After reading the Raku documentation, I only found this for undefining a variable. I believe that in Raku there are differences between assignment and binding.
Defining and undefining a scalar is easy.
> my $n
(Any)
> $n.defined
False
> $n = 3
3
> $n.defined
True
> $n = Nil
(Any)
> $n.defined
False
When the variable is binded, it's not possible.
> my $k := 5
5
> $k := Nil
===SORRY!=== Error while compiling:
Cannot use bind operator with this left-hand side
at line 2
------> <BOL>⏏<EOL>
> $k = Nil
Cannot assign to an immutable value
in block <unit> at <unknown file> line 1
For arrays or hashes, I can empty it, but the variable is still defined.
For functions, when you define a function with sub, you cannot undefine it, but you can with an anonymous function.
> my &pera = -> $n { $n + 2}
-> $n { #`(Block|140640519305672) ... }
> &pera = Nil
(Callable)
> &pera.defined
False
> my &pera = -> $n { $n + 2}
-> $n { #`(Block|140640519305672) ... }
> &pera = Nil
(Callable)
> &pera.defined
False
> sub foo ($n) { $n + 1}
&foo
> &foo.defined
True
> &foo = Nil
Cannot modify an immutable Sub (&foo)
in block <unit> at <unknown file> line 1
So what's the difference between assignment and binding?
How can I undefine a variable?
Lots of different issues to discuss here.
> my $k := 5;
> $k := Nil;
Cannot use bind operator
This first problem is the Raku REPL. cf your last SO. Have you tried CommaIDE or repl.it?
Your code is perfectly valid:
my $k := 5;
$k := Nil;
say $k; # Nil
Moving on:
my $k := 5;
$k = Nil;
Cannot assign to an immutable value
This is different. After binding 5 to $k, the $k = Nil code is attempting to assign a value into a number. Only containers[1] support assignment. A number isn't a container, so you can't assign into it.
Clarifying some cases you mentioned but didn't explicitly cover:
my #foo;
#foo := Nil;
Type check failed in binding; expected Positional...
While scalar variables (ones with a $ sigil) will bind to any value or container, an # sigil'd variable will only bind to a Positional container such as an Array. (Likewise a % to an Associative such as a Hash.)
Not only that, but these containers are always defined. So they still return True for .defined even if they're empty:
my #foo := Array.new; # An empty array
say #foo.elems; # 0 -- zero elements
say #foo.defined; # True -- despite array being empty
Now assigning Nil to an array:
my #foo;
#foo = Nil;
say #foo; # [(Any)]
If a declaration of an # sigil'd variable doesn't bind it to some explicit Positional type it is instead bound to the default choice for an # variable. Which is an Array with a default element value of Any.
The #foo = Nil; statement above assigns a Nil value into the first element of #foo. The assignment of a value into a non-existing element of a multi-element container means a new Scalar container pops into existence and is bound to that missing element before assignment continues. And then, because we're assigning a Nil, and because a Nil denotes an absence of a value, the Array's default value ((Any)) is copied into the Scalar instead of the Nil.
On to the sub case...
sub foo {}
&foo = {} # Cannot modify an immutable Sub (&foo)
&foo := {} # Cannot use bind operator ...
While a sub foo declaration generates an &foo identifier, it is deliberately neither assignable nor bindable. If you want a Callable variable, you must declare one using ordinary variable declaration.
Unbind or undefine a variable
You can't unbind variables in the sense of leaving them bound to nothing at all. (In other words, Raku avoids the billion dollar mistake.) In some cases you can rebind variables.
In some cases you can bind or assign an undefined value to a variable. If it's not a scalar variable then that's like the # variable example covered above. The scalar cases are considered next.
An example of the binding case:
my $foo := Any;
say $foo.defined; # False
say $foo; # (Any)
say $foo.VAR.WHAT; # (Any)
We'll see what the .VAR is about in a moment.
The assignment case:
my $foo = Any;
say $foo.defined; # False
say $foo.WHAT; # (Any)
say $foo.VAR.WHAT; # (Scalar)
It's important to understand that in this case the $foo is bound to a Scalar, which is a container, which is most definitely "defined", for some definition of "defined", despite appearances to the contrary in the say $foo.defined; line.
In the say $foo.WHAT; line the Scalar remains hidden. Instead we see an (Any). But the (Any) is the type of the value held inside the Scalar container bound to $foo.
In the next line we've begun to pierce the veil by calling .VAR.WHAT on $foo. The .VAR gets the Scalar to reveal itself, rather than yielding the value it contains. And so we see the type Scalar.
But if you call .defined on that Scalar it still insists on hiding!:
my $foo;
say $foo.VAR.defined; # False
say $foo.VAR.DEFINITE; # True
(The only way to force Raku to tell you the ultimate truth about its view of definiteness is to call the ultimate arbiter of definiteness, .DEFINITE.)
So what are the rules?
The compiler will let you assign or bind a given new value or container to a variable, if doing so is valid according to the original variable declaration.
Assigning or binding an undefined value follows the same rules.
Binding
All variables must be bound by the end of their declaration.
If a variable's declaration allows an undefined value to be bound/assigned to that variable, then the variable can be undefined in that sense. But in all other circumstances and senses variables themselves can never be "unbound" or "undefined".
Binding is about making a variable correspond to some container or value:
Variables with # and % sigils must be bound to a container (default Array and Hash respectively).
Variables with the $ sigil must be bound to either a container (default Scalar) or a value.
Variables with the & sigil must be bound to a Callable value or a Scalar constrained to contain a Callable value. (The & sigil'd variable that's visible as a consequence of declaring a sub does not allow rebinding or assignment.)
Assignment
Assignment means copying a value into a container.
If a variable is bound to a container, then you can assign into it, provided the assignment is allowed by the compiler according to the original variable declaration.
If a variable is not bound to a container, then the compiler will reject an assignment to it.
Scalar variables
If you use a scalar container as if it were a value, then you get the value that's held inside the container.
Binding a value (defined or undefined) to a scalar variable will mean it will stop acting as a container. If you then try to assign to that variable it won't work. You'd need to rebind it back to a container.
Footnotes
[1] In this answer I've used the word "container" to refer to any value that can serve as a container for containing other values. For example, instances of Array, Hash, or Scalar.
Related
Given the following code, it seems that I cannot iterate over a Buf if it had been assigned to a variable, unless I cast it to a list, even though it's not a lazy sequence. What gives?
my $file = open $path, bin => True;
$_.chr.say for $file.read: 8; # works well
my $test = $file.read: 8;
$_.chr.say for $test; # fails with "No such method 'chr' for invocant of type 'Buf[uint8]'"
$_.chr.say for $test.list; # works well
$test.is-lazy.say; # False
The reason it fails, is that:
my $test = $file.read: 8;
puts the Buf that is returned by $file.read into a Scalar variable, aka inside a container. And containerized is interpreted by for as itemized, to be considered a single item. So with:
.chr.say for $test;
you're calling the .chr method on the whole Buf, rather than on the individual elements.
There are a number of solutions to this:
make sure there's no container:
my $test := $file.read: 8;
This makes sure there is no container by binding the Buf.
make it look like an array
my #test := $file.read: 8;
Same as 1 basically, make the #test be an alias for the Buf. Note that this should also use binding, otherwise you'll get the same effect as you saw.
make it work like an Iterable
.chr.say for #$test;
By prefixing the # you're telling to iterate over it. This is basically syntactic sugar for the $test.list workaround you already found.
Re the $test.is-lazy.say, that is False for just about anything, e.g. 42.is-lazy.say; # False, so that doesn't tell you very much :-)
Suppose I have the following code:
my constant #suits = <Clubs Hearts Spades Diamonds>;
my constant #values = 2..14;
class Card {
has $.suit;
has $.value;
# order is mnemonic of "$value of $suit", i.e. "3 of Clubs"
multi method new($value, $suit) {
return self.bless(:$suit, :$value);
}
}
It defines some suits and some values and what it means to be a card.
Now, to build a deck, I essentially need to take the cross product of the suits and the values and apply that to the constructor.
The naiive approach to do this, would of course be to just iterate with a loop:
my #deck = gather for #values X #suits -> ($v, $c) {
take Card.new($v, $c);
}
But this is Raku, we have a cross function that can take a function as an optional argument!, so of course I'm gonna do that!
my #deck = cross(#values, #suits, :with(Card.new));
# Unexpected named argument 'with' passed
# in block <unit> at .\example.raku line 36
... wait no.
What about this?
my #deck = cross(#values, #suits):with(Card.new);
# Unexpected named argument 'with' passed
# in block <unit> at .\example.raku line 36
Still nothing. Reference maybe?
my #deck = cross(#values, #suits):with(&Card.new);
# ===SORRY!=== Error while compiling D:\Code\Raku/.\example.raku
# Illegally post-declared type:
# Card used at line 36
I read somewhere I can turn a function into an infix operator with []
my #deck = cross(#values, #suits):with([Card.new]);
# Unexpected named argument 'with' passed
# in block <unit> at .\example.raku line 36
That also doesn't work.
If classes are supposed to just be modules, shouldn't I then be able to pass a function reference?
Also why is it saying 'with' is that's unexpected? If I'm intuiting this right, what it's actually complaining about is the type of the input, rather than the named argument.
The error message is indeed confusing.
The :with parameter expects a Callable. Card.new is not a Callable. If you write it as :with( { Card.new($^number, $^suit) } ), it appears to work.
Note that I did not use $^value, $^suit, because they order differently alphabetically, so would produce the values in the wrong order. See The ^ twigil for more information on that syntax.
The error is LTA, this makes it a little bit better.
To get back to your question: you can find the code object that corresponds to Card.new with ^find_method. However, that will not work, as Card.new actually expects 3 arguments: the invocant (aka self), $value and $suit. Whereas the cross function will only pass the value and the suit.
The title of your question is “How do I take a reference to new?”, but that is not really what you want to do.
Raku being Raku, you can actually get a reference to new.
my $ref = Card.^lookup('new');
You can't use it like you want to though.
$ref(2,'Clubs'); # ERROR
The problem is that methods take a class or instance as the first argument.
$ref(Card, 2,'Clubs');
You could use .assuming to add it in.
$ref .= assuming(Card);
$ref(2,'Clubs');
But that isn't really any better than creating a block lambda
$ref = { Card.new( |#_ ) }
$ref(2,'Clubs');
All of these work:
cross( #values, #suits ) :with({Card.new(|#_)}) # adverb outside
cross( #values, #suits, :with({Card.new(|#_)}) ) # inside at end
cross( :with({Card.new(|#_)}), #values, #suits ) # inside at beginning
#values X[&( {Card.new(|#_)} )] #suits # cross meta-op with fake infix op
do {
sub new-card ($value,$suit) { Card.new(:$value,:$suit) }
#values X[&new-card] #suits
}
do {
sub with ($value,$suit) { Card.new(:$value,:$suit) }
cross(#values,#suits):&with
}
I intentionally avoid the term defined because a variable may very well have a defined value but the .defined method will return false (Failures, for instance).
Is there any way to determine whether a variable has had a value set to it?
my $foo;
say $foo; # (Any), its type object, no value assigned
my Str $bar;
say $bar; # (Str), its type object, no value assigned
my $abc = Str;
say $abc; # (Str), the type object we assigned to $abc
How can we disinguish $bar (no value set, typed as Str) from $abc (value set to Str)?
Given that $bar.WHICH == $abc.WHICH, but $bar.VAR.WHICH !== $abc.VAR.WHICH, and methods like .defined will return false for each, is there any quick and easy way to determine that there is a set value?
I supposed it could be checked against the default value, but then there'd be no way to distinguish between the value being by virtue of unset, versus by being set in code.
Variables are always set to some sort of value.
If you don't set it to a value, a value will be chosen for you.
Specifically it will be set to the default.
(If you don't choose a default, it will be set to the type object.)
my $abc;
say $abc.VAR.default.raku;
# Any
my Int $def = 42;
say $def.VAR.default.raku;
# Int
my $ghi is default(42) = 2;
say $ghi.VAR.default.raku;
# 42
What you're asking for isn't really something that Raku supports.
You could probably fake something close though.
(Every instance of Mu.new is unique.)
sub is-not-set ( Mu $_ is raw ) {
$_.self =:= $_.VAR.default
}
my $abc is default(Mu.new);
my $def is default(Mu.new) = Any;
my $ghi is default(Mu.new) = Mu.new;
say is-not-set $abc; # True
say is-not-set $def; # False
say is-not-set $ghi; # False
The thing is that assigning Nil will also set it to the default.
$def = Nil;
say is-not-set $def; # True
As will looking up the default and assigning it.
$ghi = $ghi.VAR.default;
say is-not-set $ghi; # True
I don't think you should worry about such things.
If you really really need something to happen the first time you assign to the variable, you could do something like this:
my $abc := Proxy.new(
# this FETCH only needs to return the default
# as this Proxy gets replaced upon the first assignment
FETCH => -> $ { Any },
STORE => -> $, $value {
# replace the Proxy with a new Scalar
$abc := do { my $abc = $value };
say 'first assignment just happened'
},
);
say $abc;
# Any
$abc = 1;
# first assignment just happened
say $abc;
# 1
$abc = 2;
say $abc;
# 2
The do block is just there so that $abc.VAR.name returns $abc.
Otherwise you could just write $abc := my $ = $value.
I think both the values are identical, but the containers have different type constraints.
Try
my Str $foo;
my $bar = Str;
use Test;
cmp-ok $bar, &[===], $foo, 'The values are identical';
isa-ok $bar, Str;
isa-ok $foo, Str;
isa-ok $bar.VAR.of, Mu;
nok $bar.VAR.of.isa(Str), 'The container $bar is not of Str' ;
isa-ok $foo.VAR.of, Str;
done-testing();
ok 1 - The values are identical
ok 2 - The object is-a 'Str'
ok 3 - The object is-a 'Str'
ok 4 - The object is-a 'Mu'
ok 5 - The container $bar is not of Str
ok 6 - The object is-a 'Str'
1..6
Is that a general question or an implementation problem? If the latter, maybe (ab)using roles is an option?
role isUnset {};
my Str $a = Str but isUnset;
say $a ~~ isUnset;
# meanwile
$a = 'set';
# ...
$a = Str;
# and then
say $a ~~ isUnset; # Now False
my Str $bar and my $bar = Str result in the same thing, both are of type Str but have no definite values. Str is a type object, not a value.
.defined would return True if you'd give $bar a definite value, such as "Str" (note the quotes surrounding the bareword).
You might try to assign a default value to a variable, instead of keeping it undefined:
my Str $bar is default("");
$bar will be Str only if it's assigned that value type; if its value is deleted via assigning Nil it will default again to the empty string. As a matter of fact, the default for a variable is its type object, so:
my Str $foo;
my $bar = Str;
say $foo eqv $bar
will, in fact, return True.
This code:
constant %what = { doesn't => 'change' };
%what = { will => "change" }
Should say something along the lines of "Cannot modify an immutable hash". However, it says:
Potential difficulties:
Useless use of hash composer on right side of hash assignment; did you mean := instead?
Positionals have pretty much the same problem, but the error is different. In this case it's about cannot modify an immutable, but an Str:
constant #what = <does not change>;
#what = <does change> # Cannot modify an immutable Str (does)
A Scalar works as expected. Is this a case of LTA error message, or is some container magic at work here that I'm missing?
This code:
constant %what = { doesn't => 'change' };
%what = { will => "change" }
Should say something along the lines of "Cannot modify an immutable hash".
Who says so? I mean this rhetorically, not rudely. I get why you think so but it's important to be careful with use of the word "should" because it implies some authority says so, eg the specification, or a design document, or someone's common sense, or whatever.
Per the current spec, and Rakudo implementation, what constant foo ... does is permanently (constantly) bind foo to some particular "value".
If that "value" is a container, then foo constantly refers to that container. (Yes, a container can be a "value", for some definition of "value" that is appropriate here.)
So your code above has changed the elements contained within that container, and that is, per spec, perfectly cromulent:
say %what; # {will => change}
In the meantime, the warning message legitimately mentions useless use of a hash constructor, plus it notes:
did you mean := instead?
If you try that:
constant %what = { doesn't => 'change' };
%what := { will => "change" }
You get:
Cannot use bind operator with this left-hand side
Because, as already established, %what is a compile time constant permanently bound to a hash created and initialized at compile time and that aspect -- the permanent binding of %what to that particular hash -- can't be changed during this program run.
Positionals have pretty much the same problem, but the error is different. In this case it's about cannot modify an immutable, but an Str:
constant #what = <does not change>;
#what = <does change> # Cannot modify an immutable Str (does)
That's a bit different. A constant declaration binds, regardless of whether you write = or :=. So the constant declarations are equivalent to:
constant %what := { doesn't => 'change' }
constant #what := <does not change>;
The first line binds %what to { doesn't => 'change' } which is a mutable Hash.
The second line binds #what to <does not change> which is an immutable List.
You could instead write:
constant #what = [<does not change>];
#what = <does change>;
say #what; # [does change]
A Scalar works as expected.
Not quite.
A scalar (lowercase, the generic term) does:
constant $scalar = 42;
$scalar = 99; # Cannot assign to an immutable value
Remembering that constant always binds, the above code parallels:
my $scalar := 42;
$scalar = 99; # Cannot assign to an immutable value
But a Scalar works the same as the other containers in this context:
constant $scalar = $ = 42;
$scalar = 99; # OK
(Don't write code like that unless you want to annoy people.)
Is this a case of LTA error message, or is some container magic at work?
That's a good question, and one I'm not going to try answer.
In the code below:
var verticesCount: Int // to read a vertices count for graph
// Reading until we get a valid vertices count.
while (!Assertions.checkEnoughVertices(
verticesCount = consoleReader.readInt(null, Localization.getLocStr("type_int_vertices_count"))))
// The case when we don't have enough vertices.
println(String.format(Localization.getLocStr("no_enough_vertices_in_graph"),
Assertions.CONFIG_MIN_VERTICES_COUNT))
val resultGraph = Graph(verticesCount)
we are getting next error on the last line:
Error:(31, 33) Kotlin: Variable 'verticesCount' must be initialized
Assertions.checkEnoughVertices accepts a safe type variable as an argument (verticesCount: Int), so it's impossible for verticesCount to be uninitialized or null here (and we're getting no corresponding errors on those lines).
What's going on on the last line when already initialized variable becomes uninitialized again?
The syntax you've used denotes a function call with named arguments, not the assignment of a local variable. So verticesCount = is just an explanation to the reader that the value which is being passed here to checkEnoughVertices corresponds to the parameter of that function named verticesCount. It has nothing to do with the local variable named verticesCount declared just above, so the compiler thinks you've still to initialize that variable.
In Kotlin, the assignment to a variable (a = b) is not an expression, so it cannot be used as a value in other expressions. You have to split the assignment and the while-loop condition to achieve what you want. I'd do this with an infinite loop + a condition inside:
var verticesCount: Int
while (true) {
verticesCount = consoleReader.readInt(...)
if (Assertions.checkEnoughVertices(verticesCount)) break
...
}
val resultGraph = Graph(verticesCount)
Well, technically it is possible to assign values to variables in the while condition - and anything else you might want to do there, too.
The magic comes from the also function:
Try this: (excuse the completely useless thing this is doing...)
var i = 10
var doubleI: Int
while ((i * 2).also { doubleI = it } > 0) {
i--
println(doubleI)
}
Any expression can be "extended" with "something to do" by calling also which takes the expression it is called upon as the it parameter and executes the given block. The value also returns is identical to its caller value.
Here's a very good article to explain this and much more: https://medium.com/#elye.project/mastering-kotlin-standard-functions-run-with-let-also-and-apply-9cd334b0ef84