I got an error. Like this :
Error 1 : Platform declaration clash: The following declarations have the same JVM signature (getData()Ljava/lang/Object;):
fun (): I defined in typeErasure2
fun getData(): I defined in typeErasure2
Error 2 : Platform declaration clash: The following declarations have the same JVM signature (getData()Ljava/lang/Object;):
fun (): I defined in typeErasure2
fun getData(): I defined in typeErasure2
fun main(args : Array<String>){
var te = typeErasure("Jennie")
println(te.getData())
var te2 = typeErasure2("Sam")
println(te2.getData())
}
class typeErasure<I>(name : I){
private val data : I = name
fun getData() : I = data
}
class typeErasure2<I>(name : I){
val data : I = name // error 1
fun getData() : I = data // error 2
}
when I use the private keyword the program can run, otherwise it will get an error. anyone can explain to me? :)
This has nothing to do with generics. The problem with your code is that
public fun getData(): I
Is an accesor for "data". But when "data" is a public field, then the accesor is redundant. So when you do:
val someValue = myObject.data
Then the compiler cannot tell if it should use the accessor getData() or it should just point to the field directly.
When getData is private, then the compiler clearly knows that it can't use it so then it will point to the field directly.
class typeErasure2<I>(name : I){
val data : I = name
fun getData() : I = data
}
fun main() {
val obj = typeErasure2<Int>(123)
println(obj.data) // <--- Ask yourself, what does this line do exactly?
}
class typeErasure2<I>(name : I){
val data : I = name
private fun getData() : I = data
}
fun main() {
val obj = typeErasure2<Int>(123)
println(obj.data) // <--- Here it is clear
// it is not the "getData" because that one is private,
// so it must be the public field "data" you are pointing to
}
Kotlin's logic of properties differ slightly from Java's fields.
Whenever you declare any variable in class, its getter and setters are automatically generated, and they can be customized with get() or set {} after it.
Declaring getVariable() manually will result in platform clash, as getter is already defined for the field in the variable declaration and you are creating function with the same name as well.
You can use #JvmField annotation to instruct the compiler to not generate any getter or setter for the field.
#JvmField
val data: I = name
fun getData(): I = data
Related
I have a list of clases that implement a specific interface. The ability to construct those clases or not is not static (so it's not possible to use when(className)), and can be configured so I want to be able to create some clases or call some methods based on a hashMap of allowed "constructors". Then if the key identifying a class is in present in the hashmap I can call the corresponding method, otherwise I can safely ignore. Let me illustrate:
Let's say I have an interface like
interface Instanceable {
data class Config(
val bar: Whatever
)
fun getIntance(config: Config): Instanceable
}
Then I have several (let's say 10) classes that implement this interface
class Implementation1() : Instanceable {
companion object {
const val ID = "INSTANCE_1"
}
private lateinit var foo: Whatever
override fun getIntance(config: Config) = Implementation1().also{ this#Implementation1.foo = config.bar }
}
I want to create a hashmap of the methods by the identifiers, so later down the lane I can grab the method from the hashMap by the key ID and just invoke() the value if it's there. Something like:
allowedInstances("INSTANCE_1")?.let{ it.invoke(someConfig) }
In order to do this I tried to create a hashMap of methods like this:
private val allowedInstances = mutableHashMapOf<String, Instanceable.(Instanceable.Config)->Instanceable>()
allowedInstances[Instance1.ID] = Instance1::getIntance
allowedInstances[Instance2.ID] = Instance2::getIntance
allowedInstances[Instance4.ID] = Instance4::getIntance
But it fails with:
Type mismatch.
Required: Instanceable.(Instanceable.Config) → Instanceable
Found: KFunction2<Implementation1, Instanceable.Config, Instanceable>
If I create the hashmap directly and let the compiler infer the types like this:
private val allowedInstances = mutableHashMapOf(
Implementation1.ID to Implementation1::getIntance,
Implementation2.ID to Implementation2::getIntance,
Implementation4.ID to Implementation4::getIntance,
)
Checking the type of the hashmap shows:
HashMap<String, out KFunction2<Nothing, Instanceable.Config, Instanceable>>
In fact I can do:
private val allowedInstances = mutableHashMapOf<String, Nothing.(Instanceable.Config)->Instanceable>()
allowedInstances[Instance1.ID] = Instance1::getIntance
allowedInstances[Instance2.ID] = Instance2::getIntance
allowedInstances[Instance4.ID] = Instance4::getIntance
So the actual question is:
Why the function of the second hashMap parameter has Nothing as the receptor? Why I cannot have the interface Instanceable instead?
Edit: Still not good to have the Nothing there:
allowedInstances["INSTANCE_1"]?.let{ it.invoke(Nothing, someConfig) }
//Fails with: Classifier 'Nothing' does not have a companion object, and thus must be initialized here
Edit 2: All of the errors are in compile time
Your function type
Instanceable.(Instanceable.Config) -> Instanceable
is describing an extension function on an instance of Instanceable. You need to omit the receiver from the function type to be able to match your constructors' signature:
(Instanceable.Config) -> Instanceable
Edit: The other half of the problem is that you define getInstance() as a member function of the class. So you have to create an invalid instance of your class to use to create a valid instance, which doesn't make sense.
I would delete the getInstance() function from your interface, and put the equivalent code in the constructor of your class. Then you can define a function type in your Map that constructs your items.
interface Instanceable {
data class Config(
val bar: Whatever
)
// REMOVE this: fun getIntance(config: Config): Instanceable
}
class Implementation1(config: Config) : Instanceable {
companion object {
const val ID = "INSTANCE_1"
}
private val foo: Whatever = config.bar
}
private val allowedInstances = mutableHashMapOf<String, (Instanceable.Config)->Instanceable>()
allowedInstances[Instance1.ID] = ::Implementation1
// and so on...
// If there's an implementation that has no config, you can use a lambda:
class NoConfigImplementation : Instanceable {
companion object {
const val ID = "INSTANCE_2"
}
}
allowedInstances[NoConfigImplementation.ID] = { _ -> NoConfigImplementation() }
I have a specific question about the usage of generics in Kotlin.
I want to create a function which takes a generic T as an argument.
It uses that to assign name from one of the classes: Class1 or Class2 to the local variable testString.
Unfortunately this is only possible when I check the type of the argument with the if conditions.
This leads to duplicate code. If I try to avoid that and use Line 12 I get this error during compile time: Unresolved reference: name
Is it possible in Kotlin to avoid the if conditions and use the testString assignment only once when the classes you are going to use have the same property with the same name?
Code:
fun main() {
val class1 = Class1("Foo1")
val class2 = Class2("Foo2")
}
class Class1(val name: String)
class Class2(val name: String)
fun <T> doStuff(classOneOrTwo: T) {
var testString: String
testString = classOneOrTwo.name //not working: Unresolved reference: name
if (classOneOrTwo is Class1) {
testString = classOneOrTwo.name
}
if (classOneOrTwo is Class2) {
testString = classOneOrTwo.name
}
}
You don't need generics here.
You can just write an interface that requires its implementers to have a name property.
interface HasName {
val name: String
}
Class1 and Class2 should implement the interface:
class Class1(override val name: String): HasName
class Class2(override val name: String): HasName
Then doStuff can be written as:
fun doStuff(classOneOrTwo: HasName) {
var testString = classOneOrTwo.name
// ...
}
You can make doStuff generic:
fun <T: HasName> doStuff(classOneOrTwo: T) {
var testString = classOneOrTwo.name
// ...
}
But you don't gain anything in particular by doing so.
Non-reified* generics are the most helpful when you want to establish some kind of "link", whether it be between parameters, or between parameters and the return type. For example, if your method is supposed to return the same type of thing as it takes:
fun <T> doStuff(foo: T): T { ... }
Or your method takes two parameters, and the second parameter must be the element type of the first parameter, which is a mutable list:
fun <T> doStuff(list: MutableList<T>, t: T) { ... }
* This paragraph doesn't quite apply to reified generics, which could be useful on their own.
Class1 and Class2 have nothing in common for the doStuff function to resolve the property name even though they were written exactly the same way, if you expect that just because you have a generic parameter T everything will be automatically be resolved, unfortunately the compiler doesn't know what T is here, aside from it being implcitly Any? type, (i.e <T: Any?>).
You're having a compile error here becase name is not a property of Any?
classOneOrTwo.name //not working: Unresolved reference: name
However, calling the doStuff function compiles fine because everything in Kotlin is a direct or indirect child of Any?
fun main() {
val class1 = Class1("Foo1")
val class2 = Class2("Foo2")
doStuff(class1)
doStuff(class2)
}
and if you try to invoke some function using classOneOrTwo param and pressed cltr+click on it, youll see its a function of the type Any?
fun <T> doStuff(classOneOrTwo: T) {
...
...
classOneOrTwo.toString() // <-- ctrl + click this you'll see its a function of Any?,
You should create a hierarchy (Inheritance) where Class1 and Class2 can inherit something from, in your case name
open class ParentClass(open val name: String)
class Class1(override val name: String) : ParentClass(name)
class Class2(override val name: String) : ParentClass(name)
fun <T: ParentClass> doStuff(classOneOrTwo: T) {
Log.e("DoStuff", classOneOrTwo.name) // now this works find because
}
Now it works because you explicitly tell the compiler that T is a type of ParentClass where the name property exists, and is inherited by your Class1 and Class2.
Back to your main function
doStuff(class1)
doStuff(class2)
prints,
Foo1
Foo2
I´m working on a code with generics and when I use an in I got a TypeMismatch when compiling.
The code is the following:
open class A
class B:A()
data class DataContainer(val a:String,
val b:A)
interface Repo<T:A>{
fun setParam(param:T)
fun getParam():T
}
abstract class RepoImp<T:A>:Repo<T>{
private lateinit var parameter:T
override fun setParam(param: T) {
parameter = param
}
override fun getParam(): T {
return parameter
}
}
class BRepo:RepoImp<B>()
class Repo2(val repo: Repo<in A>){
fun process(b:DataContainer){
repo.setParam(b.b)
}
}
val repoB = BRepo()
val repo2 = Repo2(repoB)// Here I got: Type mismatch: inferred type is BRepo but Repo<in A> was expected
I also tried changing the attribute repo from Repo2 to Repo<*>
Since BRepo is a Repo<B>, it is not a Repo<in A>, (but it would satisfy Repo<out A>).
In other words, a Repo<in A> must be able to accept setParam(A()), but BRepo.setParam() can only accept a B or subclass of B.
Or to put it another way, BRepo is a Repo<B>, which is a tighter restriction on the type than Repo<A> when it comes to writing values (but looser restriction when reading values).
The reason class Repo2(val repo: Repo<*>) doesn't work is that Repo<*> is essentially a Repo<in Nothing/out A>. You can't call setParam() on a Repo<*> with any kind of object.
There's a design flaw in your code that you can't fix simply by changing Repo2's constructor signature. As it stands now, Repo2 needs to be able write A's to the object you pass to it, and a BRepo by definition does not support writing A's, only B's. You will need to make at least one of your class's definitions more flexible about types.
It might be easier to understand the covariance limitation with more common classes:
val stringList: MutableList<String> = ArrayList()
var anyList: MutableList<in Any> = ArrayList()
anyList.add(5) // ok
anyList = stringList // Compiler error.
// You wouldn't be able to call add(5) on an ArrayList<String>
Basically MutableList<String> is not a MutableList<in Any> the same way Repo<B> is not a Repo<in A>.
The Repo2 class expect to consume only type A, use Repo2<T : A>(val repo: Repo<in T>)
open class A
class B : A()
class C : A()
class D : A()
class BRepo : RepoImp<B>()
class CRepo : RepoImp<C>()
class DRepo : RepoImp<D>()
interface Repo<T : A> {
fun setParam(param: T)
fun getParam(): T
}
abstract class RepoImp<T : A> : Repo<T> {
private lateinit var parameter: T
override fun setParam(param: T) {
parameter = param
}
override fun getParam(): T {
return parameter
}
}
class Repo2<T : A>(val repo: Repo<in T>) {
fun process(b: DataContainer<T>) {
repo.setParam(b.b)
}
}
data class DataContainer<T : A>(
val a: String,
val b: T
)
fun main() {
val repoB = BRepo()
val repoC = CRepo()
val repoD = DRepo()
val repo2 = Repo2(repoB)
val repo3 = Repo2(repoC)
val repo4 = Repo2(repoD)
repo2.process(DataContainer("Process B type", B()))
repo3.process(DataContainer("Process C type", C()))
repo4.process(DataContainer("Process D type", D()))
println(repo2.repo.getParam())
println(repo3.repo.getParam())
println(repo4.repo.getParam())
}
The following code works fine and the call to the foo.get() extension function returns the correct type BarImpl.
open class Bar
class BarImpl: Bar()
class Foo<T : Bar>
inline fun <reified T : Bar> Foo<T>.get(): T {
return SomeMap(this).get(T::class)
}
class Activity {
lateinit var foo: Foo<BarImpl>
val barImpl = foo.get()
}
But when I try to move Foo<T>.get() into the class the type inference fails
class Foo<T : Bar> {
inline fun <reified T : Bar> get(): T {
return SomeMap(this).get(T::class)
}
}
class Activity {
lateinit var foo: Foo<BarImpl>
val barImpl = foo.get()
}
error: type inference failed: Not enough information to infer parameter T in inline fun get(): T
Please specify it explicitly.
val vm = foo.get()
^
How can I move the function into the class?
The extension function returns the result of the Foo type parameter. So the result type can be inferred from the receiver type.
And the member function result type has nothing in common with Foo type parameter except the name, which means nothing for a compiler. You can see that T in method and T in class are different types by writing and compiling the following code:
Foo<BarImpl>().get<BarImpl2>()
If you want to make get to be a member function which returns the result of Foo type parameter, you should remove type parameter from function and inject class instance via the constructor:
class Foo<T : Bar>(private val clazz: KClass<T>) {
fun get(): T {
return SomeMap(this).get(clazz)
}
companion object {
inline operator fun <reified T : Bar> invoke() = Foo(T::class)
}
}
In Kotlin if I define a method on an anonymous object, sometimes I am able to access it, while other times I am not. This seems to have something to do with scoping rules, but I am not sure what.
In the code example below, the access to example3.field.method() will cause a compilation error. Interestingly, example2.field.method() compiles just fine.
What could be the explanation for the below behaviour?
class Example3 {
val field = object {
fun method() {}
}
}
fun showcase() {
val example1 = object {
fun method() {}
}
example1.method()
println(example1::class.qualifiedName)
class Example2 {
val field = object {
fun method() {}
}
}
val example2 = Example2()
example2.field.method()
println(example2::class.qualifiedName)
val example3 = Example3()
// example3.field.method() // won't compile
println(example3::class.qualifiedName)
}
From docs Object Expressions and Declarations:
Note that anonymous objects can be used as types only in local and
private declarations. If you use an anonymous object as a return type
of a public function or the type of a public property, the actual type
of that function or property will be the declared supertype of the
anonymous object, or Any if you didn't declare any supertype. Members
added in the anonymous object will not be accessible.
Demonstrated in code sample below:
class Example4{
val publicObj = object{
val x = 1
}
private val privateObj = object{
val x = 2
}
fun showcase(){
val scopedObj = object{
val x = 3
}
println(publicObj.x) // ERROR : unresolved reference: x
println(privateObj.x) // OK
println(scopedObj.x) // OK
}
}
Pawel gave the correct answer to your question, pointing to the documentation:
the actual type of that function or property will be the declared supertype of the anonymous object, or Any if you didn't declare any supertype.
But just adding that if you really need to access example3.field.method() you could declare a supertype to field in Example3:
interface MyInterface {
fun method()
}
class Example3 {
val field = object: MyInterface {
override fun method() {}
}
}
fun main() {
val example3 = Example3()
example3.field.method()
}