So I've been reading up on lambdas in VB recently and am a bit confused tbh. I've got the code running properly, but want a better understanding. My main question is the use of the Invoke() method and the way of declaring a lambda.
One method I've seen is this:
Dim increment2 = Function(x)
Return x + 2
End Function
and the other:
Dim func1 As Func(Of Integer, Integer) =
Function(value As Integer)
Return value + 1
End Function
My question is, what's the difference? And what role does the Invoke() method play. I've seen to ways of calling lambdas, one like func1(4) and the other is func1.Invoke(4).
I should mention, that regardless of what change I make the output remains the same (5), leading me believe the change is something not very noticeable. And I'm curious as to what it is.
Related
In RealBasic (now Xojo), which I'm leaving to the past, I used to be able to declare a method like this:
Sub MyCoolSub(param1 as string, Assigns parameter2 as integer)
Do
'Waste CPU time scrying the universe.
Loop
End Sub
And then call it in this way:
MyCoolSub("Answer")=42
Now I'd want to replicate this behaviour in VB.Net.
The closest thing I stumbled upon is the Property's clauses, but VS does not let me add parameters to it that would however require some overhead which decreases the convenience of this type of declaration.
Do you have any better suggestion?
PS. As a side question I would be pretty happy to know that there is a way to comment with "//" in VB.Net, as I'm not that comfortable with the apostrophe character. Is there any thing as a VS comment characters list? Maybe an extension could do it...
When I look at the documentation for the Xojo Assigns keyword the closest thing I can think of is to create a write-only property like this:
Public WriteOnly Property theVolume(a As Integer, b As Integer) As Integer
Set(c As Integer)
Debug.WriteLine("a={0}, b={1}, c={2}", a, b, c)
End Set
End Property
theVolume(1, 2) = 3
a=1, b=2, c=3
Regarding your "P.S." note:
to ease your switching to VB.NET you can use the following AutoHotKey command:
:O://::'
This will do the appropriate substitution for you during typing.
You can limit it only to your IDE window using #IfWinActive directive.
Anyway, Roslyn VB.Net compiler is now open source so you can download and play...
Is there any difference under the hood between line 4 and line 5?
Why can't VB.net handle Line 3?
What is the proper way to call the function?
Dim aFunc As New Tuple(Of Func(Of String))(Function() "Hello World")
Dim s As String
s = aFunc.Item1() 'does not compile
s = (aFunc.Item1)()
s = aFunc.Item1.Invoke()
This looks like a compiler bug to me, the parentheses should make it unambiguously a method call. Hard to state this for a fact however, parens are heavily overloaded in vb.net to mean many things. Clearly it is the tuple that makes the compiler fumble, it works fine without it. This came up in this week's StackExchange podcast with Eric Lippert btw, you might want to listen to it to get the laundry list of things it can mean.
You could post this to connect.microsoft.com to get the opinion of the language designers. The behavior is certainly unintuitive enough to call it a bug. The workarounds you found are good. Both generate the exact same code and add no overhead, something you can see by running ildasm.exe on your assembly.
aFunc.Item1 is a Function, so you can't assign it to a String. You appear to want:
Dim aFunc As New Tuple(Of Func(Of String))(Function() "Hello World")
Dim s As String
Dim f As Func(Of String) = aFunc.Item1
s = f.Invoke()
EDIT:
s = aFunc.Item1() accesses the property Item1. To invoke the function which that property refers to, you can use s = aFunc.Item1()(), which is equivalent to your line 4. At a guess, property access is stronger than function invocation (if those are the correct terms).
As a summary: I'm trying to get String.Concat to use a reference type's ToString overload when sticking string together.
Edit: Added this overview: The example code below is a cooked down extract of my real code - as such it would be immediately obvious when refactoring if I only had two lines of code. The important issue here (to me) is that I changed from a string to an object and there was no compile error from String.Concat. Equally it's behaviour wasn't what I would have expected (Using my object's to string method, rather than the bog standard object name). If I'd been using "&", there would have been a compile error. I'm concerned that the String.Concat syntactic sugar may lead to bugs that otherwise would have been avoided (in this case when refactoring). I'd like to know if there's a way of altering the behaviour of String.Concat or if I should consider it to be dangerous.
The situation:I've got a solution which processes a whole heap of data; I was using a String to contain the identifier of each piece of data, but have just swapped this out for a class (FeatureIdentifier) to enable me to extend the identifier to include things like batches etc.
I've refactored my code so that I use this class instead of just the string. When refactoring this type of thing (rightly or wrongly) I tend to rely on compile errors as a to-do list.
Now, I'm a self-taught programmer and I'm probably a bit set in my ways (I tend to look at new features in terms of if they let me do anything new rather than if they let me do stuff I can already do only easier) and I've just come across something which makes me sad.
So, I was sticking my identifier onto an underscore onto a type. My code looked like this:
Dim x as string = "MyIdentifer"
dim myOutputValue as string = String.Concat(x,"_ANCHOR.txt")
Running this I got myOutputValue equal to "MyIdentifier_ANCHOR.txt". Following refactoring, my code looked like this:
Dim x as new FeatureIdentifier("MyIdentifier")
dim myOutputValue as string = String.Concat(x,"_ANCHOR.txt")
Running this I got myOutputValue equal to "MyNamespace.FeatureIdentifier_ANCHOR.txt".
Having kicked myself and implemented a ToString method on my class, I run it again and get exactly the same output (that is "MyNamespace.FeatureIdentifier_ANCHOR.txt"). In immediate, if I do: ?x.ToString, I get "MyIdentifier", so I'm certain I've implemented ToString correctly.
So, here's my problem. I like the syntax of String.Concat but I don't like the fact that it doesn't do one of:
a) calling ToString on reference types it sticks together orb) throwing a compile error if you pass it non-string based arguments. The old school: x & "_ANCHOR.txt" gives me a compile error (which I would have picked up when refactoring).
Here's what I've tried:
I've tried shadowing the String.Concat function with an extension (something like this:
<System.Runtime.CompilerServices.Extension()> Public Function Concat(...some arguments...) As String
Return String.Concat(...some arguments...)
End Function
) but hit two problems:
1) When trying to narrow the type of the arguments down to string to cause compile errors, I realised that the argument is a param array and hence objects in the first place. So fail there.
2) When I tried to make multiple overloads ((s1 as string, s2 as string), (s1 as string, s2 as string, s3 as string) etc), I felt it was a bit lame and also discovered that you can't actually overload an extension on a static class (which is what I guess String is).
So, does anyone know a way of getting String.Concat to behave as well as old-school concatenation, or should I avoid String.Concat in favour of old-school concatenation?.
(I'm not going to use a StringBuilder, as I'm only concatenating a few strings and I don't believe this is the place for one).
I don't believe there is any way that you are going to "fix" the String.Concat method to only allow strings. Chalk it up to another reason why shared methods should be created and used as sparingly as possible. However, through the miracle of operator overloading, you can make your custom class work just like a string. To fix the Concat method, you need to overload the CType operator. To fix the string concatenation operator (&), you need to overload that operator separately, like this:
Public Class FeatureIdentifier
Public Sub New(id As String)
Me.Id = id
End Sub
Public Property Id As String
Public Property SomethingElse As Integer
Public Overloads Shared Widening Operator CType(value As FeatureIdentifier) As String
Return value.Id
End Operator
Public Overloads Shared Operator &(value1 As FeatureIdentifier, value2 As String) As String
Return value1.Id & value2
End Operator
Public Overloads Shared Operator &(value1 As String, value2 As FeatureIdentifier) As String
Return value1 & value2.Id
End Operator
End Class
Now you can use it like this:
Dim x As New FeatureIdentifier("MyIdentifier")
Dim myOutputValue As String = String.Concat(x, "_ANCHOR.TXT")
Or like this:
Dim x As New FeatureIdentifier("MyIdentifier")
Dim myOutputValue As String = x & "_ANCHOR.TXT"
And it will work just like as if it were still a string, in those circumstances. You may also want to overload some of the other operators too, just in case. For instance, the + operator also concatenates when applied to two strings. However, I should caution you that operator overloading can cause confusion to people who are not familiar with the code, since it works unexpectedly, so you should only use it if it really makes sense to do so.
Do you need to override ToString and even make sure it's called for this? It would seem to be more proper to expose a property of FeatureIdentifier named Identifier, or some such thing, and then you can just do:
Dim myOutputValue as string = String.Concat(x.Identifier, "_ANCHOR.txt")
I have some code like:
Lookup(Of String)("Testing")
Lookup(Of Integer)("Testing")
And both of those Lookups work great. What I'm trying to is call the appropriate LookUp based on the type of another variable. Something that would look like...
Lookup(Of GetType(MyStringVariable))("Testing")
I've tried to Google this but I'm having a hard time coming up with an appropriate search. Can anyone tell me how to do what I want?
You do not specify the full signature for the method that you're calling, but my psychic powers tell me that it is this:
Function Lookup(Of T)(key As String) As T
And you want to avoid having to repeat Integer twice as in the example below:
Dim x As Integer
x = Lookup(Of Integer)("foo");
The problem is that type parameters are only deduced when they're used in argument context, but never in return value context. So, you need a helper function with a ByRef argument to do the trick:
Sub Lookup(Of T)(key As String, ByRef result As T)
T = Lookup(Of T)(key)
End Sub
With that, you can write:
Dim x As Integer
Lookup("foo", x);
One solution to this is to use reflection. See this question for details.
You can't use a dynamic type unless you do runtime compiling, which of course is really inefficient.
Although generics allows you to use different types, the type still has to be known at compile time so that the compiler can generate the specific code for that type.
This is not the way to go. You should ask about what problem you are trying to solve, instead of asking about the way that you think that it should be solved. Even if it might be possible to do something close to what you are asking, it's most likely that the best solution is something completely different.
The VB.NET compiler in VS2008 actually uses type-inference. That means if you are using a generic method, and one of the parameters is of the generic type, then you don't need to specify the generic type in your call.
Take the following definition...
Function DoSomething(Of T)(Target As T) As Boolean
If you call it with a strongly-typed String for Target, and don't specify the generic parameter, it will infer T as String.
If you call it with a strongly-typed Integer for Target, and don't specify the generic parameter, it will infer T as Integer.
So you could call this function as follows:
Dim myResult As Boolean = DoSomething("my new string")
And it will automatically infer the type of T as String.
EDIT:
NOTE: This works for single or multiple generic parameters.
NOTE: This works also for variables in the argument list, not just literals.
All
I am currently trying implement something along the lines of
dim l_stuff as List(of Stuff)
dim m_stuff as new Stuff
m_stuff.property1 = 1
m_stuff.property2 = "This"
if not l_stuff.exists(m_stuff) then
l_stuff.add(m_stuff)
end if
This fails obviously as the Exist method is looking for a predicate of Stuff.
Can anyone fully explain the predicate and how i can achieve what I am trying to do here.
I have tried to use
if not l_stuff.contains(m_stuff) then
l_stuff.add(m_stuff)
end if
however this doesn't detect the idenitcal entry and enters a duplicate into the list
Thank
List(Of T).Contains is the method you should be using. Exists, as you say, expects a predicate. Of course, for .Contains to work as expected, you need to override the Equals() method, as well as GetHashCode().
List(Of T).Exists expects a function that will return a Boolean value when passed an item of type T, where T, in your case, is of type Stuff. So, you could write a method that looks like:
If Not l_stuff.Exists(Function(x) x.property1 = m_stuff.property1 And _
x.property2 = m_stuff.property2) Then
and so on.