For String.strip() I get warning 'strip(): String!' is deprecated. This member is not fully supported by Kotlin compiler, so it may be absent or have different signature in next major version"
Why is it? "strip" comes from Java String
What should I use?
First of all: String.strip() is a new function in Java 11. Kotlin targets JVM 6 by default, so I was unable to reproduce your issue at first, I got a compilation error. Using JVM 11 as target in Android Studio worked with your compiler warning.
Kotlin's string class (kotlin.String) is not the same as Java's string class (java.lang.String). The Kotlin type is however mapped to the Java type (quote):
Kotlin types such as List, MutableList, String, CharSequence etc. are all compiled to their java equivalents, and thus any runtime checks will not be able to distinguish between them. At compile-time, however, they are distinct types with different sets of members. In particular, the Kotlin types do not have all members that the corresponding Java types have. They have those listed in the Kotlin std lib reference, as well as a few extra JVM specific ones (such as Collection.stream())
kotlin.String does not have a .strip() function. You are just "incidentally" calling java.lang.String.strip() which happens to be there in some target JVMs but not defined in Kotlin. If you look at the kotlin.String source in your IDE you can see it is not defined there.
The reason it is not there is because it was explicitly graylisted by the Kotlin team:
Some methods in JDK classes are undesirable in Kotlin built-ins (e.g. a lot of String methods or List.sort(), because there are Kotlin analogues with better signatures already defined).
.strip() does the same thing as kotlin.String.trim(), so use that instead.
Extended Reading
Extended Reading 2
The commit which put .strip() on the graylist
Related
My MPP library has android and jvm build: kotlin { android(); jvm { /*...*/ } }.
I've written a function that takes kotlinx.datetime.DayOfWeek and kotlinx.datetime.Month as parameters, but then inside of commonTest, the parameter types are translated into JVM, resulting in a type mismatch:
The function I'm calling is pretty ordinary:
So you can see that within commonMain, the provided type is not yet seen as a jvm type.
Is this an issue with kotlinx.datetime? Is it not appropriate to include types from kotlinx.datetime in the api exposed by my common codebase? Is there a way to dissuade the gradle plugin and compiler from making any optimizations to commonMain, which change its type signatures?
I declared an inline class
#JvmInline
value class Creator<T>(val type: KClass<T>);
, and declared an interface
interface Itf {
fun <T> creator(type: KClass<T>): Creator<T>;
}
I want to implement this interface by generating the bytecode by asm(https://asm.ow2.io/ 1).
I found java method decompiled from bytecode is
public KClass<T> creator-9k1ZQyY();
The java method name is “creator-9k1ZQyY”. the suffix “-9k1ZQyY” is added by kotlin compiler and I know why kotlin compiler did it.
This suffix is very important for bytecode generator.
My question:
If the interface and inline class are stable, can kotlin compiler guarantee that suffix is stable too? Does that suffix have nothing to do with the version of kotlin-compiler?
The docs seem to suggest the mangling is stable:
functions using inline classes are mangled by adding some stable hashcode to the function name
As noted in the same doc, the mangling scheme has changed once with the version 1.4.30 of the Kotlin compiler, but I would consider it quite stable nonetheless. They even provided a flag to use the old scheme to generate binary compatible code, so I'm assuming it's not only unlikely to change again, but even if it does, it will surely be done with some way to keep compatibility.
Currently I am studying on KSP(Kotlin Symbol Processing), and I am curious about what does "Symbol" mean in KSP.
When it comes to comparing with KAPT, it says "To run Java annotation processors unmodified, KAPT compiles Kotlin code into Java stubs that retain information that Java annotation processors care about. To create these stubs, KAPT needs to resolve all symbols in the Kotlin program."
I don't know what does "all symbols in the Kotlin program" exactly mean?
I understand "symbols" as declarations of interfaces, classes, functions, properties, etc. It doesn't include the body or the code itself, only the API, items that are visible to others.
This term is not specific to Kotlin. I can't find any definition of "symbols" on Wikipedia, but for example native libraries also contain symbol tables.
In this specific context it means that KAPT has to create a full list of all such symbols in Kotlin code and generate their equivalents in Java, so annotation processors could work on them. This is pretty wasteful as we recreate Kotlin code structure in Java just to throw it away seconds later and replace with true compiled code.
This is a follow up question of this answer.
But when the application hasn’t used lambda expressions before¹, even
the framework for generating the lambda classes has to be loaded
(Oracle’s current implementation uses ASM under the hood). This is the
actual cause of the slowdown, loading and initialization of a dozen
internally used classes, not the lambda expression itself
Ok, Java uses ASM to generate the classes on runtime. I found this and if I understood correctly, it is basically saying that Kotlin lambdas are compiled to pre-existing anonymous classes being loaded at runtime (instead of generated).
If I'm correct, Kotlin lambdas aren't the same thing as Java and shouldn't have the same performance impact. Can someone confirm?
Of course, Kotlin has built-in support for inlining lambdas, where Java doesn't. So many lambdas in Kotlin code don't correspond to any objects at runtime at all.
But for those that can't be inlined, yes, according to https://medium.com/#christian.c.carroll/exploring-kotlin-lambda-bytecode-8c2d15afd490 the anonymous class translation seems to be always used. Unfortunately the post doesn't specify the Kotlin version (1.3.30 was the latest available at that time).
I would also consider this an implementation detail which could change depending on Kotlin version at least when jvmTarget is set to "1.8" or greater; so there is no substitute to actually checking your own bytecode.
I noticed that some functions for coroutines are marked with actual keyword.
From documentation:
actual denotes a platform-specific implementation in multiplatform
projects
As I understood from documentation actual keyword is used for multiplatform projects and should work in pair with expect keyword.
Something like this:
Common module:
package org.jetbrains.foo
expect class Foo(bar: String) {
fun frob()
}
fun main(args: Array<String>) {
Foo("Hello").frob()
}
Corresponding module:
package org.jetbrains.foo
actual class Foo actual constructor(val bar: String) {
actual fun frob() {
println("Frobbing the $bar")
}
}
That case is clear.
But in package kotlinx.coroutines.experimental I noticed that some functions like launch or withContext are marked as actual but there are no expect functions in package.
So what is the purpose of actual keyword without expect?
The kotlinx.coroutines library actually makes use of multiplatform projects since it supports both the JVM and JS compilation targets.
You can find the common module here, and the specific expect declarations for the functions you've mentioned here.
While the source code in the other answer helped, I found this page (linked off of the page #jim-andreas mentioned in the comments above) was much more helpful.
Specifically, this passage:
If you're developing a multiplatform application that needs to access platform-specific APIs that implement the required functionality (for example, generating a UUID), use the Kotlin mechanism of expected and actual declarations.
With this mechanism, a common source set defines an expected
declaration, and platform source sets must provide the actual
declaration that corresponds to the expected declaration. This works
for most Kotlin declarations, such as functions, classes, interfaces,
enumerations, properties, and annotations.
The compiler ensures that every declaration marked with the expect keyword in the common module has the corresponding declarations marked with the actual keyword in all platform modules. The IDE provides tools that help you create the missing actual declarations.
Again, for more information, you can visit this page.