Suppose I have a function (in Kotlin over Java):
fun <E> myFun() = ...
where E is a general type I know nothing about. Can I determine within this function whether there exists an extension function E.extFun()? And if so, how?
I very much doubt this is possible.
Note that extension functions are resolved statically, at compile time.
And that they're dependent on the extension function being in scope, usually via a relevant import. In particular, it's possible to have more than one extension function with the same name for the same class, as long as they're defined in different places; the one that's in scope will get called.
Within your function, you won't have access to any of that context. So even if you use reflection (which is the usual, and much-abused, ‘get out of jail free card’ for this sort of issue), you still won't be able to find the relevant extension function(s). (Not unless you have prior knowledge of where they might be defined — but in that case, you can probably use that knowledge to come up with a better approach.)
So while I can't say for certain, it seems highly unlikely.
Why do you want to determine this? What are you trying to achieve by it?
Related
I see some usages of Extension functions in Kotlin I don't personally think that makes sense, but it seems that there are some guidelines that "apparently" support it (a matter of interpretation).
Specifically: defining an extension function outside a class (but in the same file):
data class AddressDTO(val state: State,
val zipCode: String,
val city: String,
val streetAddress: String
)
fun AddressDTO.asXyzFormat() = "${streetAddress}\n${city}\n${state.name} $zipCode"
Where the asXyzFormat() is widely used, and cannot be defined as private/internal (but also for the cases it may be).
In my common sense, if you own the code (AddressDTO) and the usage is not local to some class / module (hence behing private/internal) - there is no reason to define an extension function - just define it as a member function of that class.
Edge case: if you want to avoid serialization of the function starting with get - annotate the class to get the desired behavior (e.g. #JsonIgnore on the function). This IMHO still doesn't justify an extension function.
The counter-response I got to this is that the approach of having an extension function of this fashion is supported by the Official Kotlin Coding Conventions. Specifically:
Use extension functions liberally. Every time you have a function that works primarily on an object, consider making it an extension function accepting that object as a receiver.
Source
And:
In particular, when defining extension functions for a class which are relevant for all clients of this class, put them in the same file where the class itself is defined. When defining extension functions that make sense only for a specific client, put them next to the code of that client. Do not create files just to hold "all extensions of Foo".
Source
I'll appreciate any commonly accepted source/reference explaining why it makes more sense to move the function to be a member of the class and/or pragmatic arguments support this separation.
That quote about using extension functions liberally, I'm pretty sure means use them liberally as opposed to top level non-extension functions (not as opposed to making it a member function). It's saying that if a top-level function conceptually works on a target object, prefer the extension function form.
I've searched before for the answer to why you might choose to make a function an extension function instead of a member function when working on a class you own the source code for, and have never found a canonical answer from JetBrains. Here are some reasons I think you might, but some are highly subject to opinion.
Sometimes you want a function that operates on a class with a specific generic type. Think of List<Int>.sum(), which is only available to a subset of Lists, but not a subtype of List.
Interfaces can be thought of as contracts. Functions that do something to an interface may make more sense conceptually since they are not part of the contract. I think this is the rationale for most of the standard library extension functions for Iterable and Sequence. A similar rationale might apply to a data class, if you think of a data class almost like a passive struct.
Extension functions afford the possibility of allowing users to pseudo-override them, but forcing them to do it in an independent way. Suppose your asXyzFormat() were an open member function. In some other module, you receive AddressDTO instances and want to get the XYZ format of them, exactly in the format you expect. But the AddressDTO you receive might have overridden asXyzFormat() and provide you something unexpected, so now you can't trust the function. If you use an extension function, than you allow users to replace asXyzFormat() in their own packages with something applicable to that space, but you can always trust the function asXyzFormat() in the source package.
Similarly for interfaces, a member function with default implementation invites users to override it. As the author of the interface, you may want a reliable function you can use on that interface with expected behavior. Although the end-user can hide your extension in their own module by overloading it, that will have no effect on your own uses of the function.
For what it's worth, I think it would be very rare to choose to make an extension function for a class (not an interface) when you own the source code for it. And I can't think of any examples of that in the standard library. Which leads me to believe that the Coding Conventions document is using the word "class" in a liberal sense that includes interfaces.
Here's a reverse argument…
One of the main reasons for adding extension functions to the language is being able to add functionality to classes from the standard library, and from third-party libraries and other dependencies where you don't control the code and can't add member functions (AKA methods). I suspect it's mainly those cases that that section of the coding conventions is talking about.
In Java, the only option in this cases is utility methods: static methods, usually in a utility class gathering together lots of such methods, each taking the relevant object as its first parameter:
public static String[] splitOnChar(String str, char separator)
public static boolean isAllDigits(String str)
…and so on, interminably.
The main problem there is that such methods are hard to find (no help from the IDE unless you already know about all the various utility classes). Also, calling them is long-winded (though it improved a bit once static imports were available).
Kotlin's extension methods are implemented exactly the same way down at the bytecode level, but their syntax is much simpler and exactly like member functions: they're written the same way (with this &c), calling them looks just like calling a member function, and your IDE will suggest them.
(Of course, they have drawbacks, too: no dynamic dispatch, no inheritance or overriding, scoping/import issues, name clashes, references to them are awkward, accessing them from Java or reflection is awkward, and so on.)
So: if the main purpose of extension functions is to substitute for member functions when member functions aren't possible, why would you use them when member functions are possible?!
(To be fair, there are a few reasons why you might want them. For example, you can make the receiver nullable, which isn't possible with member functions. But in most cases, they're greatly outweighed by the benefits of a proper member function.)
This means that the vast majority of extension functions are likely to be written for classes that you don't control the source code for, and so you don't have the option of putting them next to the class.
I prefer working with files that are less than 1000 lines long, so am thinking of breaking up some Erlang modules into more bite-sized pieces.
Is there a way of doing this without expanding the public API of my library?
What I mean is, any time there is a module, any user can do module:func_exported_from_the_module. The only way to really have something be private that I know of is to not export it from any module (and even then holes can be poked).
So if there is technically no way to accomplish what I'm looking for, is there a convention?
For example, there are no private methods in Python classes, but the convention is to use a leading _ in _my_private_method to mark it as private.
I accept that the answer may be, "no, you must have 4K LOC files."
The closest thing to a convention is to use edoc tags, like #private and #hidden.
From the docs:
#hidden
Marks the function so that it will not appear in the
documentation (even if "private" documentation is generated). Useful
for debug/test functions, etc. The content can be used as a comment;
it is ignored by EDoc.
#private
Marks the function as private (i.e., not part of the public
interface), so that it will not appear in the normal documentation.
(If "private" documentation is generated, the function will be
included.) Only useful for exported functions, e.g. entry points for
spawn. (Non-exported functions are always "private".) The content can
be used as a comment; it is ignored by EDoc.
Please note that this answer started as a comment to #legoscia's answer
Different visibilities for different methods is not currently supported.
The current convention, if you want to call it that way, is to have one (or several) 'facade' my_lib.erl module(s) that export the public API of your library/application. Calling any internal module of the library is playing with fire and should be avoided (call them at your own risk).
There are some very nice features in the BEAM VM that rely on being able to call exported functions from any module, such as
Callbacks (funs/anonymous funs), MFA, erlang:apply/3: The calling code does not need to know anything about the library, just that it's something that needs to be called
Behaviours such as gen_server need the previous point to work
Hot reloading: You can upgrade the bytecode of any module without stopping the VM. The code server inside the VM maintains at most two versions of the bytecode for any module, redirecting external calls (those with the Module:) to the most recent version and the internal calls to the current version. That's why you may see some ?MODULE: calls in long-running servers, to be able to upgrade the code
You'd be able to argue that these points'd be available with more fine-grained BEAM-oriented visibility levels, true. But I don't think it would solve anything that's not solved with the facade modules, and it'd complicate other parts of the VM/code a great deal.
Bonus
Something similar applies to records and opaque types, records only exist at compile time, and opaque types only at dialyzer time. Nothing stops you from accessing their internals anywhere, but you'll only find problems if you go that way:
You insert a new field in the record, suddenly, all your {record_name,...} = break
You use a library that returns an opaque_adt(), you know that it's a list and use like so. The library is upgraded to include the size of the list, so now opaque_adt() is a tuple() and chaos ensues
Only those functions that are specified in the -export attribute are visible to other modules i.e "public" functions. All other functions are private. If you have specified -compile(export_all) only then all functions in module are visible outside. It is not recommended to use -compile(export_all).
I don't know of any existing convention for Erlang, but why not adopt the Python convention? Let's say that "library-private" functions are prefixed with an underscore. You'll need to quote function names with single quotes for that to work:
-module(bar).
-export(['_my_private_function'/0]).
'_my_private_function'() ->
foo.
Then you can call it as:
> bar:'_my_private_function'().
foo
To me, that communicates clearly that I shouldn't be calling that function unless I know what I'm doing. (and probably not even then)
I saw some examples of extension functions being defined inside a class/interface but I didn't understand the reason it would be done. Could someone show when it would be the proper way to implement some use case?
One particular example that I didn't understand very well:
interface Monoid<A> {
fun z(): A
fun A.add(other:A):A
}
When you only ever want to use this function inside your class/interface and its subtypes (or nearly so; you already know how to get out with with as per your previous question, but that shouldn't be a common case).
The specific example just seems like a bad idea once you need to work with more than one Monoid at once.
I have been looking in Rakudo source for the implementation of require, first out of curiosity and second because I wanted to know if it was returning something.
I looked up sub require and it returned this hit, which actually seems to be the source for require, but it's called sub REQUIRE_IMPORT. It returns Nil and is declared as such, which pretty much answers my original question. But now my question is: Where's the mapping from that sub to require? Is it really the implementation for that function? Are there some other functions that are declared that way?
require is not a sub, but rather a statement control (so, in the same category of things like use, if, for, etc.) It is parsed by the Perl 6 grammar and there are a few different cases that are accepted. It is compiled in the Perl 6 actions, which has quite a bit to handle.
Much of the work is delegated to the various CompUnit objects, which are also involved with use/need. It also has to take care of stubbing symbols that the require will bring in, since the set of symbols in a given lexical scope is fixed at compile time, and the REQUIRE_IMPORT utility sub is involved with the runtime symbol import too.
The answer to your question as to what it will evaluate to comes at the end of the method:
$past.push($<module_name>
?? self.make_indirect_lookup($longname.components())
!! $<file>.ast);
Which means:
If it was a require Some::Module then evaluate to a lookup of Some::Module
If it was a require $file style case, evaluate to the filename
Like in this example:
sealed class Option<T>
object None : Option<Nothing>() // <-- like this
class Some<T> : Option<T>()
Or, if it's not a good practice, what should I use here instead?
Are there any official response/article on that? Or is there any argumentation that this is a good practice?
I know that Nothing was designed to be used as a type for return value for functions that never returns any value, so I'm not sure if using it as a generic parameter is a valid use.
I know there is an article that says that you can do that, but I'm not sure if I can trust it.
And the author of koptional uses it too, but I don't know if I can trust that either.
Also, it looks like in Scala Option is implemented similar to that, None have type Option[Nothing] and Scala's Nothing is similar to Kotlin's Nothing.
I agree with #zsmb13's comment. Using Nothing in a generic type hierarchy is perfectly valid and even gives benefits over other options:
First, Nothing is embedded in the Kotlin type system as a subtype of any other type, so it plays well with generics variance. For example, Option<Nothing> can be passed where Option<out Foo> is expected.
Second, the compiler will perform control flow checks and detect unreachable code after a Nothing-returning member call when the type is statically known.
See also: A Whirlwind Tour of the Kotlin Type Hierarchy