I am defining a macro in cmake for use in a third-party library to override a type. The third-party library has this code to substitute out which optional type it uses:
// If need another optional type, define the macro MAGIC_ENUM_USING_ALIAS_OPTIONAL.
#if defined(MAGIC_ENUM_USING_ALIAS_OPTIONAL)
MAGIC_ENUM_USING_ALIAS_OPTIONAL
#else
template <typename T>
using optional = std::optional<T>;
#endif
My cmake looks like this:
set(OPTIONAL_DEFINE_VALUE "template <typename T>using optional = nonstd::optional<T>\\$<SEMICOLON>;")
target_compile_definitions(magic_enum
INTERFACE
-DMAGIC_ENUM_USING_ALIAS_OPTIONAL=${OPTIONAL_DEFINE_VALUE}
)
This successfully puts the semicolon at the end of the definition. However, to my surprise, the macro expands to also include the subsequent compiler directive (TEST_INFRASTRUCTURE_ENABLED).
The \\$<SEMICOLON> has seemingly broken the parsing of the compiler directive list. Is this a bug or am I just using this incorrectly?
I have fixed the problem. The fix was to simply add a space at the end of the string.
"template <typename T>using optional = nonstd::optional<T>\\$<SEMICOLON> "
fun new space to fix things ~~~~^
I'm not sure of the exact cause, but I can speculate that having two semicolons next to each other in the compiler directive list causes some sort of cancelling-out, thus breaking the parsing and combining two directives together.
Related
I have 4 files all in the same directory: main.rakumod, infix_ops.rakumod, prefix_ops.rakumod and script.raku:
main module has a class definition (class A)
*_ops modules have some operator routine definitions to write, e.g., $a1 + $a2 in an overloaded way.
script.raku tries to instantaniate A object(s) and use those user-defined operators.
Why 3 files not 1? Since class definition might be long and separating overloaded operator definitions in files seemed like a good idea for writing tidier code (easier to manage).
e.g.,
# main.rakumod
class A {
has $.x is rw;
}
# prefix_ops.rakumod
use lib ".";
use main;
multi prefix:<++>(A:D $obj) {
++$obj.x;
$obj;
}
and similar routines in infix_ops.rakumod. Now, in script.raku, my aim is to import main module only and see the overloaded operators also available:
# script.raku
use lib ".";
use main;
my $a = A.new(x => -1);
++$a;
but it naturally doesn't see ++ multi for A objects because main.rakumod doesn't know the *_ops.rakumod files as it stands. Is there a way I can achieve this? If I use prefix_ops in main.rakumod, it says 'use lib' may not be pre-compiled perhaps because of circular dependentness
it says 'use lib' may not be pre-compiled
The word "may" is ambiguous. Actually it cannot be precompiled.
The message would be better if it said something to the effect of "Don't put use lib in a module."
This has now been fixed per #codesections++'s comment below.
perhaps because of circular dependentness
No. use lib can only be used by the main program file, the one directly run by Rakudo.
Is there a way I can achieve this?
Here's one way.
We introduce a new file that's used by the other packages to eliminate the circularity. So now we have four files (I've rationalized the naming to stick to A or variants of it for the packages that contribute to the type A):
A-sawn.rakumod that's a role or class or similar:
unit role A-sawn;
Other packages that are to be separated out into their own files use the new "sawn" package and does or is it as appropriate:
use A-sawn;
unit class A-Ops does A-sawn;
multi prefix:<++>(A-sawn:D $obj) is export { ++($obj.x) }
multi postfix:<++>(A-sawn:D $obj) is export { ($obj.x)++ }
The A.rakumod file for the A type does the same thing. It also uses whatever other packages are to be pulled into the same A namespace; this will import symbols from it according to Raku's standard importing rules. And then relevant symbols are explicitly exported:
use A-sawn;
use A-Ops;
sub EXPORT { Map.new: OUTER:: .grep: /'fix:<'/ }
unit class A does A-sawn;
has $.x is rw;
Finally, with this setup in place, the main program can just use A;:
use lib '.';
use A;
my $a = A.new(x => -1);
say $a++; # A.new(x => -1)
say ++$a; # A.new(x => 1)
say ++$a; # A.new(x => 2)
The two main things here are:
Introducing an (empty) A-sawn package
This type eliminates circularity using the technique shown in #codesection's answer to Best Way to Resolve Circular Module Loading.
Raku culture has a fun generic term/meme for techniques that cut through circular problems: "circular saws". So I've used a -sawn suffix of the "sawn" typename as a convention when using this technique.[1]
Importing symbols into a package and then re-exporting them
This is done via sub EXPORT { Map.new: ... }.[2] See the doc for sub EXPORT.
The Map must contain a list of symbols (Pairs). For this case I've grepped through keys from the OUTER:: pseudopackage that refers to the symbol table of the lexical scope immediately outside the sub EXPORT the OUTER:: appears in. This is of course the lexical scope into which some symbols (for operators) have just been imported by the use Ops; statement. I then grep that symbol table for keys containing fix:<; this will catch all symbol keys with that string in their name (so infix:<..., prefix:<... etc.). Alter this code as needed to suit your needs.[3]
Footnotes
[1] As things stands this technique means coming up with a new name that's different from the one used by the consumer of the new type, one that won't conflict with any other packages. This suggests a suffix. I think -sawn is a reasonable choice for an unusual and distinctive and mnemonic suffix. That said, I imagine someone will eventually package this process up into a new language construct that does the work behind the scenes, generating the name and automating away the manual changes one has to make to packages with the shown technique.
[2] A critically important point is that, if a sub EXPORT is to do what you want, it must be placed outside the package definition to which it applies. And that in turn means it must be before a unit package declaration. And that in turn means any use statement relied on by that sub EXPORT must appear within the same or outer lexical scope. (This is explained in the doc but I think it bears summarizing here to try head off much head scratching because there's no error message if it's in the wrong place.)
[3] As with the circularity saw aspect discussed in footnote 1, I imagine someone will also eventually package up this import-and-export mechanism into a new construct, or, perhaps even better, an enhancement of Raku's built in use statement.
Hi #hanselmann here is how I would write this (in 3 files / same dir):
Define my class(es):
# MyClass.rakumod
unit module MyClass;
class A is export {
has $.x is rw;
}
Define my operators:
# Prefix_Ops.rakumod
unit module Prefix_Ops;
use MyClass;
multi prefix:<++>(A:D $obj) is export {
++$obj.x;
$obj;
}
Run my code:
# script.raku
use lib ".";
use MyClass;
use Prefix_Ops;
my $a = A.new(x => -1);
++$a;
say $a.x; #0
Taking my cue from the Module docs there are a couple of things I am doing different:
Avoiding the use of main (or Main, or MAIN) --- I am wary that MAIN is a reserved name and just want to keep clear of engaging any of that (cool) machinery
Bringing in the unit module declaration at the top of each 'rakumod' file ... it may be possible to use bare files in Raku ... but I have never tried this and would say that it is not obvious from the docs that it is even possible, or supported
Now since I wanted this to work first time you will note that I use the same file name and module name ... again it may be possible to do that differently (multiple modules in one file and so on) ... but I have not tried that either
Using the 'is export' trait where I want my script to be able to use these definitions ... as you will know from close study of the docs ;-) is that each module has it's own namespace (the "stash") and we need export to shove the exported definitions into the namespace of the script
As #raiph mentions you only need the script to define the module library location
Since you want your prefix multi to "know" about class A then you also need to use MyClass in the Prefix_Ops module
Anyway, all-in-all, I think that the raku module system exemplifies the unique combination of "easy things easy and hard thinks doable" ... all I had to do with your code (which was very close) was tweak a few filenames and sprinkle in some concise concepts like 'unit module' and 'is export' and it really does not look much different since raku keeps all the import/export machinery under the surface like the swan gliding over the river...
I want to use Raku Modules to group some functions, I often use. Because these functions are all loosely coupled, I don't like to add them in a class.
I like the idea of use, where you can select, which functions should be imported, but I don't like it, that the functions, which are imported are then stored in the global namespace.
For example if I have a file my_util.pm6:
#content of my_util.pm6
unit module my_util;
our sub greet($who) is export(:greet) {
say $who;
}
sub greet2($who) is export(:greet2) {
say $who;
}
sub greet3($who) is export(:greet3) {
say $who;
}
and a file test.p6:
#!/usr/bin/perl6
#content of test.p6
use v6.c;
use lib '.';
use my_util :greet2;
greet("Bob"); #should not work (because no namespace given) and also doesn't work
greet2("Bob"); #should not work (because no namespace given) but actually works
greet3("Bob"); #should not work (because no namespace given) and also doesn't work
my_util::greet("Alice"); #works, but should not work (because it is not imported)
my_util::greet2("Alice"); #should work, but doesn't work
my_util::greet3("Alice"); #should not work (because it is not imported) and also doesn't work
I would like to call all functions via my_util::greet() and not via greet() only.
The function greet() defined in my_util.pm6 comes very close to my requirements, but because it is defined as our, it is always imported. What I like is the possibility, to select which functions should be imported and it should be possible to leave it in the namespace defined by the module (i.e. it doesn't pollute the global namespace)
Does anyone know, how I can achieve this?
To clear up some potential confusion...
Lexical scopes and package symbol tables are different things.
my adds a symbol to the current lexical scope.
our adds a symbol to the current lexical scope, and to the public symbol table of the current package.
use copies the requested symbols into the current lexical scope.
That's called "importing".
The :: separator does a package lookup – i.e. foo::greet looks up the symbol greet in the public symbol table of package foo.
This doesn't involve any "importing".
As for what you want to achieve...
The public symbol table of a package is the same no matter where it is referenced from... There is no mechanism for making individual symbols in it visible from different scopes.
You could make the colons part of the actual names of the subroutines...
sub foo::greet($who) is export(:greet) { say "Hello, $who!" }
# This subroutine is now literally called "foo::greet".
...but then you can't call it in the normal way anymore (because the parser would interpret that as rule 4 above), so you would have to use the clunky "indirect lexical lookup" syntax, which is obviously not what you want:
foo::greet "Sam"; # Could not find symbol '&greet'
::<&foo::greet>( "Sam" ); # Hello, Sam!
So, your best bet would be to either...
Declare the subroutines with our, and live with the fact that all of them can be accessed from all scopes that use the module.
Or:
Add the common prefix directly to the subroutine names, but using an unproblematic separator (such as the dash), and then import them normally:
unit module foo;
sub foo-greet($who) is export(:greet) { ... }
sub foo-greet2($who) is export(:greet2) { ... }
sub foo-greet3($who) is export(:greet3) { ... }
Assuming I'm including a header file in my precompiled header that includes a bunch of inline functions to be used as helpers wherever needed in any of the project's TUs -- what would be the correct way to write those inlines?
1) as static inlines? e.g.:
static inline BOOL doSomethingWith(Foo *bar)
{
// ...
}
2) as extern inlines? e.g.:
in Shared.h
extern inline BOOL doSomethingWith(Foo *bar);
in Shared.m
inline BOOL doSomethingWith(Foo *bar)
{
// ...
}
My intention with inlines is to:
make the code less verbose by encapsulating common instructions
to centralize the code they contain to aid with future maintenance
to use them instead of macros for the sake of type safety
to be able to have return values
So far I have only seen variant 1) in the wild.
I have read (sadly can't find it anymore) that variant 1) does not accurately move the inline function's body into the callers but rather creates a new function, and that only extern inline ensures that kind of behavior.
Skipping whether you should be inlining at all for the reasons you give, the standard way to inline in Cocoa is to use the predefined macro NS_INLINE - use it either in the source file using the function or in an imported header. So your example becomes:
NS_INLINE BOOL doSomethingWith(Foo *bar)
For GCC/Clang the macro uses static and the always_inline attribute.
Most (maybe all) compilers won't inline extern inline as they operate on a single compile unit at a time - a source file along with all its includes.
make the code less verbose by encapsulating common instructions
Non-inline functions do that as well...
to centralize the code they contain to aid with future maintenance
then you should have non-inline functions, don't you think?
to use them instead of macros for the sake of type safety
to be able to have return values
those seem OK to me.
Well, when I write inline functions, I usually make them static - that's typically how it's done. (Else you can get all sorts of mysterious linker errors if you're not careful enough.) It's important to note that inline does not affect the visibility of a function, so if you want to use it in multiple files, you need the static modifier.
An extern inline function does not make a lot of sense. If you have only one implementation of the function, that defeats the purpose of inline. If you use link-time optimization (where cross-file inlining is done by the linker), then the inline hint for the compiler is not very useful anyway.
only extern inline insures that kind of behavior.
It doesn't "ensure" anything at all. There's no portable way to force inlining - in fact, most modern compilers ignore the keyword completely and use heuristics instead to decide when to inline. In GNU C, you can force inlining using the __attribute__((always_inline)) attribute, but unless you have a very good reason for that, you shouldn't be doing it.
I have a static library say "A.lib" which contains a function int foo(). I have another dll say "B.dll" which consumes A.lib and uses the function foo() and also exports some other functions. Is it possible to export the function int foo() (imported from A.lib) from B.dll so that it can be consumed in a third dll say "C.dll".
I want to know whether it is possible or not, I dont want workarounds like making A.lib available to the C.dll. Also, I am not concerned if this is a bad design or not.
Thanks very much for your patience to read this through.
I had the same requirement - just found a different solution:
Assuming that A.lib has an A.h (that is consumed by source files used to build B.dll e.g. assuming that A.h contains prototypes for functions contained in A.lib), just add the following in A.h:
#pragma comment(linker, "/export:_foo")
This will instruct the linker to export foo() when building B.dll. Note the leading underscore - it is there because that's the true name of the symbol for foo() contained in A.lib (use dumpbin /symbols A.lib | findstr foo to see it). In my example foo() was using the __cdecl calling convention, but if you use __stdcall() or compile as C++, you'll get different name decoration, so you'll have to adjust the #pragma statement above as a result.
It doesn't matter if A.h gets included by many source files in B.dll - the linker doesn't complain if the exact same definition is made multiple times.
One "advantage" to this approach is that you don't even have to use the __declspec(dllexport) specifier on foo() in A.lib ...
Yes, it's possible but any code example is language dependent.
(for example in C you may simply export a function with the same name and C.dll will see it)
In OCaml 3.11, I want to "extend" an existing module using the include directive, like so:
module MyString = struct
include String
let trim s = ...
end
No problem. But now I want to expose this module's type explicitly (i.e. in a .mli file). I want something like this:
module MyString : sig
include String
val trim : string -> string
end
But the include syntax is not correct because String refers to a module, not a module type (and the compiler does indeed barf). How can I refer to the module type for String here (without having write it out explicitly in a sig expression)?
Thanks!
OCaml 3.12 will have a construct like module type of M that I believe would have solved your problem. Meanwhile, you can have the compiler generate the lengthy signature with ocamlc -i. Sorry, but I think it's the best you can do with 3.11.