()
println(divider(1,2))
println(divider(2,3))
println(divider.history)
}
It is probably not very useful to write a class that only implements a function type interface; however, it might be useful to write a class that can among other things be used in place of a function.
An example from the standard library is the KProperty1 interface. You can write code like this:
data class C(val id: Int, val name: String)
val objs = listOf(C(1, "name1"), C(2, "name2"), C(3, "name3"))
val ids = objs.map(C::id)
Here, C::id is a property reference of type KProperty1<C, Int>, and it can be used as an argument to List.map in place of a lambda because KProperty1<C, Int> extends (C) -> Int. However, KProperty1 has a lot of other uses besides being passed as a function.
coming across a sample with a class and a function and trying to understand the koltin syntax there,
what does this IMeta by dataItem do? looked at https://kotlinlang.org/docs/reference/classes.html#classes and dont see how to use by in the derived class
why the reified is required in the inline fun <reified T> getDataItem()? If someone could give a sample to explain the reified?
class DerivedStreamItem(private val dataItem: IMeta, private val dataType: String?) :
IMeta by dataItem {
override fun getType(): String = dataType ?: dataItem.getType()
fun getData(): DerivedData? = getDataItem()
private inline fun <reified T> getDataItem(): T? = if (dataItem is T) dataItem else null
}
for the reference, copied the related defines here:
interface IMeta {
fun getType() : String
fun getUUIDId() : String
fun getDataId(): String?
}
class DerivedData : IMeta {
override fun getType(): String {
return "" // stub
}
override fun getUUIDId(): String {
return "" // stub
}
override fun getDataId(): String? {
return "" // stub
}
}
why the reified is required in the inline fun <reified T> getDataItem()? If someone could give a sample to explain the reified?
There is some good documentation on reified type parameters, but I'll try to boil it down a bit.
The reified keyword in Kotlin is used to get around the fact that the JVM uses type erasure for generic. That means at runtime whenever you refer to a generic type, the JVM has no idea what the actual type is. It is a compile-time thing only. So that T in your example... the JVM has no idea what it means (without reification, which I'll explain).
You'll notice in your example that you are also using the inline keyword. That tells Kotlin that rather than call a function when you reference it, to just insert the body of the function inline. This can be more efficient in certain situations. So, if Kotlin is already going to be copying the body of our function at compile time, why not just copy the class that T represents as well? This is where reified is used. This tells Kotlin to refer to the actual concrete type of T, and only works with inline functions.
If you were to remove the reified keyword from your example, you would get an error: "Cannot check for instance of erased type: T". By reifying this, Kotlin knows what actual type T is, letting us do this comparison (and the resulting smart cast) safely.
(Since you are asking two questions, I'm going to answer them separately)
The by keyword in Kolin is used for delegation. There are two kinds of delegation:
1) Implementation by Delegation (sometimes called Class Delegation)
This allows you to implement an interface and delegate calls to that interface to a concrete object. This is helpful if you want to extend an interface but not implement every single part of it. For example, we can extend List by delegating to it, and allowing our caller to give us an implementation of List
class ExtendedList(someList: List) : List by someList {
// Override anything from List that you need
// All other calls that would resolve to the List interface are
// delegated to someList
}
2) Property Delegation
This allows you to do similar work, but with properties. My favorite example is lazy, which lets you lazily define a property. Nothing is created until you reference the property, and the result is cached for quicker access in the future.
From the Kotlin documentation:
val lazyValue: String by lazy {
println("computed!")
"Hello"
}
I was reading about Kotlin and did not quite get the idea
from What I understood extension function gives ability to a class with new functionality without having to inherit from the class
and what is receiver the same except it can be assigned to variable
Is there anything else about it?
Can someone give some examples on it
Extension functions:
Like Swift and C#, Kotlin provides the ability to extend a class with new functionality without having to modify the class or inherit from the class.
You might wonder why? Because we cannot edit and add functions to the language or SDK classes. So we end up creating Util classes in Java. I believe all the projects have a bunch of *Utils classes to put the helper methods that are used at multiple places in the code base. Extensions functions help to fix this Util problem.
How do we write a helper method in Java to find whether the given long value refers to today?
public class DateUtils {
public static boolean isToday(long when) {
// logic ...
}
}
And we call that method by passing the long value as an argument:
void someFunc(long when) {
boolean isToday = DateUtils.isToday(when);
}
In Kotlin, we can extend the Long class to include the isToday() function in it. And we can call the isToday() function on the Long value itself like any other member functions in the class.
// Extension function
fun Long.isToday(): Boolean {
// logic ...
}
fun someFunc(time: Long) {
val isToday = time.isToday()
}
Compared to the Util methods, Kotlin provides a much richer syntax using the Extension functions.
This improves the readability of the code which in turns improves its maintainability. And we get a little help from the code completion of the IDE. So we don't have to remember which Util class to use for the desired function.
Under the hood, Kotlin compiler generates the static helper methods as though we had written them as Java static Util methods. So we get this nice and richer syntax in Kotlin without sacrificing any performance.
Similar to functions, Kotlin also supports extension properties where we can add a property to an existing class.
Higher order functions:
A higher-order function is a function that takes functions as parameters, or returns a function.
Lets look at how a higher order function is written.
fun execute(x: Int, y: Int, op: (Int, Int) -> Int): Int {
return op(x, y)
}
Here the third parameter ( op ) is a function and so it makes this function a higher order function. The type of the parameter op is a function that takes 2 Ints as parameter and returns a Int.
To invoke this Higher order function, we can pass a function or a lambda expression:
execute(5, 5) { a, b -> a + b }
Receiver (or Function literal with Receiver or Lambda with Recevier):
A Higher order function that takes an extension function as its parameter is called Lambda with Receiver.
Let's look at the implementation of the apply function which is available in the Kotlin standard library.
inline fun <T> T.apply(block: T.() -> Unit): T { block(); return this }
The function we pass to this apply function is actually an extension function to the type T. So in the lambda function, we can access the properties and the functions of the type T as though we are writing this function inside class T itself.
Here the generic type T is the receiver and we are passing a lambda function, hence the name Lambda with Receiver.
Another Example:
inline fun SQLiteDatabase.inTransaction(func: SQLiteDatabase.() -> Unit) {
beginTransaction()
try {
func()
setTransactionSuccessful()
} finally {
endTransaction()
}
}
Here, the inTransaction() is an Extension function to the SQLiteDatabase class and the parameter of the inTransaction() function is also an extension function to the SQLiteDatabase class. Here SQLiteDatabase is the receiver, for the lambda that is passed as the argument.
To invoke that function:
db.inTransaction {
delete( ... )
}
Here the delete() is the function of the SQLiteDatabase class and since the lambda we pass is an Extension function to the receiver SQLiteDatabase we can access the delete function without any additional qualifiers with it, as though we are calling the function from inside the SQLiteDatabase class itself.
While #Bob's answer is far more informative on Kotlin than could I hope to be, including extension functions, it doesn't directly refer to the comparison between "function literals with receiver" as described in https://kotlinlang.org/docs/reference/lambdas.html#function-literals-with-receiver and extension functions (https://kotlinlang.org/docs/reference/extensions.html). I.e. the difference between:
val isEven: Int.() -> Boolean = { this % 2 == 0 }
and
fun Int.isEven(): Boolean = this % 2 == 0
The receiver part of the name refers to both of these syntaxes receiving the base Int argument as this.
As I understand it, the difference between the two is simply between one being an expression confirming to a function type and the other a declaration. Functionally they are equivalent and can both be called as:
when { myNumber.isEven() -> doSomething(myNumber) }
but one is intended for use in extension libraries, while the other is typically intended for use as an argument for a function with a function-type parameter, particularly the Kotlin builder DSLs.