I want to add an ActionListener to a JButton in Kotlin. In Java, I would just write this:
JPanel makeButtonPanel() {
JPanel panel = new JPanel(new FlowLayout());
JButton dirButton = new JButton("Change directory");
dirButton.addActionListener(e -> chooseDirectory());
panel.add(dirButton)
return panel;
}
But it's not so simple in Kotlin. I first tried this:
private fun makeButtonPanel() : JPanel {
val panel = JPanel(FlowLayout())
val dirButton = JButton("Choose")
dirButton.addActionListener(e -> chooseDirectory()) // error message here
// ...
}
private fun chooseDirectory() { ... }
But I'm getting this error message:
Type Mismatch
Required: ((ActionEvent!) -> Unit)!
Found: KFunction1<ActionEvent, Unit>
I understand that the ! means that this is a java method with uncertain nullability, but that doesn't help me understand how to write it. All I want it to do is call the chooseDirectory() method. There must be a clean, simple way to do this, but I don't see it.
As you've discovered, you need to use braces ({ }).
This is because braces are a necessary part of defining a lambda in Kotlin. (That differs from languages like Java and Scala, where the necessary part is the -> or => arrow. That's because in Kotlin the arrow is optional if there are one or no parameters; if one, the it keyword is used.)
Without the braces, the code would call your chooseDirectory() function, and try to pass its result to addActionListener() — which obviously wouldn't work.
Braces are also sufficient: they're taken as defining a lambda unless you're giving the body of a function or method or an if/when branch. (Again, this differs from most C/Java-like languages. In Kotlin, if you just want a block scope, you have to use a construct such as run.)
As for the parentheses, they're optional here. You could include them if you wanted:
dirButton.addActionListener({ chooseDirectory() })
But Kotlin has a convention that if a function's last parameter is a function, you can pass it after the parens:
dirButton.addActionListener(){ chooseDirectory() }
And if that would make the parens empty, then you can omit them entirely:
dirButton.addActionListener{ chooseDirectory() }
That's to allow functions that look like new language syntax. For example, you may have met the with function:
with(someObject) {
itsProperty = someValue
}
That's just a perfectly ordinary function, defined in the standard library, and taking a function as its last parameter. Similarly, repeat:
repeat(10) {
// Some code to be run 10 times…
}
There's one further thing worth mentioning here. In Kotlin, lambdas are one way to define functions, which are first-class types and can be defined, passed around, and used just like other types. This differs from Java, which has traditionally used interfaces for those purposes — often interfaces with a Single Abstract Method (‘SAM interfaces’) — and in which lambdas are little more than syntactic sugar for defining an anonymous implementation of such an interface.
As a special case, for interoperability, Kotlin allows a lambda to define an implementation of a Java SAM interface (or, since Kotlin 1.4, of a Kotlin fun interface), instead of a function.
ActionListener is a Java SAM interface, which is why you can use a lambda here.
Okay, I figured it out, and it was pretty simple. I just have to dispense with the parentheses and say
dirButton.addActionListener { chooseDirectory() }
I'm still not clear on when I should use braces instead of parentheses.
Related
How is it related to extension functions? Why is with a function, not a keyword?
There appears to be no explicit documentation for this topic, only the assumption of knowledge in reference to extensions.
It is true that there appears to be little existing documentation for the concept of receivers (only a small side note related to extension functions), which is surprising given:
their existence springing out of extension functions;
their role in building a DSL using said extension functions;
the existence of a standard library function with, which given no knowledge of receivers might look like a keyword;
a completely separate syntax for function types.
All these topics have documentation, but nothing goes in-depth on receivers.
First:
What's a receiver?
Any block of code in Kotlin may have a type (or even multiple types) as a receiver, making functions and properties of the receiver available in that block of code without qualifying it.
Imagine a block of code like this:
{ toLong() }
Doesn't make much sense, right? In fact, assigning this to a function type of (Int) -> Long - where Int is the (only) parameter, and the return type is Long - would rightfully result in a compilation error. You can fix this by simply qualifying the function call with the implicit single parameter it. However, for DSL building, this will cause a bunch of issues:
Nested blocks of DSL will have their upper layers shadowed:
html { it.body { // how to access extensions of html here? } ... }
This may not cause issues for a HTML DSL, but may for other use cases.
It can litter the code with it calls, especially for lambdas that use their parameter (soon to be receiver) a lot.
This is where receivers come into play.
By assigning this block of code to a function type that has Int as a receiver (not as a parameter!), the code suddenly compiles:
val intToLong: Int.() -> Long = { toLong() }
Whats going on here?
A little side note
This topic assumes familiarity with function types, but a little side note for receivers is needed.
Function types can also have one receiver, by prefixing it with the type and a dot. Examples:
Int.() -> Long // taking an integer as receiver producing a long
String.(Long) -> String // taking a string as receiver and long as parameter producing a string
GUI.() -> Unit // taking an GUI and producing nothing
Such function types have their parameter list prefixed with the receiver type.
Resolving code with receivers
It is actually incredibly easy to understand how blocks of code with receivers are handled:
Imagine that, similar to extension functions, the block of code is evaluated inside the class of the receiver type. this effectively becomes amended by the receiver type.
For our earlier example, val intToLong: Int.() -> Long = { toLong() } , it effectively results in the block of code being evaluated in a different context, as if it was placed in a function inside Int. Here's a different example using handcrafted types that showcases this better:
class Bar
class Foo {
fun transformToBar(): Bar = TODO()
}
val myBlockOfCodeWithReceiverFoo: (Foo).() -> Bar = { transformToBar() }
effectively becomes (in the mind, not code wise - you cannot actually extend classes on the JVM):
class Bar
class Foo {
fun transformToBar(): Bar = TODO()
fun myBlockOfCode(): Bar { return transformToBar() }
}
val myBlockOfCodeWithReceiverFoo: (Foo) -> Bar = { it.myBlockOfCode() }
Notice how inside of a class, we don't need to use this to access transformToBar - the same thing happens in a block with a receiver.
It just so happens that the documentation on this also explains how to use an outermost receiver if the current block of code has two receivers, via a qualified this.
Wait, multiple receivers?
Yes. A block of code can have multiple receivers, but this currently has no expression in the type system. The only way to achieve this is via multiple higher-order functions that take a single receiver function type. Example:
class Foo
class Bar
fun Foo.functionInFoo(): Unit = TODO()
fun Bar.functionInBar(): Unit = TODO()
inline fun higherOrderFunctionTakingFoo(body: (Foo).() -> Unit) = body(Foo())
inline fun higherOrderFunctionTakingBar(body: (Bar).() -> Unit) = body(Bar())
fun example() {
higherOrderFunctionTakingFoo {
higherOrderFunctionTakingBar {
functionInFoo()
functionInBar()
}
}
}
Do note that if this feature of the Kotlin language seems inappropriate for your DSL, #DslMarker is your friend!
Conclusion
Why does all of this matter? With this knowledge:
you now understand why you can write toLong() in an extension function on a number, instead of having to reference the number somehow. Maybe your extension function shouldn't be an extension?
You can build a DSL for your favorite markup language, maybe help parsing the one or other (who needs regular expressions?!).
You understand why with, a standard library function and not a keyword, exists - the act of amending the scope of a block of code to save on redundant typing is so common, the language designers put it right in the standard library.
(maybe) you learned a bit about function types on the offshoot.
When you call:
"Hello, World!".length()
the string "Hello, World!" whose length you're trying to get is called the receiver.
More generally, any time you write someObject.someFunction(), with a . between the object and the function name, the object is acting as the receiver for the function. This isn't special to Kotlin, and is common to many programming languages that use objects. So the concept of a receiver is likely very familiar to you, even if you haven't heard the term before.
It's called a receiver because you can think of the function call as sending a request which the object will receive.
Not all functions have a receiver. For example, Kotlin's println() function is a top-level function. When you write:
println("Hello, World!")
you don't have to put any object (or .) before the function call. There's no receiver because the println() function doesn't live inside an object.
On the receiving end
Now let's look at what a function call looks like from the point of view of the receiver itself. Imagine we've written a class that displays a simple greeting message:
class Greeter(val name: String) {
fun displayGreeting() {
println("Hello, ${this.name}!")
}
}
To call displayGreeting(), we first create an instance of Greeter, then we can use that object as a receiver to call the function:
val aliceGreeter = Greeter("Alice")
val bobGreeter = Greeter("Bob")
aliceGreeter.displayGreeting() // prints "Hello, Alice!"
bobGreeter.displayGreeting() // prints "Hello, Bob!"
How does the displayGreeting function know which name to display each time? The answer is the keyword this, which always refers to the current receiver.
When we call aliceGreeter.displayGreeting(), the receiver is aliceGreeter, so this.name points to "Alice".
When we call bobGreeter.displayGreeting(), the receiver is bobGreeter, so this.name points to "Bob".
Implicit receivers
Most of the time, there's actually no need to write this. We can replace this.name with just name and it will implicitly point to the name property of the current receiver.
class Greeter(val name: String) {
fun displayGreeting() {
println("Hello, $name!")
}
}
Notice how that differs from accessing a property from outside the class. To print the name from outside, we'd have to write out the full name of the receiver:
println("Hello, ${aliceGreeter.name}")
By writing the function inside the class, we can omit the receiver completely, making the whole thing much shorter. The call to name still has a receiver, we just didn't have to write it out. We can say that we accessed the name property using an implicit receiver.
Member functions of a class often need to access many other functions and properties of their own class, so implicit receivers are very useful. They shorten the code and can make it easier to read and write.
How do receivers relate to extensions?
So far, it seems like a receiver is doing two things for us:
Sending a function call to a specific object, because the function lives inside that object
Allowing a function convenient and and concise access to the other properties and functions that live inside the same object
What if we want to write a function that can use an implicit receiver for convenient access to the properties and functions of an object, but we don't want to (or can't) write our new function inside that object/class? This is where Kotlin's extension functions come in.
fun Greeter.displayAnotherGreeting() {
println("Hello again, $name!")
}
This function doesn't live inside Greeter, but it accesses Greeter as if it was a receiver. Notice the receiver type before the function name, which tells us that this is an extension function. In the body of the extension function, we can once again access name without its receiver, even though we're not actually inside the Greeter class.
You could say that this isn't a "real" receiver, because we're not actually sending the function call to an object. The function lives outside the object. We're just using the syntax and appearance of a receiver because it makes for convenient and concise code. We can call this an extension receiver, to distinguish it from the dispatch receiver that exists for functions that are really inside an object.
Extension functions are called in the same way as member functions, with a receiver object before the function name.
val aliceGreeter = Greeter("Alice")
aliceGreeter.displayAnotherGreeting() // prints "Hello again, Alice!"
Because the function is always called with an object in the receiver position before the function name, it can access that object using the keyword this. Like a member function, an extension function can also leave out this and access the receiver's other properties and functions using the current receiver instance as the implicit receiver.
One of the main reasons extension functions are useful is that the current extension receiver instance can be used as an implicit receiver inside the body of the function.
What does with do?
So far we've seen two ways to make something available as an implicit receiver:
Create a function inside the receiver class
Create an extension function outside the class
Both approaches require creating a function. Can we have the convenience of an implicit receiver without declaring a new function at all?
The answer is to call with:
with(aliceGreeter) {
println("Hello again, $name!")
}
Inside the block body of the call to with(aliceGreeter) { ... }, aliceGreeter is available as an implicit receiver and we can once again access name without its receiver.
So how come with can be implemented as a function, rather than a language feature? How is it possible to simply take an object and magic it into an implicit receiver?
The answer lies with lambda functions. Let's consider our displayAnotherGreeting extension function again. We declared it as a function, but we could instead write it as a lambda:
val displayAnotherGreeting: Greeter.() -> Unit = {
println("Hello again, $name!")
}
We can still call aliceGreeter.displayAnotherGreeting() the same as before, and the code inside the function is the same, complete with implicit receiver. Our extension function has become a lambda with receiver. Note the way the Greeter.() -> Unit function type is written, with the extension receiver Greeter listed before the (empty) parameter list ().
Now, watch what happens when we pass this lambda function as an argument to another function:
fun runLambda(greeter: Greeter, lambda: Greeter.() -> Unit) {
greeter.lambda()
}
The first argument is the object that we want to use as the receiver. The second argument is the lambda function we want to run. All runLambda does is to call the provided lambda parameter, using the greeter parameter as the lambda's receiver.
Substituting the code from our displayAnotherGreeting lambda function into the second argument, we can call runLambda like this:
runLambda(aliceGreeter) {
println("Hello again, $name!")
}
And just like that, we've turned aliceGreeter into an implicit receiver. Kotlin's with function is simply a generic version of this that works with any type.
Recap
When you call someObject.someFunction(), someObject is acting as the receiver that receives the function call
Inside someFunction, someObject is "in scope" as the current receiver instance, and can be accessed as this
When a receiver is in scope, you can leave out the word this and access its properties and functions using an implicit receiver
Extension functions let you benefit from the receiver syntax and implicit receivers without actually dispatching a function call to an object
Kotlin's with function uses a lambda with receiver to make receivers available anywhere, not just inside member functions and extension functions
Kotlin knows the concept of a function literals with receiver. It enables access on visible methods and properties of a receiver of a lambda within its body without having to use any additional qualifier. That's very similar to extension functions in which you can as well access members of the receiver object inside the extension.
A simple example, also one of the greatest functions in the Kotlin standard library, is apply:
public inline fun <T> T.apply(block: T.() -> Unit): T {
block()
return this
}
Here, block is a function literal with receiver. This block parameter is executed by the function and the receiver of apply, T, is returned to the caller. In action this looks as follows:
val foo: Bar = Bar().apply {
color = RED
text = "Foo"
}
We instantiate an object of Bar and call apply on it. The instance of Bar becomes the receiver of apply. The block, passed as an argument in curly brackets does not need to use additional qualifiers to access and modify the properties color and text.
The concept of lambdas with receiver is also the most important feature for writing DSLs with Kotlin.
var greet: String.() -> Unit = { println("Hello $this") }
this defines a variable of type String.() -> Unit, which tells you
String is the receiver
() -> Unit is the function type
Like F. George mentioned above, all methods of this receiver can be called in the method body.
So, in our example, this is used to print the String. The function can be invoked by writing...
greet("Fitzgerald") // result is "Hello Fitzgerald"
the above code snippet was taken from Kotlin Function Literals with Receiver – Quick Introduction by Simon Wirtz.
Simply put ( without any extra words or complications) , the "Receiver" is the type being extended in the extension function or the class name. Using the examples given in answers above
fun Foo.functionInFoo(): Unit = TODO()
Type "Foo" is the "Receiver"
var greet: String.() -> Unit = { println("Hello $this") }
Type "String" is the "Receiver"
Additional tip: Look out for the Class before the fullstop(.) in the "fun" (function) declaration
fun receiver_class.function_name() {
//...
}
Simply put:
the receiver type is the type an extension function extends
the receiver object is the object an extension function is called on; the this keyword inside the function body corresponds to the receiver object
An extension function example:
// `Int` is the receiver type
// `this` is the receiver object
fun Int.squareDouble() = toLong() * this
// a receiver object `8` of type `Int` is passed to the `square` function
val result = 8.square()
A function literal example, which is pretty much the same:
// `Int` is the receiver type
// `this` is the receiver object
val square: Int.() -> Long = { toLong() * this }
// a receiver object `8` of type `Int` is passed to the `square` function
val result1 = 8.square()
val result2 = square(8) // this call is equal to the previous one
The object instance before the . is the receiver. This is in essence the "Scope" you will define this lambda within. This is all you need to know, really, because the functions and properties(varibles, companions e.t.c) you will be using in the lambda will be those provided within this scope.
class Music(){
var track:String=""
fun printTrack():Unit{
println(track)
}
}
//Music class is the receiver of this function, in other words, the lambda can be piled after a Music class just like its extension function Since Music is an instance, refer to it by 'this', refer to lambda parameters by 'it', like always
val track_name:Music.(String)->Unit={track=it;printTrack()}
/*Create an Instance of Music and immediately call its function received by the name 'track_name', and exclusively available to instances of this class*/
Music().track_name("Still Breathing")
//Output
Still Breathing
You define this variable with and all the parameters and return types it will have but among all the constructs defined, only the object instance can call the var, just like it would an extension function and supply to it its constructs, hence "receiving" it.
A receiver would hence be loosely defined as an object for which an extension function is defined using the idiomatic style of lambdas.
Typically in Java or Kotlin you have methods or functions with input parameters of type T. In Kotlin you can also have extension functions that receive a value of type T.
If you have a function that accepts a String parameter for example:
fun hasWhitespace(line: String): Boolean {
for (ch in line) if (ch.isWhitespace()) return true
return false
}
converting the parameter to a receiver (which you can do automatically with IntelliJ):
fun String.hasWhitespace(): Boolean {
for (ch in this) if (ch.isWhitespace()) return true
return false
}
we now have an extension function that receives a String and we can access the value with this
Code
import kotlin.reflect.full.*
class FooBar(val bar: String)
fun FooBar.baz(): Unit {println(this.bar)}
fun main(args: Array<String>) {
FooBar::class.declaredMemberExtensionFunctions.forEach {
println(it)
}
FooBar::class.memberExtensionFunctions.forEach {
println(it)
}
}
Output is empty
This is because declaredMemberExtensionFunctions only returns extension functions that are declared inside a class (as seen in the docs) and FooBar.baz() is a top level declaration (So it is not declared inside FooBar.
class FooBar(val bar: String) {
fun FooBar.baz(): Unit {
println(this.bar)
}
}
While I imagine this is not what you want, structuring the extension function like this would make your main method output lines.
TLDR: You aren't going to be able to do this. Because extension functions can be declared everywhere, you are limited in what the reflection system can do for you.
There is a thread on kotlinlang.org that covers this exact question and why it is not possible.
Essentially, Kotlin's declaredMemberExtensionFunctions function is able to list extension functions which are declared as part of the class, not externally. The docs state:
Returns extension functions declared in this class.
And of course, memberExtensionFunctions behaves similarly:
Returns extension functions declared in this class and all of its superclasses.
Here's what #Yole says in that thread as to why this is not possible:
The task of finding all extension functions for Foo is equivalent to finding all methods which have Foo as the first parameter. Neither of these is possible without accessing every single class in your application through reflection.
#Yole is on here, he might be able to provide a more authoritative answer for you.
How is it related to extension functions? Why is with a function, not a keyword?
There appears to be no explicit documentation for this topic, only the assumption of knowledge in reference to extensions.
It is true that there appears to be little existing documentation for the concept of receivers (only a small side note related to extension functions), which is surprising given:
their existence springing out of extension functions;
their role in building a DSL using said extension functions;
the existence of a standard library function with, which given no knowledge of receivers might look like a keyword;
a completely separate syntax for function types.
All these topics have documentation, but nothing goes in-depth on receivers.
First:
What's a receiver?
Any block of code in Kotlin may have a type (or even multiple types) as a receiver, making functions and properties of the receiver available in that block of code without qualifying it.
Imagine a block of code like this:
{ toLong() }
Doesn't make much sense, right? In fact, assigning this to a function type of (Int) -> Long - where Int is the (only) parameter, and the return type is Long - would rightfully result in a compilation error. You can fix this by simply qualifying the function call with the implicit single parameter it. However, for DSL building, this will cause a bunch of issues:
Nested blocks of DSL will have their upper layers shadowed:
html { it.body { // how to access extensions of html here? } ... }
This may not cause issues for a HTML DSL, but may for other use cases.
It can litter the code with it calls, especially for lambdas that use their parameter (soon to be receiver) a lot.
This is where receivers come into play.
By assigning this block of code to a function type that has Int as a receiver (not as a parameter!), the code suddenly compiles:
val intToLong: Int.() -> Long = { toLong() }
Whats going on here?
A little side note
This topic assumes familiarity with function types, but a little side note for receivers is needed.
Function types can also have one receiver, by prefixing it with the type and a dot. Examples:
Int.() -> Long // taking an integer as receiver producing a long
String.(Long) -> String // taking a string as receiver and long as parameter producing a string
GUI.() -> Unit // taking an GUI and producing nothing
Such function types have their parameter list prefixed with the receiver type.
Resolving code with receivers
It is actually incredibly easy to understand how blocks of code with receivers are handled:
Imagine that, similar to extension functions, the block of code is evaluated inside the class of the receiver type. this effectively becomes amended by the receiver type.
For our earlier example, val intToLong: Int.() -> Long = { toLong() } , it effectively results in the block of code being evaluated in a different context, as if it was placed in a function inside Int. Here's a different example using handcrafted types that showcases this better:
class Bar
class Foo {
fun transformToBar(): Bar = TODO()
}
val myBlockOfCodeWithReceiverFoo: (Foo).() -> Bar = { transformToBar() }
effectively becomes (in the mind, not code wise - you cannot actually extend classes on the JVM):
class Bar
class Foo {
fun transformToBar(): Bar = TODO()
fun myBlockOfCode(): Bar { return transformToBar() }
}
val myBlockOfCodeWithReceiverFoo: (Foo) -> Bar = { it.myBlockOfCode() }
Notice how inside of a class, we don't need to use this to access transformToBar - the same thing happens in a block with a receiver.
It just so happens that the documentation on this also explains how to use an outermost receiver if the current block of code has two receivers, via a qualified this.
Wait, multiple receivers?
Yes. A block of code can have multiple receivers, but this currently has no expression in the type system. The only way to achieve this is via multiple higher-order functions that take a single receiver function type. Example:
class Foo
class Bar
fun Foo.functionInFoo(): Unit = TODO()
fun Bar.functionInBar(): Unit = TODO()
inline fun higherOrderFunctionTakingFoo(body: (Foo).() -> Unit) = body(Foo())
inline fun higherOrderFunctionTakingBar(body: (Bar).() -> Unit) = body(Bar())
fun example() {
higherOrderFunctionTakingFoo {
higherOrderFunctionTakingBar {
functionInFoo()
functionInBar()
}
}
}
Do note that if this feature of the Kotlin language seems inappropriate for your DSL, #DslMarker is your friend!
Conclusion
Why does all of this matter? With this knowledge:
you now understand why you can write toLong() in an extension function on a number, instead of having to reference the number somehow. Maybe your extension function shouldn't be an extension?
You can build a DSL for your favorite markup language, maybe help parsing the one or other (who needs regular expressions?!).
You understand why with, a standard library function and not a keyword, exists - the act of amending the scope of a block of code to save on redundant typing is so common, the language designers put it right in the standard library.
(maybe) you learned a bit about function types on the offshoot.
When you call:
"Hello, World!".length()
the string "Hello, World!" whose length you're trying to get is called the receiver.
More generally, any time you write someObject.someFunction(), with a . between the object and the function name, the object is acting as the receiver for the function. This isn't special to Kotlin, and is common to many programming languages that use objects. So the concept of a receiver is likely very familiar to you, even if you haven't heard the term before.
It's called a receiver because you can think of the function call as sending a request which the object will receive.
Not all functions have a receiver. For example, Kotlin's println() function is a top-level function. When you write:
println("Hello, World!")
you don't have to put any object (or .) before the function call. There's no receiver because the println() function doesn't live inside an object.
On the receiving end
Now let's look at what a function call looks like from the point of view of the receiver itself. Imagine we've written a class that displays a simple greeting message:
class Greeter(val name: String) {
fun displayGreeting() {
println("Hello, ${this.name}!")
}
}
To call displayGreeting(), we first create an instance of Greeter, then we can use that object as a receiver to call the function:
val aliceGreeter = Greeter("Alice")
val bobGreeter = Greeter("Bob")
aliceGreeter.displayGreeting() // prints "Hello, Alice!"
bobGreeter.displayGreeting() // prints "Hello, Bob!"
How does the displayGreeting function know which name to display each time? The answer is the keyword this, which always refers to the current receiver.
When we call aliceGreeter.displayGreeting(), the receiver is aliceGreeter, so this.name points to "Alice".
When we call bobGreeter.displayGreeting(), the receiver is bobGreeter, so this.name points to "Bob".
Implicit receivers
Most of the time, there's actually no need to write this. We can replace this.name with just name and it will implicitly point to the name property of the current receiver.
class Greeter(val name: String) {
fun displayGreeting() {
println("Hello, $name!")
}
}
Notice how that differs from accessing a property from outside the class. To print the name from outside, we'd have to write out the full name of the receiver:
println("Hello, ${aliceGreeter.name}")
By writing the function inside the class, we can omit the receiver completely, making the whole thing much shorter. The call to name still has a receiver, we just didn't have to write it out. We can say that we accessed the name property using an implicit receiver.
Member functions of a class often need to access many other functions and properties of their own class, so implicit receivers are very useful. They shorten the code and can make it easier to read and write.
How do receivers relate to extensions?
So far, it seems like a receiver is doing two things for us:
Sending a function call to a specific object, because the function lives inside that object
Allowing a function convenient and and concise access to the other properties and functions that live inside the same object
What if we want to write a function that can use an implicit receiver for convenient access to the properties and functions of an object, but we don't want to (or can't) write our new function inside that object/class? This is where Kotlin's extension functions come in.
fun Greeter.displayAnotherGreeting() {
println("Hello again, $name!")
}
This function doesn't live inside Greeter, but it accesses Greeter as if it was a receiver. Notice the receiver type before the function name, which tells us that this is an extension function. In the body of the extension function, we can once again access name without its receiver, even though we're not actually inside the Greeter class.
You could say that this isn't a "real" receiver, because we're not actually sending the function call to an object. The function lives outside the object. We're just using the syntax and appearance of a receiver because it makes for convenient and concise code. We can call this an extension receiver, to distinguish it from the dispatch receiver that exists for functions that are really inside an object.
Extension functions are called in the same way as member functions, with a receiver object before the function name.
val aliceGreeter = Greeter("Alice")
aliceGreeter.displayAnotherGreeting() // prints "Hello again, Alice!"
Because the function is always called with an object in the receiver position before the function name, it can access that object using the keyword this. Like a member function, an extension function can also leave out this and access the receiver's other properties and functions using the current receiver instance as the implicit receiver.
One of the main reasons extension functions are useful is that the current extension receiver instance can be used as an implicit receiver inside the body of the function.
What does with do?
So far we've seen two ways to make something available as an implicit receiver:
Create a function inside the receiver class
Create an extension function outside the class
Both approaches require creating a function. Can we have the convenience of an implicit receiver without declaring a new function at all?
The answer is to call with:
with(aliceGreeter) {
println("Hello again, $name!")
}
Inside the block body of the call to with(aliceGreeter) { ... }, aliceGreeter is available as an implicit receiver and we can once again access name without its receiver.
So how come with can be implemented as a function, rather than a language feature? How is it possible to simply take an object and magic it into an implicit receiver?
The answer lies with lambda functions. Let's consider our displayAnotherGreeting extension function again. We declared it as a function, but we could instead write it as a lambda:
val displayAnotherGreeting: Greeter.() -> Unit = {
println("Hello again, $name!")
}
We can still call aliceGreeter.displayAnotherGreeting() the same as before, and the code inside the function is the same, complete with implicit receiver. Our extension function has become a lambda with receiver. Note the way the Greeter.() -> Unit function type is written, with the extension receiver Greeter listed before the (empty) parameter list ().
Now, watch what happens when we pass this lambda function as an argument to another function:
fun runLambda(greeter: Greeter, lambda: Greeter.() -> Unit) {
greeter.lambda()
}
The first argument is the object that we want to use as the receiver. The second argument is the lambda function we want to run. All runLambda does is to call the provided lambda parameter, using the greeter parameter as the lambda's receiver.
Substituting the code from our displayAnotherGreeting lambda function into the second argument, we can call runLambda like this:
runLambda(aliceGreeter) {
println("Hello again, $name!")
}
And just like that, we've turned aliceGreeter into an implicit receiver. Kotlin's with function is simply a generic version of this that works with any type.
Recap
When you call someObject.someFunction(), someObject is acting as the receiver that receives the function call
Inside someFunction, someObject is "in scope" as the current receiver instance, and can be accessed as this
When a receiver is in scope, you can leave out the word this and access its properties and functions using an implicit receiver
Extension functions let you benefit from the receiver syntax and implicit receivers without actually dispatching a function call to an object
Kotlin's with function uses a lambda with receiver to make receivers available anywhere, not just inside member functions and extension functions
Kotlin knows the concept of a function literals with receiver. It enables access on visible methods and properties of a receiver of a lambda within its body without having to use any additional qualifier. That's very similar to extension functions in which you can as well access members of the receiver object inside the extension.
A simple example, also one of the greatest functions in the Kotlin standard library, is apply:
public inline fun <T> T.apply(block: T.() -> Unit): T {
block()
return this
}
Here, block is a function literal with receiver. This block parameter is executed by the function and the receiver of apply, T, is returned to the caller. In action this looks as follows:
val foo: Bar = Bar().apply {
color = RED
text = "Foo"
}
We instantiate an object of Bar and call apply on it. The instance of Bar becomes the receiver of apply. The block, passed as an argument in curly brackets does not need to use additional qualifiers to access and modify the properties color and text.
The concept of lambdas with receiver is also the most important feature for writing DSLs with Kotlin.
var greet: String.() -> Unit = { println("Hello $this") }
this defines a variable of type String.() -> Unit, which tells you
String is the receiver
() -> Unit is the function type
Like F. George mentioned above, all methods of this receiver can be called in the method body.
So, in our example, this is used to print the String. The function can be invoked by writing...
greet("Fitzgerald") // result is "Hello Fitzgerald"
the above code snippet was taken from Kotlin Function Literals with Receiver – Quick Introduction by Simon Wirtz.
Simply put ( without any extra words or complications) , the "Receiver" is the type being extended in the extension function or the class name. Using the examples given in answers above
fun Foo.functionInFoo(): Unit = TODO()
Type "Foo" is the "Receiver"
var greet: String.() -> Unit = { println("Hello $this") }
Type "String" is the "Receiver"
Additional tip: Look out for the Class before the fullstop(.) in the "fun" (function) declaration
fun receiver_class.function_name() {
//...
}
Simply put:
the receiver type is the type an extension function extends
the receiver object is the object an extension function is called on; the this keyword inside the function body corresponds to the receiver object
An extension function example:
// `Int` is the receiver type
// `this` is the receiver object
fun Int.squareDouble() = toLong() * this
// a receiver object `8` of type `Int` is passed to the `square` function
val result = 8.square()
A function literal example, which is pretty much the same:
// `Int` is the receiver type
// `this` is the receiver object
val square: Int.() -> Long = { toLong() * this }
// a receiver object `8` of type `Int` is passed to the `square` function
val result1 = 8.square()
val result2 = square(8) // this call is equal to the previous one
The object instance before the . is the receiver. This is in essence the "Scope" you will define this lambda within. This is all you need to know, really, because the functions and properties(varibles, companions e.t.c) you will be using in the lambda will be those provided within this scope.
class Music(){
var track:String=""
fun printTrack():Unit{
println(track)
}
}
//Music class is the receiver of this function, in other words, the lambda can be piled after a Music class just like its extension function Since Music is an instance, refer to it by 'this', refer to lambda parameters by 'it', like always
val track_name:Music.(String)->Unit={track=it;printTrack()}
/*Create an Instance of Music and immediately call its function received by the name 'track_name', and exclusively available to instances of this class*/
Music().track_name("Still Breathing")
//Output
Still Breathing
You define this variable with and all the parameters and return types it will have but among all the constructs defined, only the object instance can call the var, just like it would an extension function and supply to it its constructs, hence "receiving" it.
A receiver would hence be loosely defined as an object for which an extension function is defined using the idiomatic style of lambdas.
Typically in Java or Kotlin you have methods or functions with input parameters of type T. In Kotlin you can also have extension functions that receive a value of type T.
If you have a function that accepts a String parameter for example:
fun hasWhitespace(line: String): Boolean {
for (ch in line) if (ch.isWhitespace()) return true
return false
}
converting the parameter to a receiver (which you can do automatically with IntelliJ):
fun String.hasWhitespace(): Boolean {
for (ch in this) if (ch.isWhitespace()) return true
return false
}
we now have an extension function that receives a String and we can access the value with this
Why does Kotlin removed the final or val function parameter which is very useful in Java?
fun say(val msg: String = "Hello World") {
msg = "Hello To Me" // would give an error here since msg is val
//or final
...
...
...
}
Kotlin function parameters are final. There is no val or final keyword because that's the default (and can't be changed).
After Kotlin M5.1 support of mutable parameters removed, In earlier versions that can be achieve using
fun foo(var x: Int) {
x = 5
}
According to Kotlin developers, main reasons of removing this feature are below -
The main reason is that this was confusing: people tend to think that this means passing a parameter by reference, which we do not support (it is costly at runtime).
Another source of confusion is primary constructors: “val” or “var” in a constructor declaration means something different from the same thing if a function declarations (namely, it creates a property).
Also, we all know that mutating parameters is no good style, so writing “val” or “var” infront of a parameter in a function, catch block of for-loop is no longer allowed.
Summary - All parameter values are val now. You have to introduce separate variable for re-initialising. Example -
fun say(val msg: String) {
var tempMsg = msg
if(yourConditionSatisfy) {
tempMsg = "Hello To Me"
}
}
And another reason is that val and var differ by only one letter. This can be very confusing. So for function parameters they removed the option completely. Thus eliminating the confusion in this one small area (yet keeping it everywhere else--go figure).
This decision was made to avoid fragile base class problem. It happens when a small change in base classes (superclasses) makes subclasses malfunction.
Kotlin allows to name a function same as an existing class, e.g. HashSet with initializer function could be implemented like this:
fun <T> HashSet(n : Int, fn: (Int) -> T) = HashSet<T>(n).apply {
repeat(n) {
add(fn(it))
}
}
When used, it looks like a normal HashSet constructor:
var real = HashSet<String>()
var fake = HashSet(5) { "Element $it" }
Should this be avoided or encouraged and why?
UPD
In the updated coding conventions, there's a section on this topic:
Factory functions
If you declare a factory function for a class, avoid giving it the same name as the class itself. Prefer using a distinct name making it clear why the behavior of the factory function is special. Only if there is really no special semantics, you can use the same name as the class.
Example:
class Point(val x: Double, val y: Double) {
companion object {
fun fromPolar(angle: Double, radius: Double) = Point(...)
}
}
The motivation I described below, though, seems to still hold.
As said in documentation about the naming style:
If in doubt default to the Java Coding Conventions such as:
methods and properties start with lower case
One strong reason to avoid naming a function same to a class is that it might confuse a developer who will use it later, because, contrary to their expectations:
the function won't be available for super constructor call (if the class is open)
it won't be visible as a constructor through reflection
it won't be usable as a constructor in Java code (new HashSet(n, it -> "Element " + it) is an error)
if you want to change the implementation later and return some subclass instance instead, it will get even more confusing that HashSet(n) { "Element $it" } will construct not a HashSet but, for example, a LinkedHashSet
It's better to show it explicitly that it's a factory function, not a constructor, to avoid this confusion.
Naming a function same to a class is generally avoided in stdlib, too. Given SomeClass, in stdlib a preferred naming style for factory functions is someClassOf, someClassBy or whatever explains the semantics of the function best. The examples:
generateSequence { ... } and sequenceOf(...)
lazy { ... } and lazyOf(...)
compareBy { ... }
listOf(...), setOf(...), mapOf(...)
So, one should definitely have strong reason to have a function mimic a constructor.
Instead, a function's name might tell a user more (even everything) about its usage.
I agree with +hotkey. It's probably best to avoid confusion in this case.
If it's only used internally and all the other devs (if any) are okay with it, though, I'd say to go for it. Python acknowledges that idea and I love it. Heck, they go both ways, being okay with you naming a class in function case, too, if it feels more like it's acting like a function. But, Python doesn't have to deal with Java interop, so definitely don't do it for public code.