I have made an extension functions for BigIntegers, allowing me to add Ints to them.
operator fun BigInteger.plus(other: Int): BigInteger = this + other.toBigInteger()
// Allowing me to do
val c = myBigInt + 3
I have also made a Counter class, holding bigintegers for various keys, for easy counting. Since doing counter["1"] += myBigInt isn't allowed on standard maps (it's nullable), I have added a custom getter that returns a default value, making this possible.
class Counter<K>(val map: MutableMap<K, BigInteger>) : MutableMap<K, BigInteger> by map {
constructor() : this(mutableMapOf())
override operator fun get(key: K): BigInteger {
return map.getOrDefault(key, BigInteger.ZERO)
}
I can then use it like this
val counter = Counter<String>()
c["ones"] += 5.toBigInteger()
Problem is that I cannot use it like this:
c["ones"] += 5 // doesn't work, "Kotlin: No set method providing array access"
but this should be equivalent to this, which works, since it should use my extension operator on the bigint:
c["ones"] = c["ones"] + 5 // works
Why doesn't this work?
I've tried adding a set method for Ints, but then I see a very weird behavior. Kotlin will do the calculation correct, but then convert the BigInteger to an Int before passing it to my class! Example:
inline operator fun BigInteger.plus(other: Int): BigInteger {
val bigInteger = this + other.toBigInteger()
println("calculated bigint to $bigInteger")
return bigInteger
}
class Counter<K>(val map: MutableMap<K, BigInteger>) : MutableMap<K, BigInteger> by map {
constructor() : this(mutableMapOf())
override operator fun get(key: K): BigInteger {
return map.getOrDefault(key, BigInteger.ZERO)
}
operator fun set(key: K, value: Int) {
println("setting int $value")
map[key] = value.toBigInteger()
}
}
val c = Counter<String>()
c["1"] = "2192039569601".toBigInteger()
c["1"] += 5
println("result: ${c["1"]}")
c["1"] = "2192039569601".toBigInteger()
c["1"] = c["1"] + 5
println("result: ${c["1"]}")
Which prints
calculated bigint to 2192039569606
setting int 1606248646 <--- why does it call the int setter here?
result: 1606248646
calculated bigint to 2192039569606
result: 2192039569606
Why does Kotlin do the BigInt summation, but converts it back to an Int before sending to my setter?
Update
Since a comment suggest this is a compiler issue, any other ideas?
My ultimate goal here, was to have a counter of big integers, but to be able to easily add ints to it.
Adding this as a set function, makes it being called for both ints and bigints, so I can do the proper assignment myself. However, it will also then allow someone to add floats that will crash at runtime.
operator fun set(key: K, value: Number) {
map[key] = when (value) {
is BigInteger -> value
is Int -> value.toBigInteger()
else -> throw RuntimeException("only ints")
}
}
Any tips?
Notice that c["ones"] += 5 can be translated into calls in two ways:
c.set("ones", c.get("ones").plus(5))
c.get("ones").plusAssign(5)
The first way is what your code currently translates to, because you don't have a plusAssign operator defined. As I said in the comments, there is a bug in the compiler that prevents the operators from resolved correctly. When resolving c["ones"] += 5, It seems to be trying to find a set operator that takes an Int instead (possibly because 5 is an Int), which is unexpected. If you modify the code in the bug report a little, you can even make it throw an exception when executed!
class Foo {
operator fun get(i: Int) : A = A()
operator fun set(i: Int, a: A) {}
operator fun set(i: Int, a: Int) {}
}
class A {
operator fun plus(b: Int) = A()
}
class B
fun main(args: Array<String>) {
val foo = Foo()
foo[0] = foo[0] + 1
foo[0] += 1 // this compiles now, since there is a set(Int, Int) method
// but A can't be casted to Int, so ClassCastException!
}
It is rather coincidental (and lucky) in your case, that the compiler knows how to convert from BigInteger (or any other Number type actually) to Int, using Number#intValue. Otherwise the program would have crashed too.
A natural alternative way is to define the plusAssign operator, so that the assignment gets translated the second way. However, we can't do it on BigInteger, because plusAssign would need to mutate this, but BigInteger is immutable. This means that we need to create our own mutable wrapper. This does mean that you lose the nice immutability, but this is all I can think of.
fun main() {
val c = Counter<String>()
c.set("1", "2192039569601".toMutableBigInteger())
c.get("1").plusAssign(5)
println("result: ${c["1"]}")
}
data class MutableBigInteger(var bigInt: BigInteger) {
operator fun plusAssign(other: Int) {
bigInt += other.toBigInteger()
}
}
fun String.toMutableBigInteger() = MutableBigInteger(toBigInteger())
class Counter<K>(val map: MutableMap<K, MutableBigInteger>) : MutableMap<K, MutableBigInteger> by map{
constructor() : this(mutableMapOf())
override operator fun get(key: K): MutableBigInteger {
return map.getOrPut(key) { MutableBigInteger(BigInteger.ZERO) }
}
operator fun set(key: K, value: Int) {
println("setting int $value")
map[key] = MutableBigInteger(value.toBigInteger())
}
}
Notably, getOrDefault is changed to getOrPut - when a value is not found, we want to put the zero we return into the map, rather than just returning a zero that is not in the map. Our changes to that instance wouldn't be visible through the map otherwise.
Related
package algorithms
import algorithms.util.IOUtils
object Calculator {
/* static abstract class Operation {
* private Function logic; //functional interface
* Operation(Function f) { this.logic = f );
* }
*/
sealed class Operation(val logic : (Int, Int)-> Int)
/* define singleton types 'ADD', 'SUB', 'MUL', 'DIV' - equivalent to inner class definitions in Java */
/* static class ADD extends Operation {
* ADD(){
* super((int x, int y)-> x+y);
* }
* }
*/
object ADD: Operation({ x: Int , y: Int -> x+y } )
object SUB: Operation({ x: Int , y: Int -> x-y })
object MUL: Operation({ x: Int , y: Int -> x*y })
object DIV: Operation({ x: Int , y: Int -> x/y })
private fun getOperationFromChar(ch : Char): Operation? {
return when(ch){
'+' -> ADD
'-' -> SUB
'*' -> MUL
'/' -> DIV
else -> null
}
}
fun eval(ch: Char, x: Int, y: Int): Int? {
val op : Operation? = getOperationFromChar(ch)
return op?.logic?.invoke(x,y)
}
}
fun main(){
println("Result : ${Calculator.eval(
IOUtils.readChar("Enter desired operation (+,-,*,/) "),
IOUtils.readInteger("Enter first number"),
IOUtils.readInteger("Enter second number"))}")
}
The above code works fine, however, IntelliJ forces me to make logic in
return op?.logic?.invoke(x,y) nullable
Although the definition of Operation sealed class Operation(val logic : (Int, Int)-> Int) has nowhere mentioned that it can be null.
I would image if the definition of the Operation object was sealed class Operation(val logic : ((Int, Int)-> Int)?) then it would make sense, but it is not so.
What is going on here?
It's because the return value of getOperationFromChar() is nullable.
It's not your operation function that returns a nullable value. op itself is already nullable. You defined it yourself with val operation: Operation?. When you use ?. calls, the results are always nullable because null will be the result if there was no object to call the function on.
The input of your getOperationFromChar() function is a Char. A Char can be any of many thousands of possible values, not just the four that you have in your when statement. That's why the compiler is enforcing an else branch. If you want to avoid returning a nullable, you could choose to throw an error if an invalid input is given:
private fun getOperationFromChar(ch : Char): Operation {
return when(ch){
'+' -> ADD
'-' -> SUB
'*' -> MUL
'/' -> DIV
else -> error("Invalid input $ch")
}
}
Then you could define val op: Operation and it would be able to accept the result of this function as non-nullable.
Sealed classes help avoid the need for an else branch when the sealed class is the type of the when's subject. Then the compiler can be sure you have a branch for every possible input. Your function is the opposite case, where your sealed class type is the output, not the input.
By the way, it is more sensible for you to use an enum instead of a sealed class for this case, because none of the children of your sealed class have unique properties or functions.
If you take the chained evaluation apart, it becomes clear:
fun eval(ch: Char, x: Int, y: Int): Int? {
val op: Operation? = getOperationFromChar(ch)
val logic: ((Int, Int) -> Int)? = op?.logic
val retval: Int? = logic?.invoke(x, y)
return retval
}
logic is not typed ((Int, Int) -> Int) but ((Int, Int) -> Int)?, because if op is null, the result of op?.logic will also be null.
It is because op is nullable; if you set type of op as Operation you don't need to check the nullability of logic.
In fact, it checks the nullability of whole op?.logic to call invoke() method; that can throw NullPointerException due to op nullability.
The safe call operator(?.) returns null if the value to the left is null, otherwise continues to evaluate the expression to the right.
for example
val x:Int? = 4
x?.dec()?.inc()?.dec()
x?.let {
it.dec().inc().dec()
}
I made a function which returns all factors of an integer. But the problem is that it gives an error that the return type is Unit instead of mutableListOf. my code:
fun get_factors(num: Int) {
var factors = mutableListOf<Int>()
for (x in 1..num) {
if (x % num == 0) {
factors.add(x)
}
}
return factors
}
fun main() {
print(get_factors(18))
}
I tried doing:
fun get_factors(num: Int): mustableListOf {
var factors = mutableListOf<Int>()
for (x in 1..num) {
if (x % num == 0) {
factors.add(x)
}
}
return factors
}
fun main() {
print(get_factors(18))
}
but it says mutableListOf not defined.
I just started learning Kotlin today so I am a total beginner with Kotlin. Please help me out with this.
You seem to have confused the type MutableList<Int>, with the function mutableListOf.
Since the type name is MutableList<Int>, you should do:
fun get_factors(num: Int) : MutableList<Int> {
...
}
Or, if the caller doesn't need to modify the list, you can just return List<Int> too:
fun get_factors(num: Int) : List<Int> {
...
}
I can see why this is confusing - to create an instance of a type, you normally just add () to the end of the type name, so if mutableListOf() creates a list, you'd think that mutableListOf is the type name. However, this is actually calling the global function called mutableListOf, which returns an instance of MutableList<T>.
One way to distinguish between these is to look at the first letter. Type names usually begin with a capital letter, whereas function names begin with a small letter.
Lets say I have class A(val foo: Double).
I want to be be able to compare it to other A, Double, and Int.
If I implement Comparable, I can only compare it against one other object type.
override fun compareTo(other: A): Int {
return when {
this.foo == other.foo -> 0
this.foo > other.foo -> 1
else -> -1
}
}
But I've also seen extension functions overriding the compareTo operator.
operator fun A.compareTo(d: Double): Int {
return when {
this.foo == d -> 0
this.foo > d -> 1
else -> -1
}
}
What is the difference between these and what should I be using? I'm guessing if I want to compare it to multiple types then I have to use extension functions?
The Comparable interface comes from Java, and, as you have seen, is defined with only a compareTo( other) method, which only provides for comparing an object to another object of the same type.
As you have also noticed, the Kotlin extension functions are additional functions allowing you to compare an object to whatever you want, as long as you define the compareTo method to take an argument of the type to which you want to compare.
So, yes, if you want to compare an object to an object of a different type, you will need to write an appropriate extension function.
Of course, in Java, if you have control of the source code of the class, you can always add a custom compareTo method.
Comparable is a standard interface, it's the way you define a class as having some ordering, and every library that deals with ordering works with Comparable types. Basically, if you want to be able to order and compare your things using all the standard functions and anything anyone else might write, you need to implement the Comparable interface.
This works:
data class SportsTeam(val name: String) : Comparable<SportsTeam> {
override fun compareTo(other: SportsTeam): Int = when {
name == "best team" -> 1
other.name == "best team" -> -1
else -> 0
}
}
fun main(args: Array<String>) {
val best = SportsTeam("best team")
val worst = SportsTeam("worst team")
print("The winner is: ${maxOf(best, worst).name}")
}
but because maxOf takes a Comparable type, this won't work:
data class SportsTeam(val name: String)
fun SportsTeam.compareTo(other: SportsTeam): Int = when {
name == "best team" -> 1
other.name == "best team" -> -1
else -> 0
}
fun main(args: Array<String>) {
val best = SportsTeam("best team")
val worst = SportsTeam("worst team")
print("The winner is: ${maxOf(best, worst).name}")
}
Wenn you make your own objects you must implement Comparable interface and then override compareTo function
class MyClass : Comparable<MyClass> {
override fun compareTo(other: MyClass): Int {
// TODO Returns zero if this object is equal to the specified other object
}
}
You can also override an operator function, for example from Int class in kotlin
fun main(args: Array<String>) {
val a = 1
val b = "2"
println(a.compareTo(b))
}
operator fun Int.compareTo(i: String) : Int {
return if (this.toString() == i) {
0
} else {
1
}
}
I hope that's helpfull from you
I have this enum:
enum class Types(val value: Int) {
FOO(1)
BAR(2)
FOO_BAR(3)
}
How do I create an instance of that enum using an Int?
I tried doing something like this:
val type = Types.valueOf(1)
And I get the error:
Integer literal does not conform to the expected type String
enum class Types(val value: Int) {
FOO(1),
BAR(2),
FOO_BAR(3);
companion object {
fun fromInt(value: Int) = Types.values().first { it.value == value }
}
}
You may want to add a safety check for the range and return null.
Enum#valueOf is based on name. Which means in order to use that, you'd need to use valueof("FOO"). The valueof method consequently takes a String, which explains the error. A String isn't an Int, and types matter. The reason I mentioned what it does too, is so you know this isn't the method you're looking for.
If you want to grab one based on an int value, you need to define your own function to do so. You can get the values in an enum using values(), which returns an Array<Types> in this case. You can use firstOrNull as a safe approach, or first if you prefer an exception over null.
So add a companion object (which are static relative to the enum, so you can call Types.getByValue(1234) (Types.COMPANION.getByValue(1234) from Java) over Types.FOO.getByValue(1234).
companion object {
private val VALUES = values()
fun getByValue(value: Int) = VALUES.firstOrNull { it.value == value }
}
values() returns a new Array every time it's called, which means you should cache it locally to avoid re-creating one every single time you call getByValue. If you call values() when the method is called, you risk re-creating it repeatedly (depending on how many times you actually call it though), which is a waste of memory.
Admittedly, and as discussed in the comments, this may be an insignificant optimization, depending on your use. This means you can also do:
companion object {
fun getByValue(value: Int) = values().firstOrNull { it.value == value }
}
if that's something you'd prefer for readability or some other reason.
The function could also be expanded and check based on multiple parameters, if that's something you want to do. These types of functions aren't limited to one argument.
If you are using integer value only to maintain order, which you need to access correct value, then you don't need any extra code. You can use build in value ordinal. Ordinal represents position of value in enum declaration.
Here is an example:
enum class Types {
FOO, //Types.FOO.ordinal == 0 also position == 0
BAR, //Types.BAR.ordinal == 1 also position == 1
FOO_BAR //Types.FOO_BAR.ordinal == 2 also position == 2
}
You can access ordinal value simply calling:
Types.FOO.ordinal
To get correct value of enum you can simply call:
Types.values()[0] //Returns FOO
Types.values()[1] //Returns BAR
Types.values()[2] //Returns FOO_BAR
Types.values() returns enum values in order accordingly to declaration.
Summary:
Types.values(Types.FOO.ordinal) == Types.FOO //This is true
If integer values don't match order (int_value != enum.ordinal) or you are using different type (string, float...), than you need to iterate and compare your custom values as it was already mentioned in this thread.
It really depends on what you actually want to do.
If you need a specific hardcoded enum value, then you can directly use Types.FOO
If you are receiving the value dynamically from somewhere else in your code, you should try to use the enum type directly in order not to have to perform this kind of conversions
If you are receiving the value from a webservice, there should be something in your deserialization tool to allow this kind of conversion (like Jackson's #JsonValue)
If you want to get the enum value based on one of its properties (like the value property here), then I'm afraid you'll have to implement your own conversion method, as #Zoe pointed out.
One way to implement this custom conversion is by adding a companion object with the conversion method:
enum class Types(val value: Int) {
FOO(1),
BAR(2),
FOO_BAR(3);
companion object {
private val types = values().associate { it.value to it }
fun findByValue(value: Int): Types? = types[value]
}
}
Companion objects in Kotlin are meant to contain members that belong to the class but that are not tied to any instance (like Java's static members).
Implementing the method there allows you to access your value by calling:
var bar = Types.findByValue(2) ?: error("No Types enum value found for 2")
Note that the returned value is nullable, to account for the possibility that no enum value corresponds to the parameter that was passed in. You can use the elvis operator ?: to handle that case with an error or a default value.
If you hate declaring for each enum type a companion object{ ... } to achieve EMotorcycleType.fromInt(...). Here's a solution for you.
EnumCaster object:
object EnumCaster {
inline fun <reified E : Enum<E>> fromInt(value: Int): E {
return enumValues<E>().first { it.toString().toInt() == value }
}
}
Enum example:
enum class EMotorcycleType(val value: Int){
Unknown(0),
Sport(1),
SportTouring(2),
Touring(3),
Naked(4),
Enduro(5),
SuperMoto(6),
Chopper(7),
CafeRacer(8),
.....
Count(9999);
override fun toString(): String = value.toString()
}
Usage example 1: Kotlin enum to jni and back
fun getType(): EMotorcycleType = EnumCaster.fromInt(nGetType())
private external fun nGetType(): Int
fun setType(type: EMotorcycleType) = nSetType(type.value)
private external fun nSetType(value: Int)
---- or ----
var type : EMotorcycleType
get() = EnumCaster.fromInt(nGetType())
set(value) = nSetType(value.value)
private external fun nGetType(): Int
private external fun nSetType(value: Int)
Usage example 2: Assign to val
val type = EnumCaster.fromInt<EMotorcycleType>(aValidTypeIntValue)
val typeTwo : EMotorcycleType = EnumCaster.fromInt(anotherValidTypeIntValue)
A naive way can be:
enum class Types(val value: Int) {
FOO(1),
BAR(2),
FOO_BAR(3);
companion object {
fun valueOf(value: Int) = Types.values().find { it.value == value }
}
}
Then you can use
var bar = Types.valueOf(2)
Protocol orientated way with type-safety
interface RawRepresentable<T> {
val rawValue: T
}
inline fun <reified E, T> valueOf(value: T): E? where E : Enum<E>, E: RawRepresentable<T> {
return enumValues<E>().firstOrNull { it.rawValue == value }
}
enum class Types(override val rawValue: Int): RawRepresentable<Int> {
FOO(1),
BAR(2),
FOO_BAR(3);
}
Usage
val type = valueOf<Type>(2) // BAR(2)
You can use it on non-integer type, too.
I would build the 'reverse' map ahead of time. Probably not a big improvement, but also not much code.
enum class Test(val value: Int) {
A(1),
B(2);
companion object {
val reverseValues: Map<Int, Test> = values().associate { it.value to it }
fun valueFrom(i: Int): Test = reverseValues[i]!!
}
}
Edit: map...toMap() changed to associate per #hotkey's suggestion.
try this...
companion object{
fun FromInt(v:Int):Type{
return Type::class.java.constructors[0].newInstance(v) as Type
}
}
This is for anyone looking for getting the enum from its ordinal or index integer.
enum class MyEnum { RED, GREEN, BLUE }
MyEnum.values()[1] // GREEN
Another solution and its variations:
inline fun <reified T : Enum<T>> enumFromIndex(i: Int) = enumValues<T>()[i]
enumFromIndex<MyEnum>(1) // GREEN
inline fun <reified T : Enum<T>> enumFromIndex(i: Int) = enumValues<T>().getOrNull(i)
enumFromIndex<MyEnum>(3) ?: MyEnum.RED // RED
inline fun <reified T : Enum<T>> enumFromIndex(i: Int, default: T) =
enumValues<T>().getOrElse(i) { default }
enumFromIndex(2, MyEnum.RED) // BLUE
It is an adapted version of another answer. Also, thanks to Miha_x64 for this answer.
Another option...
enum class Types(val code: Int) {
FOO(1),
BAR(2),
FOO_BAR(3);
companion object {
val map = values().associate { it.code to it }
// Get Type by code with check existing codes and default
fun getByCode(code: Int, typeDefault_param: Types = FOO): Types {
return map[code] ?: typeDefault_param
}
}
}
fun main() {
println("get 3: ${Types.getByCode(3)}")
println("get 10: ${Types.getByCode(10)}")
}
get 3: FOO_BAR
get 10: FOO
I am from a background of Javascript trying to learn some Kotlin.
I know i can define my function by
fun add(a: Int , b: Int): Int{
return a+b
}
I am trying this
val add = {
a:Int,b:Int->
println("I am calculating the sale => no body you guy [$x+$y]");
//works
}
val add = { a:Int ,b : Int ->
//How do i return from this function
}
Also Is this a right way to define Kotlin functions? and Whats the difference with the first way ?
Also Is this a right way to define Kotlin functions? and Whats the difference with the first way ?
This is not even "a way to define Kotlin functions".
In JavaScript, all functions are reified: they are first-class values you can refer to from variables and pass around. Not so in Kotlin, just as in many other languages like Java, C++, Objective C and so on.
A function is just a declaration, you can call it but you can't otherwise directly refer to it. Separate language features allow you to create functional objects that delegate to these functions, and you can pass these objects around.
Therefore,
fun add(a: Int , b: Int): Int {
return a + b
}
is a function declaration and
val add = {a: Int, b: Int ->
a + b
}
is four things:
declaration of a variable add
declaration of an anonymous implementation of the functional type (Int, Int) -> Int
instantiation of this anonymous type, resulting in a functional object
assignment of the object to the variable add.
The object has a method invoke(a: Int, b: Int): Int whose implementation you have given in the block:
fun invoke(a: Int, b: Int): Int {
return a + b
}
You can call it explicitly:
val result = add.invoke(a, b)
and on top of that Kotlin defines syntax sugar that allows you to omit the explicit .invoke.
You don't need the explicit return there
val add = { a: Int, b: Int ->
a + b
}
add(2, 3) // => 5
Hopefully this will work.
val onChange = {
a:Int,b:Int->
println("I am calculating the sale => no body you guy [$x+$y]");
//works
}
val add = { a:Int ,b : Int ->
println("Sunm ${a+b}")
//How do i return from this function
}
Log.v("Response", add(4,3))
Output
V/Response: Sum 7
You can't return values in kotlin like this, it will give error of type mismatch as you havn't declared any return type :
fun add(a: Int , b: Int){
return a+b
} //wrong
we declare return type in kotlin as :
fun add(a: Int , b: Int) : Int{
return a+b
}
Secondly,
val add = { a:Int ,b : Int ->
}
this is not a function, its a declaration of value assignment
In kotlin we declare function by adding "fun" before your function name as
//you can add access modifiers(private,public,protected) if needed just before "fun"(by default its public)
fun add (){ //if it returns any value then add ": {datatype}" just right of "()"
//your code here
}
Hope it helped you :)