I have the following function:
fun bar(list: MutableList<in Person>) {
for(a in list) {
println(a.getName())
}
}
The problem is that a is considered of type Any and I would need to cast to Person first. Is this how it is supposed to be, or am I doing something wrong?
In Java if I declare with extends Person I would not need to cast.
I.e. if I had:
public <T extends Person> void bar(List<T> list)
The Java method signature you gave is for a generic method (i.e. one that binds a type variable). This allows you to specify that your list must have that element type, allowing you to both retrieve and insert elements into the list safely, knowing they're of that type. You can do this in Kotlin too:
public <T extends Person> void bar(List<T> list);
is equivalent to
fun <T: Person> bar(list: MutableList<T>)
However, the Kotlin method signature you gave in your question is not generic, but has a wildcard generic argument. You can do this in Java too:
fun bar(list: MutableList<in Person>)
is equivalent to
public void bar(List<? super Person> list);
This is different to the generic method signature above. In the generic method, we can create variables of type T by taking elements out of the list, and we know that these are a subtype of Person. Since list has been bound to have element type T we also know that we can insert such variables back into the list.
With the non-generic, wildcard signature, we can't do that. In both the Java and Kotlin cases we have a method that takes any list whose element type is a supertype of Person. So, when we get elements out of the list, all we know for certain is that they are a supertype of Person, and the only type that fits this condition is Object/Any. However, the constraint on the wildcard does tell us that it should be fine to insert elements of type Person (or a subtype) into the list.
Just for completeness, the converse is also possible:
public void bar(List<? extends Person> list);
is equivalent to
fun bar(list: MutableList<out Person>)
Here, the method can take any list whose element type is a subtype of Person. We know that if we extract an element from the list, it will conform to the Person interface, so we can assign it to a variable of type Person. However, we don't know anything about what types we can insert into the list, as we don't know the exact subtype of Person the list accepts. Even though we know that a value we've just extracted from the list must be an acceptable type for insertion, I believe neither Kotlin nor Java is clever enough to infer this. You have to use the generic method signature as a "hint".
in and out are concepts not known to Java, cf. What is out keyword in kotlin, Understanding one usage of “in” keyword in Kotlin
The proper replacement for your Java code would be:
fun <T : Person> bar(list: MutableList<T>) {
for(a in list) {
println(a.getName())
}
}
(thanks to user31601 for pointing that out in the comments)
Related
I'm using kotlin sealed class. And I need to retrieve specific subclass. My sealed class:
sealed class Course(
val type: Type
) {
data class ProgrammingCourse(val name: String, val detail: String) : Course(Type.PROGRAMMING)
object LanguageCourse: Course(Type.LANGUAGE)
.....
}
For example I have function which can return Course:
fun getCourse(): Course {
if(...)
return Course.ProgrammingCourse("test", "test")
else
return Course.LanguageCourse
}
In addition, I have a method that can only work with a specific subclass of the Course class. Fox example:
fun workWithCourse(course: Course.ProgrammingCourse) {
// here some logic
}
And now I'm trying to get the course using the method getCourse(), and then pass it to the method workWithCourse()
fun main() {
val course = getCourse()
workWithCourse(course)
}
Error:
Type mismatch.
Required:
Course.ProgrammingCourse
Found:
Course
But I know the course type - Type, parameter that each course has. Can I, knowing this Type, cast the course (which I retrieve from getCourse() method) to a specific subclass ? Is there such a way ?
Please help me
P.S.
I don't need type checks like:
if(course is Course.ProgrammingCourse) {
workWithCourse(course)
}
I need the subclass to be automatically inferred by the Type parameter, if possible.
P.S.2
The need for such a solution is that I have a class that takes a Course, it doesn't know anything about a particular course, at the same time the class takes the Type that I want to use for identification. This class also receives an interface (by DI) for working with courses, a specific implementation of the interface is provided by the dagger(multibinding) by key, where I have the Type as the key. In the same way I want to pass by the same parameter Type specific subclass of my Course to my interface which working with specific courses.
No, there is no way for automatic inference to the best of my knowledge.
You returned a Course, and that's what you have. Being sealed here does not matter at all. Generally what you do here is use the when expression if you want to statically do different things depending on the type, but if it's just one type (ProgrammingCourse) that can be passed to workWithCourse, then an if is probably right, with dispatch using as.
That said, this looks like counter-productive design. If you can only work with one course, why do they even share a top level interface? The way the code is written implies working is a function that can take any course, or should be a method member. Anything else is very confusing. Perhaps workWithCourse should take a Course and use the when expression to dispatch it appropriately?
In kotlin you can specify the class explicitly with as.
val course = getCourse()
if (type == Type.PROGRAMMING) {
workWithCourse(course as Course.ProgrammingCourse)
}
*thanks Joffrey for his comment
What you seem to be asking for is a compile-time guarantee for something that will only be known at runtime. You didn't share the condition used in getCourse(), but in general it could return both types.
Therefore, you need to decide what will happen in both cases - that's not something the compiler can decide for you via any "inference".
If you want the program to throw an exception when getCourse() returns something else than a Course.ProgrammingCourse, you can cast the returned value using as:
val course = getCourse() as Course.ProgrammingCourse
workWithCourse(course)
If you don't want to crash, but you only want to call workWithCourse in some cases, then you need an if or when statement to express that choice. For instance, to call it only when the value is of type Course.ProgrammingCourse, then you would write the code you already know:
if (course is Course.ProgrammingCourse) {
workWithCourse(course)
}
Or with a when statement:
val course = getCourse()
when (course) {
is Course.ProgrammingCourse -> workWithCourse(course)
is Course.LanguageCourse -> TODO("do something with the other value")
}
The when is better IMO because it forces you (or other devs in the team) to take a look at this when whenever you (or they) add a new subclass of the sealed class. It's easy to forget with an if.
You can also decide to not test the actual type, and focus on the type property like in #grigory-panov's answer, but that is brittle because it relies on an implicit relationship between the type property and the actual type of the value:
val course = getCourse()
if (type == Type.PROGRAMMING) {
workWithCourse(course as Course.ProgrammingCourse)
}
The main point of using sealed classes is so you can use their actual type instead of a manually managed type property + casts. So I'd say use only is X and don't set a type property at all. Using a sealed class allows Kotlin to type-check a bunch of things, it's more powerful than using such a property.
I've written myself into a corner where I want an instance of Class<Foo<Bar>>. While there's no apparent reason that this shouldn't be valid, there seems to be no way to create one. Foo<Bar>::class.java is a syntax error, and Kotlin does not provide a public constructor for Class.
The code I'm writing is an abstraction layer over gson. Below is an overly-simplified example:
class Boxed<T : Any> (val value: T)
class BaseParser<U : Any> (
private val clazz: Class<U>
) {
//This works for 98% of cases
open fun parse(s: String): U {
return gson.fromJson(s, clazz)
}
//Presume that clazz is required for other omitted functions
}
//Typical subclass:
class FooParser : BaseParser<Foo>(Foo::class.java)
// Edge Case
class BarParser : BaseParser<Boxed<Bar>>(Boxed<Bar>::class.java) {
override fun parse(s: String): Boxed<Bar> {
return Boxed(gson.fromJson(s, Bar::class.java))
}
}
// not valid: "Only classes are allowed on the left hand side of a class literal"
In my production code, there are already dozens of subclasses that inherit from the base class, and many that override the "parse" function Ideally I'd like a solution that doesn't require refactoring the existing subclasses.
Actually, there is a reason this is impossible. Class (or Kotlin's KClass) can't hold parameterized types. They can hold e.g. List, but they can't List<String>. To store Foo<Bar> you need Type (or Kotlin's KType) and specifically ParameterizedType. These classes are somewhat more complicated to use and harder to acquire than simple Class.
The easiest way to acquire Type in Kotlin is by using its typeOf() utility:
typeOf<Foo<Bar>>().javaType
Gson supports both Class and Type, so you should be able to use it instead.
The closest you'll get is Boxed::class.java. This is not a language restriction but a JVM restriction. JVM has type erasure, so no generic types exist after compilation (thats also one of the reasons generics cant be primitives, as they need to be reference types to behave).
Does it work with the raw Boxed type class?
For this case, it looks like
BaseParser<Boxed<Bar>>(Boxed::class.java as Class<Boxed<Bar>>)
could work (that is, it will both type-check and succeed at runtime). But it depends on what exactly happens in the "Presume that clazz is required for other omitted functions" part. And obviously it doesn't allow actually distinguishing Boxed<Foo> and Boxed<Bar> classes.
I'd also consider broot's approach if possible, maybe by making BaseParser and new
class TypeBaseParser<U : Any>(private val tpe: Type)
extend a common abstract class/interface.
I'm coming to kotlin after working in mostly dynamically typed languages for years, so I get a lot of what I'm seeing, but I'm still tripping up a bit over reading some of the type annotations.
Most of them make sense (I've written some C++ and typescript so I'm not wholey familiar with more strictly type languages). so stuff like annotating the parameters and return types for functions, variable declaration, stuff like that makes sense.
What I'm having trouble with is the more complex annotations like looking at this explanation of the fold method when talking about higher order functions:
fun <T, R> Collection<T>.fold(
initial: R,
combine: (acc: R, nextElement: T) -> R
): R {
var accumulator: R = initial
for (element: T in this) {
accumulator = combine(accumulator, element)
}
return accumulator
}
I get that:
the Collection refers to an arbitrary collection with elements that are of type T
the fold method call takes an value of type R named initial as the first argument and a callable function labeled combine as the second argument
the callable function will be called for each element of the collection with an accumulator of type R labeled acc and the next element of the collection of type T (since it's a collection of Ts) labeled nextElement
The callable function will return a type R in the end
The fold method will return a type R in the end
And I can use it like this:
val greetings = listOf("hey", "hi", "yo", "what's up")
val personalized = greetings.fold("", { carry, current -> "${carry}\n$current, Chris." })
println(personalized)
That all makes sense, but what does the <T, R> between the fun and the Collection mean? What is that part called? (It's hard to search for an explanation when you don't know what the thing you're looking for is called :P)
And more importantly, is there a section of the documentation that specifically talks about how to read these annotations or what each are called? I've been looking through the docs and searching in general for an explanation of how to read the type annotations and I can't find anything.
It feels like a silly question, but to the uninitiated it's kind of daunting and the docs are written as if you already understand that part of the language.
As Alexey already said, these names between angled brackets after the fun keyword are called "type parameters". They are used to declare generic functions.
the Collection refers to an arbitrary collection with elements that are of type T
Here you can see that Collection and T play different roles: Collection is a well-known defined type that you are referencing, while T is just a name that you arbitrarily choose for the definition of this function.
We want the compiler to check that Collection is a type that is defined and imported, and if you make a typo there will be a compile error.
On the other hand, we don't want that for T and R, so it is necessary to mention them in a special syntactic place so that the compiler knows you're just making up arbitrary names for the sake of the function definition.
It is nice to draw a parallel between the type parameters and the method arguments. The method arguments are also arbitrary names that you define in the signature and use in the function body, as opposed to class members like properties, which you can access without declaring them as arguments.
Just like the values of the arguments are passed when you call a method, and can be different for each different invocation, the "values" of the type parameters are also given at the call site, and can be different for each invocation (they are often inferred, though, so you don't see them).
Note that the "value" of a type parameter is a type (e.g. String), not a value in the usual sense like the string "abc". You can actually specify these types explicitly on the call site if you want:
listOf(1, 2, 3).fold<Int, Int>(42) { acc, e -> acc + e }
The syntax on the call site is similar to the declaration site, it uses <>, except that it's written after the function name.
In general, these types are easily inferred by the compiler using the argument types or the return type in the context of the call site, that's why it's often unnecessary to explicitly specify them.
Difference with generics at the class level
It may seem weird that the methods in the interface List don't need to declare such type parameters, despite the fact that they use generic types:
interface MutableList<T> {
fun add(element: T): Boolean {
//....
}
}
This is because T is already "well-defined" when using it for the method declaration: it was already defined as a type parameter for the List interface itself. The mechanism is the same, but the difference is the scope of the definition: class-level type parameters are defined by the instance of the class (you can create a List<Int> or a List<String>, and this is chosen when you create your instance), while function type parameters are defined by each call to the function.
You can even combine both:
interface List<T> {
fun <R> map(transform: (T) -> R): List<R> {
//...
}
}
Here T will be determined by the list instance on which you call map, but R can be different for each call to map even on the same list instance.
<T, R> are the type parameters. Since you are familiar with C++, it's like
template <typename T, typename R>
It just happens to be placed after the fun keyword in Kotlin (and after the type name when declaring a generic class/interface/type alias) instead of before the function definition.
In the Kotlin docs, they show how to include type parameters:
class Box<T>(t: T) {
var value = t
}
This is a simple example. But I've come across one that looks like this:
abstract class SomeAdapter<T, WH: SomeViewHolder>(private val viewModel: SomeModel<T>?) {
}
How do I interpret this? Do I interpret this as:
SomeAdapter takes two parameters when it's instantiated - a T and a WH. And the constructor takes a viewModel.
As you already referenced, this class has two generic types: T and WH. The latter does specify an upper bound SomeViewHolder which will only allow sub types of that upper bound to be used as the generic type WH.
Since your title goes:
Understanding generic parameters in an abstract class
the question at hand is: Would it be different (regarding the generic types) if SomeAdapter would not be abstract. The answer is: No.
In this particular example T can be Any? and WH can be any subclass of SomeAdapter or SomeAdapter itself (if SomeAdapter is not abstract).
The types of T and WH are fixed at compile time (see Type erasure).
So, you have to see generics like a variable for a type.
I was going through Kotlin reference document and then I saw this.
The class declaration consists of the class name, the class header
(specifying its type parameters, the primary constructor etc.) and the
class body, surrounded by curly braces. Both the header and the body
are optional; if the class has no body, curly braces can be omitted.
class Empty
Now I'm wondering what is the use of such class declaration without header and body
Empty classes can be useful to represent state along with other classes, especially when part of a sealed class. Eg.
sealed class MyState {
class Empty : MyState()
class Loading : MyState()
data class Content(content: String) : MyState()
data class Error(error: Throwable) : MyState()
}
In this way you can think of them like java enum entries with more flexibility.
tldr: they want to demonstrate it's possible
even an empty class is of type Any and therefore has certain methods automatically. I think in most cases, this does not make sense, but in the documentation case it's used to show the simplest possible definition of a class.
The Java equivalent would be:
public final class Empty {
}
From practical programmer day to day perspective empty class makes no much sense indeed. There are however cases where this behavior is desirable.
There are scenarios where we want to make sure that we want to define a class and at the same time, we want to make sure that instance of this class will never be created (type created from such class is called empty type or uninhabited type).
Perfect example of this is Kotlin Nothing class with do not have class declaration header and body (notice that it also have private constructor)
https://github.com/JetBrains/kotlin/blob/master/core/builtins/native/kotlin/Nothing.kt
There are few usages for Nothing in Kotlin language. One of them would be a function that does not return a value (do not confuse this with Unit where the function returns actually returns a value of type Unit). A typical example is an assertFail method used for testing or method that exits current process. Both methods will never actually return any value yet we need to explicitly say tell it to a compiler using special type (Nothing).
fun assertFail():Nothing {
throw Exception()
}
Nothing can be also used with start projections where type Function<*, String> can be in-projected to Function<in Nothing, String>
Another usage for empty class is type token or placeholder:
class DatabaseColumnName
class DatabaseTableName
addItem(DatabaseColumnName.javaClass, "Age")
addItem(DatabaseTableName.javaClass, "Person")
...
getItemsByType(DatabaseTableName.javaClass)
Some languages are using empty classes for metaprogramming although I haven't explored this part personally:
Advantages of an empty class in C++
An example of empty class usage from Spring Boot framework:
#SpringBootApplication
class FooApplication
fun main(args: Array<String>) {
runApplication<FooApplication>(*args)
}
It doesn't make much sense as a final result. However it can be useful in active development and at a design time as a placeholder of some sort, which may be expanded in the future. Such terse syntax allows you to quickly define such new types as needed. Something like:
class Person (
val FirstName: String,
val LastName: String,
// TODO
val Address: Address
)
class Address
I think main reason this is specifically mentioned in documentation is to demonstrate, that language syntax in general can be terse, not that it is specifically created for common usage.
Sealed classes, in a sense, an extension of enum classes: the set of values for an enum type is also restricted, but each enum constant exists only as a single instance, whereas a subclass of a sealed class can have multiple instances which can contain state.
reference