These two classes seem to me to behave identically:
class A constructor(ii_: Int) {
var ii = 0
var xx = 0.0F
var msg = ""
init {
ii = ii_
xx = ii + 42.0F
msg = "The value of ii is $ii and the value of xx is $xx"
}
fun display() {
print("A.display() $ii, $xx\n")
print("A.display() $msg\n")
}
}
class C {
var ii = 0
var xx = 0.0F
var msg = ""
constructor(ii_: Int) {
ii = ii_
xx = ii + 42.0F
msg = "The value of ii is $ii and the value of xx is $xx"
}
fun display() {
print("C.display() $ii, $xx\n")
print("C.display() $msg\n")
}
}
If I am not going to have more than one constructor then is there an advantage to the version that uses a primary constructor?
Is there a theoretical reason that I am not seeing for the primary ctor + init block scheme?
The primary constructor version with it's init block seems baroque, which makes me think there is a deeper reason for it, but I can't see it.
I am aware my class A does not strictly need the constructor keyword. That is not what I am asking, please do not bother telling me I don't need it.
init blocks are more like property initialisers than constructors. (If you know Java, they're pretty much the same as Java's instance initialisers; see this question, and this discussion.) The major issues are:
You can have multiple init blocks; they all run, in order (along with property initialiser expressions). If you use them for initialising properties, you can put them right next to their property, for clarity.
They run for every constructor, so you don't need to duplicate code between constructors, or risk forgetting. (They run, along with property initialisers, after the call to the superclass constructor but before the rest of the constructor body.)
They can be used in object expressions and declarations, where a constructor isn't allowed. (They were originally introduced into Java for the equivalent of this, i.e. anonymous classes.)
If there's a primary constructor, then they have access to its parameters (though not to those of any secondary constructor). (This makes them more powerful than Java's instance initialisers.)
Related
I hit a problem with some Kotlin code and I found out it was related to calling a method that assigns some variables from an init block (or a secondary constructor for that matter, either reproduces the problem).
MCVE:
abstract class Shader(/*Input arguments omitted for the sake of an MCVE*/){
init{
//Shader loading and attaching, not relevant
bindAttribs()//One of the abstract methods. In my actual program, this uses OpenGL to bind attributes
//GLSL program validation
getUniforms()//Same as the previous one: abstract method using GL calls to get uniforms. This gets locations so an integer is set (the problem)
}
abstract fun getUniforms();//This is the one causing problems
abstract fun bindAttribs();//This would to if primitives or non-lateinit vars are set
}
abstract class BoilerplateShader() : Shader(){
var loc_projectionMatrix: Int = 404//404 is an initial value. This can be anything though
var loc_transformationMatrix: Int = 404
var loc_viewMatrix: Int = 404
override fun getUniforms(){
//These would be grabbed by using glGetUniformLocations, but it's reproducable with static values as well
loc_projectionMatrix = 0
loc_transformationMatrix = 1
loc_viewMatrix = 2
println(loc_projectionMatrix.toString() + ", " + loc_transformationMatrix + ", " + loc_viewMatrix)
}
//debug method, only used to show the values
fun dump(){
println(loc_projectionMatrix.toString() + ", " + loc_transformationMatrix + ", " + loc_viewMatrix)
}
}
class TextureShader() : BoilerplateShader(){
override fun bindAttribs() {
//This doesn't cause a problem even though it's called from the init block, as nothing is assigned
//bindAttrib(0, "a_position");
//bindAttrib(1, "a_texCoord0");
}
}
//Other repetitive shaders, omitted for brevity
Then doing:
val tx = TextureShader()
tx.dump()
prints:
0, 1, 2
404, 404, 404
The print statements are called in order from getUniforms to the dump call at the end. It's assigned fine in the getUniforms method, but when calling them just a few milliseconds later, they're suddenly set to the default value of (in this case) 404. This value can be anything though, but I use 404 because that's a value I know I won't use for testing in this particular MCVE.
I'm using a system that relies heavily on abstract classes, but calling some of these methods (getUniforms is extremely important) is a must. If I add an init block in either BoilerplateShader or TextureShader with a call to getUniforms, it works fine. Doing a workaround with an init function (not an init block) called after object creation:
fun init(){
bindAttribs();
getUniforms();
}
works fine. But that would involve the created instance manually calls it:
val ts = TexturedShader();
ts.init();
ts.dump()
which isn't an option. Writing the code that causes problems in Kotlin in Java works like expected (considerably shortened code, but still reproducable):
abstract class Shader{
public Shader(){
getUniforms();
}
public abstract void getUniforms();
}
abstract class BoilerplateShader extends Shader{
int loc_projectionMatrix;//When this is initialized, it produces the same issue as Kotlin. But Java doesn't require the vars to be initialized when they're declared globally, so it doesn't cause a problem
public void getUniforms(){
loc_projectionMatrix = 1;
System.out.println(loc_projectionMatrix);
}
//and a dump method or any kind of basic print statement to print it after object creation
}
class TextureShader extends BoilerplateShader {
public TextureShader(){
super();
}
}
and printing the value of the variable after initialization of both the variable and the class prints 0, as expected.
Trying to reproduce the same thing with an object produces the same result as with numbers when the var isn't lateinit. So this:
var test: String = ""
prints:
0, 1, 2, test
404, 404, 404,
The last line is exactly as printed: the value if test is set to an empty String by default, so it shows up as empty.
But if the var is declared as a lateinit var:
lateinit var test: String
it prints:
0, 1, 2, test
404, 404, 404, test
I can't declare primitives with lateinit. And since it's called outside a constructor, it either needs to be initialized or be declared as lateinit.
So, is it possible to initialize primitives from an overridden abstract method without creating a function to call it?
Edit:
A comment suggested a factory method, but that's not going to work because of the abstraction. Since the attempted goal is to call the methods from the base class (Shader), and since abstract classes can't be initialized, factory methods won't work without creating a manual implementation in each class, which is overkill. And if the constructor is private to get it to work (avoid initialization outside factory methods), extending won't work (<init> is private in Shader).
So the constructors are forced to be public (whether the Shader class has a primary or secondary constructor, the child classes have to have a primary to initialize it) meaning the shaders can be created while bypassing the factory method. And, abstraction causes problems again, the factory method (having to be abstract) would be manually implemented in each child class, once again resulting in initialization and manually calling the init() method.
The question is still whether or not it's possible to make sure the non-lateinit and primitives are initialized when calling an abstract method from the constructor. Creating factory methods would be a perfect solution had there not been abstraction involved.
Note: The absolutely best idea is to avoid declaring objects/primitives in abstract functions called from the abstract class' constructor method, but there are cases where it's useful. Avoid it if possible.
The only workaround I found for this is using by lazy, since there are primitives involved and I can convert assignment to work in the blocks.
lateinit would have made it slightly easier, so creating object wrappers could of course be an option, but using by lazy works in my case.
Anyways, what's happening here is that the value assigned to the int in the constructor is later overridden by the fixed value. Pseudocode:
var x /* = 0 */
constructor() : super.constructor()//x is not initialized yet
super.constructor(){
overridden function();
}
abstract function()
overridden function() {
x = 4;
}
// The assignment if `= 0` takes place after the construction of the parent, setting x to 0 and overriding the value in the constructor
With lateinit, the problem is removed:
lateinit var x: Integer//x exists, but doesn't get a value. It's assigned later
constructor() : super.constructor()
super.constructor(){
overridden function()
}
abstract function()
overridden function(){
x = Integer(4);//using an object here since Kotlin doesn't support lateinit with primtives
}
//x, being lateinit and now initialized, doesn't get re-initialized by the declaration. x = 4 instead of 0, as in the first example
When I wrote the question, I thought Java worked differently. This was because I didn't initialize the variables there either (effectively, making them lateinit). When the class then is fully initialized, int x; doesn't get assigned a value. If it was declared as int x = 1234;, the same problem in Java occurs as here.
Now, the problem goes back to lateinit and primitives; primitives cannot be lateinit. A fairly basic solution is using a data class:
data class IntWrapper(var value: Int)
Since the value of data classes can be unpacked:
var (value) = intWrapperInstance//doing "var value = ..." sets value to the intWrapperInstance. With the parenthesis it works the same way as unpacking the values of a pair or triple, just with a single value.
Now, since there's an instance with an object (not a primitive), lateinit can be used. However, this isn't particularly efficient since it involves another object being created.
The only remaining option: by lazy.
Wherever it's possible to create initialization as a function, this is the best option. The code in the question was a simplified version of OpenGL shaders (more specifically, the locations for uniforms). Meaning this particular code is fairly easy to convert to a by lazy block:
val projectionMatrixLocation by lazy{
glGetUniformLocation(program, "projectionMatrix")
}
Depending on the case though, this might not be feasible. Especially since by lazy requires a val, which means it isn't possible to change it afterwards. This depends on the usage though, since it isn't a problem if it isn't going to change.
As I know Java is pass-by-value from this post. I am from Java background I wonder what Kotlin is using for passing values in between. Like in Extensions or Methods etc.
Every time I hear about the "pass-by-value" vs "pass-by-reference" Java debate I always think the same. The answer I give: "Java passes a copy (pass-by-value) of the reference (pass-by-reference)". So everyone is happy. I would say Kotlin does the same as it is JVM based language.
UPDATE
OK, so it's been a while since this answer and I think some clarification should be included. As #robert-liberatore is mentioning in the comments, the behaviour I'm describing is true for objects. Whenever your methods expect any object, you can assume that the JVM internally will make a copy of the reference to the object and pass it to your method. That's why having code like
void doSomething(List<Integer> x) {
x = new ArrayList<Integer>()
}
List<Integer> x = Arrays.asList(1, 2, 3);
doSomething(x);
x.length() == 3
behaves like it does. You're copying the reference to the list, so "reassigning it" will take no effect in the real object. But since you're referring to the same object, modifying its inner content will affect the outer object.
This is something you may miss when defining your attributes as final in order to achieve immutability. You won't be able to reassign them, but there's nothing preventing you from changing its content
Of course, this is true for objects where you have a reference. In case of primitives, which are not a reference to an object containing something but "something" themselves, the thing is different. Java will still make a copy of the whole value (as it does with the whole reference) and pass it to the method. But primitives are just values, you can't "modify its inner values". So any change inside a method will not have effect in the outer values
Now, talking about Kotlin
In Kotlin you "don't have" primitive values. But you "do have" primitive classes. Internally, the compiler will try to use JVM primitive values where needed but you can assume that you always work with the boxed version of the JVM primitives. Because of that, when possible the compiler will just make a copy of the primitive value and, in other scenarios, it will copy the reference to the object. Or with code
fun aJvmPrimitiveWillBeUsedHere(x: Int): Int = x * 2
fun aJvmObjectWillBeUsedHere(x: Int?): Int = if (x != null) x * 2 else 1
I'd say that Kotlin scenario is a bit safer than Java because it forces its arguments to be final. So you can modify its inner content but not reassign it
fun doSomething(x: MutableList<Int>) {
x.add(2) // this works, you can modify the inner state
x = mutableListOf(1, 2) // this doesn't work, you can't reassign an argument
}
It uses the same principles like Java. It is always pass-by-value, you can imagine that a copy is passed. For primitive types, e.g. Int this is obvious, the value of such an argument will be passed into a function and the outer variable will not be modified. Please note that parameters in Kotlin cannot be reassigned since they act like vals:
fun takeInt(a: Int) {
a = 5
}
This code will not compile because a cannot be reassigned.
For objects it's a bit more difficult but it's also call-by-value. If you call a function with an object, a copy of its reference is passed into that function:
data class SomeObj(var x: Int = 0)
fun takeObject(o: SomeObj) {
o.x = 1
}
fun main(args: Array<String>) {
val obj = SomeObj()
takeObject(obj)
println("obj after call: $obj") // SomeObj(x=1)
}
You can use a reference passed into a function to change the actual object.
The semantics is identical to Java.
In Java, when you have an instance of an object, and you pass it to a method, that method can change the state of that object, and when the method is done, the changes would have been applied to the object at the call site.
The same applies in Kotlin.
For primitives value is passed, and for non-primitives a reference to the object is passed. I'll explain with an example:
The code:
fun main() {
var a = 5
var b = a
a = 6
println("b = $b")
}
prints: b = 5
Kotlin passes the value of a to b, because a is a primitive. So changing a afterwards won't impact b.
The code:
fun main() {
var a = Dog(5)
var b = a
a.value = 6
println("b = ${b.value}")
}
class Dog (var value: Int)
prints b = 6, because this time a is not a primitive and so the reference to the object (Dog) was passed to b and not its value. Therefore changing a would affect all objects that point to it.
In Java primitive types like int, float, double, boolean are passed to a method by value, if you modify them inside the receiver method they doesn't change into the calling method. But if the property/variable type isn't a primitive, like arrays of primitives or other classes when they are changed inside the method that receive them as parameter they also change in the caller method.
But with Kotlin nothing seems to be primitive, so I think all is passed by reference.
This might be a little bit confusing.
The correct answer, IMHO, is that everything passes by reference, but no assignment is possible so it will be similar to passing by value in C++.
Note that function parameters are constant, i.e., they cannot be assigned.
Remember that in Kotlin there are no primitive types. Everything is an object.
When you write:
var x: Int = 3
x += 10
You actually create an object of type Int, assign it the value 3, and get a reference, or pointer, named x.
When you write
x += 10
You reassign a new Int object, with the value 13, to x. The older object becomes a garbage (and garbage-collected).
Of course, the compiler optimizes it, and creates no objects in the heap in this particular case, but conceptually it is as explained.
So what is the meaning of passing by reference function parameters?
Since no assignment is possible for function parameters, the main advantage of passing by reference in C++ does not exist in Kotlin.
If the object (passed to the function) has a method which changes its internal state, it will affect the original object.
No such method exists for Int, String, etc. They are immutable objects.
No copy is ever generated when passing objects to functions.
Bear in mind, am quite new to Kotlin. In my opinion, primitives are passed-by-value, but objects are passed-by-reference.
A primitive passed to a class works by default, but if you pass an object from a list, for example, and that object changes, the class object changes too. Because, in fact, it is the same object.
Additionally, if objects gets removed from the list, the class object IS STILL A REFERENCE. So it can still change due to references in other places.
Example below explaines. You can run it here.
fun main() {
val listObjects = mutableListOf(ClassB(), ClassB(), ClassB())
val listPrimitives = mutableListOf(111, 222, 333)
val test = ClassA()
test.ownedObject = listObjects[0]
test.ownedPrimitive = listPrimitives[0]
println("ownedObject: " + test.ownedObject.isEnabled +", ownedPrimitive: " +
test.ownedPrimitive)
listObjects[0].isEnabled = true
println("ownedObject: " + test.ownedObject.isEnabled +", ownedPrimitive: " +
test.ownedPrimitive)
listPrimitives[0] = 999
println("ownedObject: " + test.ownedObject.isEnabled +", ownedPrimitive: " +
test.ownedPrimitive)
}
class ClassA {
var ownedObject: ClassB = ClassB()
var ownedPrimitive: Int = 0
}
class ClassB {
var isEnabled = false
}
Since Kotlin is a new language for JVM, like Java it is pass-by-value. The confusing part is with object, at first it looks like that it is passed-by-reference but the actuality is that the reference/pointer itself is pass-by-value (a copy of a reference is passed to a method) hence when a method receives a reference to an object, the method can manipulate the original object.
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.
After recently picking up a bit of C# after a long time of F#, I came to realise that 'object constructors' are a nice way of tricking oneself into believing they are dealing with a functional object.
Consider:
let x = new Something()
x.Key <- 1
x.Value <- 2
This feels very unclean because of the very obvious mutation of values. Especially if we keep our objects write once, it feels very unnecessary In C#, it is possible to initialise the object like this:
var x = new Something() { Key = 1, Value = 2 };
This looks nicer and actually it felt like I was using a record (almost), obviously its just sugar but its nice sugar.
Q. Assuming we have no control over `Something' (pretend its from some C# library), is it possible, in F# to use this shorthand initialisation, if not, why?
Yes, you can do that. It would look something like this:
let x = new Something(Key = 1, Value = 2)
The syntax is detailed in Constructors (F#) under the section "Assigning Values to Properties at Initialization".
Yes, F# support use cases similar to C# object initializers but F# approach is somewhat more generic.
F# specification 14.4 Method Application Resolution says:
(after method is successfully resolved) Build the resulting elaborated expression by following these steps:
For each NamedActualArgs whose target is a settable property or field, assign the value into the
property.
meaning that you can do things that C# doesn't allow
type Something() =
member val Key = 0 with get,set
member val Value = "" with get,set
static member Create() = Something()
let a = Something(Key = 1, Value = "1") // create instance with constructor, set properties afterwards
let b = Something.Create(Key = 1, Value = "1") // create instance using factory method, set properties afterwards
Tagged as homework.
I'm having trouble in the object oriented world while trying to implement a class.
I'm implenting various functions to take action on lists, that I'm using to mock a set.
I'm not too worried about my logic on how to find union, for example, but really just the structure.
For eg:
abstract class parentSet[T] protected () {
def union(other:parentSet[T]):parentSet[T]
}
Now I want a new class extending parentSet:
class childSet[T] private (l: List[T]) extends parentSet[T] {
def this() = this(List())
private val elems = l
val toList = List[T] => new List(l)
def union(other:parentSet[T]):childSet[T] = {
for (i <- this.toList) {
if (other contains i) {}
else {l :: i}
}
return l
}
}
Upon compiling, I receive errors such that type childSet isn't found in def union, nor is type T to keep it parametric. Also, I assume my toList isn't correct as it complains that it isn't a member of the object; to name a few.
Where in my syntax am I wrong?
EDIT
Now I've got that figured out:
def U(other:parentSet[T]):childSet[T] = {
var w = other.toList
for (i <- this.toList) {
if (!(other contains i)) {w = i::w}
}
return new childSet(w)
}
Now, I'm trying to do the same operations with map, and this is what I'm working on/with:
def U(other:parentSet[T]):MapSet[T] = {
var a = Map[T,Unit]
for (i <- this.toList) {
if (!(other contains i)) {a = a + (i->())}
}
return new MapSet(elems + (a->()))
}
I still want to use toList to make it easily traversable, but I'm still getting type errors while messing with maps..
This code has a few problems:
It seems that you are not realizing that List[T] is an immutable type, meaning you cannot change its value once created. So if you have a List[T] and you call the :: method to prepend a value, the function returns a new list and leaves your existing one unchanged. Scala has mutable collections such as ListBuffer which may behave more like you expect. So when you return l, you're actually returning the original list.
Also, you have the order wrong in using ::. It should go i :: l, since :: is a right-binding function (because it ends with a :).
Lastly, in your union method you are doing (other contains i). Maybe it's just the Scala syntax that's confusing you, but this is the same as doing (other.contains(i)) and clearly contains is not a defined method of parentSet. It is a method on the List[T] type, but you're not calling contains on a list.
You tagged this as homework so I'm not going to fix your code, but I think you should
Look at some examples of correct Scala code involving lists, try here for starters
Play around in the Scala REPL and try creating and working with some lists, so you get a feel for how immutable collections work.
To answer your direct question, even though childSet is inheriting parentSet the original method specify parentSet as the return type and not childSet. You can either only use parentSet as the type OR you could specify the return type to be anything that inherits parentSet.