While modifying an existing program's CASE statement, I had to add a second block where some logic is repeated to set NetWeaver portal settings. This is done by setting values in a local variable, then assigning that variable to a Changing parameter. I copied over the code and did a Pretty Print, expecting to compiler to complain about the unknown variable. To my surprise however, this code actually compiles just fine:
CASE i_actionid.
WHEN 'DOMIGO'.
DATA: ls_portal_actions TYPE powl_follow_up_sty.
CLEAR ls_portal_actions.
ls_portal_actions-bo_system = 'SAP_ECC_Common'.
" [...]
c_portal_actions = ls_portal_actions.
WHEN 'EBELN'.
ls_portal_actions-bo_system = 'SAP_ECC_Common'.
" [...]
C_PORTAL_ACTIONS = ls_portal_actions.
ENDCASE.
As I have seen in every other programming language, the DATA: declaration in the first WHEN statement should be encapsulated and available only inside that switch block. Does SAP ignore this encapsulation to make that value available in the entire CASE statement? Is this documented anywhere?
Note that this code compiles just fine and double-clicking the local variable in the second switch takes me to the data declaration in the first. I have however not been able to test that this code executes properly as our testing environment is down.
In short you cannot do this. You will have the following scopes in an abap program within which to declare variables (from local to global):
Form routine: all variables between FORM and ENDFORM
Method: all variables between METHOD and ENDMETHOD
Class - all variables between CLASS and ENDCLASS but only in the CLASS DEFINITION section
Function module: all variables between FUNCTION and ENDFUNCTION
Program/global - anything not in one of the above is global in the current program including variables in PBO and PAI modules
Having the ability to define variables locally in a for loop or if is really useful but unfortunately not possible in ABAP. The closest you will come to publicly available documentation on this is on help.sap.com: Local Data in the Subroutine
As for the compile process do not assume that ABAP will optimize out any variables you do not use it won't, use the code inspector to find and remove them yourself. Since ABAP works the way it does I personally define all my variables at the start of a modularization unit and not inline with other code and have gone so far as to modify the pretty printer to move any inline definitions to the top of the current scope.
Your assumption that a CASE statement defines its own scope of variables in ABAP is simply wrong (and would be wrong for a number of other programming languages as well). It's a bad idea to litter your code with variable declarations because that makes it awfully hard to read and to maintain, but it is possible. The DATA statements - as well as many other declarative statements - are only evaluated at compile time and are completely ignored at runtime. You can find more information about the scopes in the online documentation.
The inline variable declarations are now possible with the newest version of SAP Netweaver. Here is the link to the documentation DATA - inline declaration. Here are also some guidelines of a good and bad usage of this new feature
Here is a quote from this site:
A declaration expression with the declaration operator DATA declares a variable var used as an operand in the current writer position. The declared variable is visible statically in the program from DATA(var) and is valid in the current context. The declaration is made when the program is compiled, regardless of whether the statement is actually executed.
Personally have not had time to check it out yet, because of lack of access to such system.
I have a C structure that allow users to configure options in an embedded system. Currently the GUI we use for this is custom written for every different version of this configuration structure. What I'd like for is to be able to describe the structure members in some format that can be read by the client configuration application, making it universal across all of our systems.
I've experimented with describing the structure in XML and having the client read the file; this works in most cases except those where some of the fields have inter-dependencies. So the format that I use needs to have a way to specify these; for instance, member A must always be less than or equal to half of member B.
Thanks in advance for your thoughts and suggestions.
EDIT:
After reading the first reply I realized that my question is indeed a little too vague, so here's another attempt:
The embedded system needs to have access to the data as a C struct, running any other language on the processor is not an option. Basically, all I need is a way to define metadata with the structure, this metadata will be downloaded onto flash along with firmware. The client configuration utility will then read the metadata file over RS-232, CAN etc. and populate a window (a tree-view) that the user can then use to edit options.
The XML file that I mentioned tinkering with was doing exactly that, it contained the structure member name, data type, number of elements etc. The location of the member within the XML file implicitly defined its position in the C struct. This file resides on flash and is read by the configuration program; the only thing lacking is a way to define dependencies between structure fields.
The code is generated automatically using MATLAB / Simulink so I do have access to a scripting language to help with the structure creation. For example, if I do end up using XML the structure will only be defined in the XML format and I'll use a script to create the C structure during code generation.
Hope this is clearer.
For the simple case where there is either no relationship or a relationship with a single other field, you could add two fields to the structure: the "other" field number and a pointer to a function that compares the two. Then you'd need to create functions that compared two values and return true or false depending upon whether or not the relationship is met. Well, guess you'd need to create two functions that tested the relationship and the inverse of the relationship (i.e. if field 1 needs to be greater than field 2, then field 2 needs to be less than or equal to field 1). If you need to place more than one restriction on the range, you can store a pointer to a list of function/field pairs.
An alternative is to create a validation function for every field and call it when the field is changed. Obviously this function could be as complex as you wanted but might require more hand coding.
In theory you could generate the validation functions for either of the above techniques from the XML description that you described.
I would have expected you to get some answers by now, but let me see what I can do.
Your question is a bit vague, but it sounds like you want one of
Code generation
An embedded extension language
A hand coded run-time mini language
Code Generation
You say that you are currently hand tooling the configuration code each time you change this. I'm willing to bet that this is a highly repetitive task, so there is no reason that you can't write program to do it for you. Your generator should consume some domain specific language and emit c code and header files which you subsequently build into you application. An example of what I'm talking about here would be GNU gengetopt. There is nothing wrong with the idea of using xml for the input language.
Advantages:
the resulting code can be both fast and compact
there is no need for an interpreter running on the target platform
Disadvantages:
you have to write the generator
changing things requires a recompile
Extension Language
Tcl, python and other languages work well in conjunction with c code, and will allow you to specify the configuration behavior in a dynamic language rather than mucking around with c typing and strings and and and...
Advantages:
dynamic language probably means the configuration code is simpler
change configuration options without recompiling
Disadvantages:
you need the dynamic language running on the target platform
Mini language
You could write your own embedded mini-language.
Advantages:
No need to recompile
Because you write it it will run on your target
Disadvantages:
You have to write it yourself
How much does the struct change from version to version? When I did this kind of thing I hardcoded it into the PC app, which then worked out what the packet meant from the firmware version - but the only changes were usually an extra field added onto the end every couple of months.
I suppose I would use something like the following if I wanted to go down the metadata route.
typedef struct
{
unsigned char field1;
unsigned short field2;
unsigned char a_string[4];
} data;
typedef struct
{
unsigned char name[16];
unsigned char type;
unsigned char min;
unsigned char max;
} field_info;
field_info fields[3];
void init_meta(void)
{
strcpy(fields[0].name, "field1");
fields[0].type = TYPE_UCHAR;
fields[0].min = 1;
fields[0].max = 250;
strcpy(fields[1].name, "field2");
fields[1].type = TYPE_USHORT;
fields[1].min = 0;
fields[1].max = 0xffff;
strcpy(fields[2].name, "a_string");
fields[2].type = TYPE_STRING;
fields[2].min = 0 // n/a
fields[2].max = 0 // n/a
}
void send_meta(void)
{
rs232_packet packet;
memcpy(packet.payload, fields, sizeof(fields));
packet.length = sizeof(fields);
send_packet(packet);
}
In my language I can use a class variable in my method when the definition appears below the method. It can also call methods below my method and etc. There are no 'headers'. Take this C# example.
class A
{
public void callMethods() { print(); B b; b.notYetSeen();
public void print() { Console.Write("v = {0}", v); }
int v=9;
}
class B
{
public void notYetSeen() { Console.Write("notYetSeen()\n"); }
}
How should I compile that? what i was thinking is:
pass1: convert everything to an AST
pass2: go through all classes and build a list of define classes/variable/etc
pass3: go through code and check if there's any errors such as undefined variable, wrong use etc and create my output
But it seems like for this to work I have to do pass 1 and 2 for ALL files before doing pass3. Also it feels like a lot of work to do until I find a syntax error (other than the obvious that can be done at parse time such as forgetting to close a brace or writing 0xLETTERS instead of a hex value). My gut says there is some other way.
Note: I am using bison/flex to generate my compiler.
My understanding of languages that handle forward references is that they typically just use the first pass to build a list of valid names. Something along the lines of just putting an entry in a table (without filling out the definition) so you have something to point to later when you do your real pass to generate the definitions.
If you try to actually build full definitions as you go, you would end up having to rescan repatedly, each time saving any references to undefined things until the next pass. Even that would fail if there are circular references.
I would go through on pass one and collect all of your class/method/field names and types, ignoring the method bodies. Then in pass two check the method bodies only.
I don't know that there can be any other way than traversing all the files in the source.
I think that you can get it down to two passes - on the first pass, build the AST and whenever you find a variable name, add it to a list that contains that blocks' symbols (it would probably be useful to add that list to the corresponding scope in the tree). Step two is to linearly traverse the tree and make sure that each symbol used references a symbol in that scope or a scope above it.
My description is oversimplified but the basic answer is -- lookahead requires at least two passes.
The usual approach is to save B as "unknown". It's probably some kind of type (because of the place where you encountered it). So you can just reserve the memory (a pointer) for it even though you have no idea what it really is.
For the method call, you can't do much. In a dynamic language, you'd just save the name of the method somewhere and check whether it exists at runtime. In a static language, you can save it in under "unknown methods" somewhere in your compiler along with the unknown type B. Since method calls eventually translate to a memory address, you can again reserve the memory.
Then, when you encounter B and the method, you can clear up your unknowns. Since you know a bit about them, you can say whether they behave like they should or if the first usage is now a syntax error.
So you don't have to read all files twice but it surely makes things more simple.
Alternatively, you can generate these header files as you encounter the sources and save them somewhere where you can find them again. This way, you can speed up the compilation (since you won't have to consider unchanged files in the next compilation run).
Lastly, if you write a new language, you shouldn't use bison and flex anymore. There are much better tools by now. ANTLR, for example, can produce a parser that can recover after an error, so you can still parse the whole file. Or check this Wikipedia article for more options.
Let's say you have a Fortran 90 module containing lots of variables, functions and subroutines. In your USE statement, which convention do you follow:
explicitly declare which variables/functions/subroutines you're using with the , only : syntax, such as USE [module_name], only : variable1, variable2, ...?
Insert a blanket USE [module_name]?
On the one hand, the only clause makes the code a bit more verbose. However, it forces you to repeat yourself in the code and if your module contains lots of variables/functions/subroutines, things begin to look unruly.
Here's an example:
module constants
implicit none
real, parameter :: PI=3.14
real, parameter :: E=2.71828183
integer, parameter :: answer=42
real, parameter :: earthRadiusMeters=6.38e6
end module constants
program test
! Option #1: blanket "use constants"
! use constants
! Option #2: Specify EACH variable you wish to use.
use constants, only : PI,E,answer,earthRadiusMeters
implicit none
write(6,*) "Hello world. Here are some constants:"
write(6,*) PI, &
E, &
answer, &
earthRadiusInMeters
end program test
Update
Hopefully someone says something like "Fortran? Just recode it in C#!" so I can down vote you.
Update
I like Tim Whitcomb's answer, which compares Fortran's USE modulename with Python's from modulename import *. A topic which has been on Stack Overflow before:
‘import module’ or ‘from module import’
In an answer, Mark Roddy mentioned:
don't use 'from module import *'. For
any reasonable large set of code, if
you 'import *' your will likely be
cementing it into the module, unable
to be removed. This is because it is
difficult to determine what items used
in the code are coming from 'module',
making it east to get to the point
where you think you don't use the
import anymore but its extremely
difficult to be sure.
What are good rules of thumb for python imports?
dbr's answer contains
don't do from x import * - it makes
your code very hard to understand, as
you cannot easily see where a method
came from (from x import *; from y
import *; my_func() - where is my_func
defined?)
So, I'm leaning towards a consensus of explicitly stating all the items I'm using in a module via
USE modulename, only : var1, var2, ...
And as Stefano Borini mentions,
[if] you have a module so large that you
feel compelled to add ONLY, it means
that your module is too big. Split it.
I used to just do use modulename - then, as my application grew, I found it more and more difficult to find the source to functions (without turning to grep) - some of the other code floating around the office still uses a one-subroutine-per-file, which has its own set of problems, but it makes it much easier to use a text editor to move through the code and quickly track down what you need.
After experiencing this, I've become a convert to using use...only whenever possible. I've also started picking up Python, and view it the same way as from modulename import *. There's a lot of great things that modules give you, but I prefer to keep my global namespace tightly controlled.
It's a matter of balance.
If you use only a few stuff from the module, it makes sense if you add ONLY, to clearly specify what you are using.
If you use a lot of stuff from the module, specifying ONLY will be followed by a lot of stuff, so it makes less sense. You are basically cherry-picking what you use, but the true fact is that you are dependent on that module as a whole.
However, in the end the best philosophy is this one: if you are concerned about namespace pollution, and you have a module so large that you feel compelled to add ONLY, it means that your module is too big. Split it.
Update: Fortran? just recode it in python ;)
Not exactly answering the question here, just throwing in another solution that I have found useful in some circumstances, if for whatever reason you don't want to split your module and start to get namespace clashes. You can use derived types to store several namespaces in one module.
If there is some logical grouping of the variables, you can create your own derived type for each group, store an instance of this type in the module and then you can import just the group that you happen to need.
Small example: We have a lot of data some of which is user input and some that is the result of miscellaneous initializations.
module basicdata
implicit none
! First the data types...
type input_data
integer :: a, b
end type input_data
type init_data
integer :: b, c
end type init_data
! ... then declare the data
type(input_data) :: input
type(init_data) :: init
end module basicdata
Now if a subroutine only uses data from init, you import just that:
subroutine doesstuff
use basicdata, only : init
...
q = init%b
end subroutine doesstuff
This is definitely not a universally applicable solution, you get some extra verbosity from the derived type syntax and then it will of course barely help if your module is not the basicdata sort above, but instead more of a allthestuffivebeenmeaningtosortoutvariety. Anyway, I have had some luck in getting code that fits easier into the brain this way.
The main advantage of USE, ONLY for me is that it avoids polluting my global namespace with stuff I don't need.
Agreed with most answers previously given, use ..., only: ... is the way to go, use types when it makes sense, apply python thinking as much as possible. Another suggestion is to use appropriate naming conventions in your imported module, along with private / public statements.
For instance, the netcdf library uses nf90_<some name>, which limits the namespace pollution on the importer side.
use netcdf ! imported names are prefixed with "nf90_"
nf90_open(...)
nf90_create(...)
nf90_get_var(...)
nf90_close(...)
similarly, the ncio wrapper to this library uses nc_<some name> (nc_read, nc_write...).
Importantly, with such designs where use: ..., only: ... is made less relevant, you'd better control the namespace of the imported module by setting appropriate private / public attributes in the header, so that a quick look at it will be sufficient for readers to assess which level of "pollution" they are facing. This is basically the same as use ..., only: ..., but on the imported module side - thus to be written only once, not at each import).
One more thing: as far as object-orientation and python are concerned, a difference in my view is that fortran does not really encourage type-bound procedures, in part because it is a relatively new standard (e.g. not compatible with a number of tools, and less rationally, it is just unusual) and because it breaks handy behavior such as procedure-free derived type copy (type(mytype) :: t1, t2 and t2 = t1). That means you often have to import the type and all would-be type-bound procedures, instead of just the class. This alone makes fortran code more verbose compared to python, and practical solutions like a prefix naming convention may come in handy.
IMO, the bottom line is: choose your coding style for people who will read it (this includes your later self), as taught by python. The best is the more verbose use ..., only: ... at each import, but in some cases a simple naming convention will do it (if you are disciplined enough...).
Yes, please use use module, only: .... For large code bases with multiple programmers, it makes the code easier to follow by everyone (or just use grep).
Please do not use include, use a smaller module for that instead. Include is a text insert of source code which is not checked by the compiler at the same level as use module, see: FORTRAN: Difference between INCLUDE and modules. Include generally makes it harder for both humans and computer to use the code which means it should not be used. Ex. from mpi-forum: "The use of the mpif.h include file is strongly discouraged and may be deprecated in a future version of MPI." (http://mpi-forum.org/docs/mpi-3.1/mpi31-report/node411.htm).
I know I'm a little late to the party, but if you're only after a set of constants and not necessarily computed values, you could do like C and create an include file:
inside a file,
e.g., constants.for
real, parameter :: pi = 3.14
real, parameter :: g = 6.67384e-11
...
program main
use module1, only : func1, subroutine1, func2
implicit none
include 'constants.for'
...
end program main
Edited to remove "real(4)" as some think it is bad practice.
There are some nice libraries for testing in Scala (Specs, ScalaTest, ScalaCheck). However, with Scala's powerful type system, important parts of an API being developed in Scala are expressed statically, usually in the form of some undesirable or disallowed behavior being prevented by the compiler.
So, what is the best way to test whether something is prevented by the compiler when designing an library or other API? It is unsatisfying to comment out code that is supposed to be uncompilable and then uncomment it to verify.
A contrived example testing List:
val list: List[Int] = List(1, 2, 3)
// should not compile
// list.add("Chicka-Chicka-Boom-Boom")
Does one of the existing testing libraries handle cases like this? Is there an approach that people use that works?
The approach I was considering was to embed code in a triple-quote string or an xml element and call the compiler in my test. Calling code looking something like this:
should {
notCompile(<code>
val list: List[Int] = List(1, 2, 3)
list.add("Chicka-Chicka-Boom-Boom")
</code>)
}
Or, something along the lines of an expect-type script called on the interpreter.
I have created some specs executing some code snippets and checking the results of the interpreter.
You can have a look at the Snippets trait. The idea is to store in some org.specs.util.Property[Snippet] the code to execute:
val it: Property[Snippet] = Property(Snippet(""))
"import scala.collection.List" prelude it // will be prepended to any code in the it snippet
"val list: List[Int] = List(1, 2, 3)" snip it // snip some code (keeping the prelude)
"list.add("Chicka-Chicka-Boom-Boom")" add it // add some code to the previously snipped code. A new snip would remove the previous code (except the prelude)
execute(it) must include("error: value add is not a member of List[Int]") // check the interpreter output
The main drawback I found with this approach was the slowness of the interpreter. I don't know yet how this could be sped up.
Eric.