I know that this will not work, since I tried it:
if $r ~~ BearingTrue || CompassAdj || CourseAdj { nextsame };
But - is there a neat, concise and legible way to do multiple Type smart matches on one line rather than have to expand to a given/when or if/else construct?
Have you tried :
if $r ~~ BearingTrue | CompassAdj | CourseAdj { nextsame };
This should give you an Any Junction that with then match OK.
This Answer is to let me address the comment from #jubilatious1 a bit more clearly.
I am working on a new raku module, see line 225 ish here Physics::Navigation
For illustrative purposes, the code now looks like this...
class BearingTrue { ...}
class BearingMag { ...}
sub err-msg { die "Can't mix BearingTrue and BearingMag for add/subtract!" }
class BearingTrue is Bearing is export {
multi method compass { <T> } #get compass
multi method compass( Str $_ ) { #set compass
die "BearingTrue compass must be <T>" unless $_ eq <T> }
method M { #coerce to BearingMag
my $nv = $.value + ( +$variation + +$deviation );
BearingMag.new( value => $nv, compass => <M> )
}
#| can't mix unless BearingMag
multi method add( BearingMag ) { err-msg }
multi method subtract( BearingMag ) { err-msg }
}
So I decided to recast the code to use multi-method add and subtract to check type matches to prevent a lost mariner from adding a magnetic bearing to a true one. I feel that this is cleaner even than Scimon's great answer, since in that instance, my method was accepting all child types of Bearing and then using an if statement to detect a type error.
You are welcome to go...
zef install https://github.com/p6steve/raku-Physics-Navigation.git
then follow the example at the top of bin/synopsis-navigation.raku to use the module and make the various classes available in your own code.
If you are just keen to see how the pieces fit then I suggest writing your own simple classes on similar lines and working through the examples in books such as ThinkRaku chapter 12. I recommend this for the clarity and level of information and it treats inheritance and roles equally.
I am confident that others will feel my code style is over-reliant on inheritance. I feel that since a magnetic-bearing is strictly a derived concept from a bearing-in-general that this is right for my code - but roles and composition is less restrictive and provides similar encapsulation with better maintainability.
Related
Yes, still going with this. My impression is that there's this powerful facility in Raku, which is not really easy to use, and there's so little documentation for that. I'd like to kind of mitigate that.
In this case, I'm trying to force attributes to be read-only by default, to make immutable classes. Here's my attempt:
my class MetamodelX::Frozen is Metamodel::ClassHOW {
method compose_attributes($the-obj, :$compiler_services) {
my $attribute-container = callsame;
my $new-container = Perl6::Metamodel::AttributeContainer.new(
:attributes($attribute-container.attributes),
:attribute_lookup($attribute-container.attribute_table),
:0attr_rw_by_default
);
$new-container.compose_attributes($the-obj, $compiler_services);
}
}
my package EXPORTHOW {
package DECLARE {
constant frozen = MetamodelX::Frozen;
}
}
I'm calling that from a main function that looks like this:
use Frozen;
frozen Foo {
has $.bar;
method gist() {
return "→ $!bar";
}
}
my $foo = Foo.new(:3bar);
say $foo.bar;
$foo.bar(33);
I'm trying to follow the source, that does not really give a lot of facilities to change attribute stuff, so there seems to be no other way that creating a new instance of the container. And that might fail in impredictable ways, and that's what it does:
Type check failed in binding to parameter '$the-obj'; expected Any but got Foo (Foo)
at /home/jmerelo/Code/raku/my-raku-examples/frozen.raku:7
Not clear if this is the first the-obj or the second one, but any way, some help is appreciated.
I have something that I can do easily in Perl, but not in Raku without fiddling around with flag variables. Here's the Perl code:
#!/usr/bin/perl
MAIN_BLOCK: {
foreach $item (1 2 3 4 5) {
$item == 6 and last MAIN_BLOCK;
}
print "No items matched!\n";
}
The relevant difference here is that Perl will allow you to use last to exit from any labelled block. Raku will only do this if the block is a loop.
Is there a good way to do this? I feel like there should be a phaser for this, but haven't figured out how to do it without flag variables, which seem like they should be avoidable.
Thanks,
Raku supports similar control flow with given blocks.
Here's a fairly literal translation (i.e., not necessarily idiomatic Raku) from the Perl code you posted:
given * {
for ^6 -> $item {
succeed if $item == 6;
}
default { print "No items matched!\n"; }
}
edit: Oh, and for a less-literally-translated/more-idiomatic-Raku solution, well, TIMTOWTDI but I might go with returning from an anonymous sub:
sub { for ^6 { return when 6 }
say "No items matched!" }()
(Of course, I suppose it's possible that the most Raku-ish way to solve do that doesn't involve any Raku syntax at all – but instead involves modifying one of Raku's braided languages to allow for loops to take an else block. But I'm not advising those sort of shenanigans!)
This question is a near-duplicate of Apply a proxy using traits. However, that question dealt with applying a proxy to an Attribute, and I would like to do the same thing for a Variable. From Jonathan's answer, I understand that I
need to arrange for the Proxy to be bound into the attribute, so that there's a Proxy there rather than a Scalar container that is usually created by class initialization logic.
However, I can't seem to bind successfully to a Variable:D, even at compile time. (Including with nqp::bind). I'd greatly appreciate any pointers in the correct direction.
(Ideally, I'd like to support using the variable/trait with assignment syntax. In a perfect world, I'd have syntax like:
my $thing is custom-proxy = 42;
And the result of that would be that $thing is containerized inside the Proxy, but not in a Scalar. But if that's not possible, I'd settle for getting it working with binding via :=.
[EDIT: building on the accepted answer below, it is possible to mostly do this with the following code:
multi trait_mod:<is>(Variable \v, :$tom) {
v.block.add_phaser(
'ENTER',
v.willdo(<-> $_ {
$_ = Proxy.new:
STORE => -> $, $v { say "store $v" },
FETCH => { say "fetch!"; 42}
}, 1))
}
This works for variables that are not initialized to a different value or for state variables on calls to the function other than the first.
You can always bind.
my $actual-thing = 42;
my $thing := Proxy.new(
FETCH => anon method fetch () {
say 'fetch';
$actual-thing
},
STORE => anon method store ($new) {
say 'store ',$new;
$actual-thing = $new
}
);
say $thing;
$thing = 5;
say $thing;
Which currently results in the following.
fetch
fetch
fetch
fetch
fetch
fetch
fetch
42
store 5
fetch
fetch
fetch
fetch
fetch
fetch
fetch
5
(The repeated FETCH calls are a known limitation.)
If you wanted to have syntax like
my $thing is custom-proxy = 42;
You would need to start with
multi trait_mod:<is> ( Variable:D \var, :$custom-proxy! ){
…
}
The problem is that currently doing it this way requires a lot of deep Rakudo/nqp knowledge that I do not possess.
For example the code behind my $var is default('value') looks a bit like this:
multi sub trait_mod:<is>(Variable:D $v, Mu :$default!) {
my $var := $v.var;
my $what := $var.VAR.WHAT;
my $descriptor;
{
$descriptor := nqp::getattr($var, $what.^mixin_base, '$!descriptor');
CATCH {
my $native = $v.native($what);
…
}
}
…
$descriptor.set_default(nqp::decont($default));
# make sure we start with the default if a scalar
$var = $default if nqp::istype($what, Scalar);
}
Why does that have $what.^mixin_base?
I have no idea.
Why isn't $!descriptor accessible something like $v.var.descriptor?
I have no idea.
How do we change $v.var.VAR from a Scalar to a Proxy?
I have no idea.
Is that last one doable? (From within a trait_mod:<is>)
I am fairly certain that the answer is yes.
My 2d[1]:
I'd settle for getting it working with binding via :=.
sub custom-proxy is rw { Proxy.new: FETCH => { 42 }, STORE => { ... } }
my $variable := custom-proxy;
say $variable; # 42
In a perfect world, I'd have syntax like:
my $thing is custom-proxy = 42;
Aiui, that's #Larry's intent.
But, as you presumably know, if a type (eg role custom-proxy { ... }) is applied using an is trait to a scalar variable (eg my $variable is custom-proxy) then the compiler emits a compile time error message (is trait on $-sigil variable not yet implemented).
I can't seem to bind successfully to a Variable:D, even at compile time
First, let's clarify what a Variable is, and what you would need to successfully bind to:
multi trait_mod:<is>(Variable \var, :$foo!) { say var.var.VAR.WHAT } # (Scalar)
my $variable is foo;
You might think you could bind to var. But the compiler is passing an lvalue, so you're not going to be able to alter it.
You might think you could bind to var.var, which is an attribute of a Variable. (I explain what a Variable is, and its var attribute, and why I had to write "varvarVAR!" in the above code, here.)
The SO you linked shows how to alter the value bound to an attribute in some object:
$a.set_build: -> \SELF, | {
$a.set_value: SELF, Proxy.new:
STORE => -> $, $val { say "store $val" },
FETCH => { say "fetch!"; 42 }
}
So perhaps you could use that approach to alter the .var attribute of a Variable?
Unfortunately, "setting build logic" is used to "bind the attribute ... at each object creation", (hence "you'll be overriding any initial default value").
So I don't think this technique is going to help in this case because the Variable, and hence its .var attribute, has presumably already been built by the time the Variable is passed to the is trait.
In summary, while a trait is called at compile-time, I think it's called too late because the var attribute has already been permanently bound.
My guess is that altering Raku(do) so that the Variable's .var attribute becomes writable, or using metaprogramming to dive underneath Variable's public API to force through a change, would be beyond fraught, unreasonably complicating the compiler's variable handling code and/or swapping out codegen optimization logic for pessimization logic.
This may be behind #Larry's speculation that a more controlled is type on scalar variables will one day be implemented.
Footnotes
[1] My two (pennies | dogecoin).
I was curious about grammars being classes or singletons, so I created this small program to find out:
grammar Mini {
token TOP { \* <word> \* }
token word { \w+ }
}
proto sub is-class( | ) { * };
multi sub is-class( Grammar:D $g ) { return "Object" };
multi sub is-class( Grammar:U $g ) { return "Class" };
say is-class( Mini );
This uses multiple dispatch to find that out, and it turns out that Mini is actually a class. In general, would there be a shorter way of finding this out? Or a way that would not require to know the actual class of which the package might be an instance?
You can disambiguate 'instances' and 'classes' via DEFINITE, ie
Mini.DEFINITE ?? 'Object' !! 'Class'
or rather
Mini.DEFINITE ?? 'concrete object' !! 'type object'
should do the trick.
I'm about to choose what language to use for a new project: Perl5 or Perl6. 6 wins so far except that it is missing Moo's lazy attributes. The two implementations I found in modules are missing the key functionality. Hence, my attempt write my own implementation.
Role vs. Class
First problem I've got into is the content of attribute's .package for one declared in a role. Consider the followin:
role HOW1 {
method compose ( Mu $class ) {
note "HOW1.compose";
nextsame;
}
}
role HOW2 {
method compose ( Mu $class ) {
note "HOW2.compose";
nextsame;
}
}
multi trait_mod:<is> (Attribute:D $attr, :$mooish!) {
note "Attribute's package.HOW: ", $attr.package.HOW;
note '$*PACKAGE.HOW: ', $*PACKAGE.HOW;
$attr.package.HOW does HOW1;
$*PACKAGE.HOW does HOW2;
}
class Foo {
has $.bar is mooish;
}
role FooRole {
has $.baz is mooish;
}
The output of the script follows:
Attribute's package.HOW: Perl6::Metamodel::ClassHOW.new
$*PACKAGE.HOW: Perl6::Metamodel::ClassHOW.new
HOW2.compose
HOW1.compose
Attribute's package.HOW: Perl6::Metamodel::GenericHOW.new
$*PACKAGE.HOW: Perl6::Metamodel::ParametricRoleHOW.new
HOW2.compose
As it is clearly seen from the output, applying a role to a metaclass always works for classes and only works for $*PACKAGE.HOW with roles. Use of $*PACKAGE instead of .package could be considered a solution, but not the one I'd really like to use. (Though, if there is no better way...)
Accessor
I would like to provide lazy functionality for private attributes too. Yes, this will be availabe with self!bar syntax only, but this is a sacrifice I'm willing to make. 😉 The problem is that all the examples of custome-made accessor I found so far are using Attribute.set_value() method which is way too low-level. I'd like to have something like this:
role MooishHOW {
method compose ( Mu $class ) {
my $accessor = $class.^add_private_method( 'bar1',
method () is rw {
note self.WHO, ".bar1";
Proxy.new(
FETCH => -> $o {
$!bar1;
},
STORE => method ( $val ) {
note "Storing";
$!bar1 = $val;
}
);
}
);
callsame;
}
}
multi trait_mod:<is> (Attribute:D $attr, :$mooish!) {
$attr.package.HOW does MooishHOW unless $attr.package.HOW ~~ MooishHOW;
}
class Foo {
has $.bar is mooish;
has $!bar1 is mooish;
method to-bar1 {
note "bar1 val:",self!bar1;
}
}
my $inst = Foo.new;
$inst.to-bar1;
But $!bar1 notation doesn't compile because of the scope (MooishRole). Are there a trick I'm missing which would allow referencing a private attribute on self?
Tricky one
Perhaps it is possible to make an attribute to be a Proxy container? This would greatly simplify the overall logic of laziness implementation.
I have answered all my questions by finally achieving the target and released AttrX::Mooish module.
So far, the answer for the first question is: no. $*PACKAGE is currently the only way.
Second question: have no answer, but the final code has to rely on set_value() anyway.
The tricky one happened to be possible: set_value() does binding of an attribue to a container making it possible to bind to a Proxy object. No need to for sacrifices, private attributes can be accessed directly with lazyness working on them.
Thanks everybody, your answers let me work around some rough edges!