I'm relatively new to Kotlin, however I studied Java before this. One thing I don't understand very well is calling a method/function from a class in another class.
Currently I have:
Class Commands(){
fun cmdInit(){
//code in here
}
}
Class Main(){
Commands.cmdInit() //This is how I would usually do it in java, however there is no static referencing in Kotlin, and I dont understand Object Declaration very well
}
Thanks in advance for helping. :D
If you want to acess it like a static method in Java, you can create a companion object. You just have to change your Commands class to this:
class Commands {
companion object {
fun cmdInit(){
//code in here
}
}
}
for more info: https://kotlinlang.org/docs/object-declarations.html#companion-objects
Related
I'm implementing a library using KMM(Kotlin Multiplatform). And to create an instance of a class I used a static method. However, a static method's not accessible in iOS project. How can I implement it cleanly.
expect class Verifier{
companion object{
fun getInstance():Verifier
}
}
// actual implementations
actual class Verifier{
actual companion object{
actual fun getInstance():Verifier{
/// make an instance and return
}
}
}
And I would like to get an instance of Verifier class as the following:
// calling in swift
Verifier.getInstance()
// calling in kotlin
Verifier.getInstance()
Is it possible to access as above and implement static methods in a shared module.
Thank you!
If I have an interface, is there any easy way I can declare a function to make it a public member, but non-overridable? Meaning, it would be exclusively callable and could not be set or overridden by its descendants
interface IFoo {
fun ExecuteOnly(){
// Do Something
}
}
I read a book recently by CommonsWare where this situation was described.
and I quote it from there:
"... As a result, anything in an interface hierarchy is permanently open , until you start
implementing the interfaces in classes. If that is a problem — if you have some
function that you really want to mark as final — use abstract classes, not interfaces..."
You can define an extension function on the interface.
fun IFoo.executeOnly() {
}
It will still be possible for someone to define a member function with that name in a class implementing IFoo but the intention is quite clear. And anyway when using an object via a IFoo reference the IFoo extension will be chosen.
No, you cannot. That's not how Kotlin's interface is implemented.
You can use an abstract class instead
abstract class Foo {
fun executeOnly(){
// Do Something
}
}
Ofcourse You Can... Actually there is not much difference bw kotlin interfaces and abstract classes... simply add a body and a private modifier..
interface MyInterface {
fun triggerTakeMe(){
takeMe()
}
private fun takeMe(){
println("Taken")
}
}
class MyClass : MyInterface
fun main() {
val obj = MyClass()
obj.triggerTakeMe()
}
I'm a newbie in Kotlin. I want to ask what private constructor in Kotlin for? class DontCreateMe private constructor () { /*...*/ }. I mean what class is supposed to be if we can't create its instance?
Well, the answers in the comments are correct, but since nobody wrote a full answer. I'm going to have a go at it.
Having a private constructor does not necessarily mean that an object cannot be used by external code. It just means that the external code cannot directly use its constructors, so it has to get the instances through an exposed API in the class scope. Since this API is in the class scope, it has access to the private constructor.
The simplest example would be:
class ShyPerson private constructor() {
companion object {
fun goToParty() : ShyPerson {
return ShyPerson()
}
}
}
fun main(args: String) {
// outside code is not directly using the constructor
val person = ShyPerson.goToParty()
// Just so you can see that you have an instance allocated in memory
println(person)
}
The most common use case for this that I've seen is to implement the Singleton pattern, as stated by Mojtaba Haddadi, where the external code can only get access to one instance of the class.
A simple implementation would be:
class Unity private constructor() {
companion object {
private var INSTANCE : Unity? = null
// Note that the reason why I've returned nullable type here is
// because kotlin cannot smart-cast to a non-null type when dealing
// with mutable values (var), because it could have been set to null
// by another thread.
fun instance() : Unity? {
if (INSTANCE == null) {
INSTANCE = Unity()
}
return INSTANCE
}
}
}
fun main(args: Array<String>) {
val instance = Unity.instance()
println(instance)
}
This is often used so that classes that are resource consuming are only instantiated once or so that certain pieces of data are shared by the entire codebase.
Be aware that kotlin uses the object keyword to implement this pattern, with the advantage of being thread-safe. Also some developers consider Singletons to be an anti-pattern
Another use case for private constructors would be to implement Builder patterns, where classes that have complex initialization can be abstracted into a simpler API, so the user doesn't have to deal with clunky constructors. This other answer addresses its uses in kotlin.
One of the simplest uses in real life kotlin code that I've seen is on the Result implementation from the stdlib, where it's being used to change the internal representation of the object.
If I have code like this
object ObjectTest {
#JvmStatic
fun init() {
}
}
is it possible to hide the ObjectTest.INSTANCE variable that Kotlin automatically generates? I don't want the object to be accessible via an instance and nor will it have any instance methods, so the INSTANCE variable is just polluting autocomplete and could be confusing to potential users (This code is for a library that will be consumed by others).
Yes, you can do it, by converting an object into a plain file.
#file:JvmName("ObjectTest")
// maybe a package statement here
fun init() {
// here `init` is public static final void
}
And there's no INSTANCE object. In Kotlin this is a top-level function, but in Java it's a class named ObjectTest with a private constructor and it has a public static final void method called init.
Is it possible to add a new static method to the java.lang.Math class in Kotlin? Usually, such things are possible in Kotlin thanks to Kotlin Extensions.
I already tried doing the following in a file I made called Extensions.kt:
fun Math.Companion.clamp(value:Double,minValue:Double,maxValue:Double):Double
{
return Math.max(Math.min(value,maxValue),minValue)
}
but Math.Companion could not be resolved...
As of Kotlin 1.3, this is not possible. However, it's being considered for a future release!
To help this feature get implemented, go vote on this issue: https://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/KT-11968
Because all proposals are basically in limbo right now, I wouldn't hold my breath that this will get in any time soon
I think this is not possible. Documentation says the following:
If a class has a companion object defined, you can also define extension functions and properties for the companion object.
The Math class is a Java class, not a Kotlin one and does not have a companion object in it. You can add a clamp method to the Double class instead.
As of Kotlin 1.2 it is still not possible.
As a workaround, to statically "extend" Environment class I am currently using:
Class EnvironmentExtensions {
companion object {
#JvmStatic
fun getSomething(): File {
...
return Environment.something()
}
}
}
It is not an ideal solution but IntelliJ/Android Studio code completion helps with the usage:
val something = EnvironmentExtensions.getSomething()