Say you have two subroutines which have different interfaces and you have two types where each corresponds to one of the procedures.
type, abstract :: base
contains
procedure :: pointer_to_routine
end type base
type, extends(base) :: first_case
contains
procedure :: pointer_to_routine => first_case_routine
end type first_case
type, extends(base) :: second_case
contains
procedure :: pointer_to_routine => first_sec_routine
end type second_case
So this is not valid Fortran code, but it is kind of the idea I want to do. If the routines had similar interfaces I could define an abstract interface and deferred attribute in the base declared type.
But since my two routines have different interfaces, I am not sure how this can work out.
Essentially, one routine needs more inputs than another, so one solution would be to add the remaining inputs as just dummy inputs, although, this could potentially cause a bit confusion, And I am wondering if there is a more convenient solution.
All solutions you can invent for this will be workarounds. The language is simply designed that way that all procedures with the same binding name as in the parent type should have the same interface. Note that other languages have similar problems/features Override method with different signature.
You can use dummy arguments if you know they will be needed in general but not in a specific case. They can be optional arguments. You can also make the input arguments contained in a polymorphic derived type.That will bring new issues though.
Related
Ada has a construct called "protected types", where you have a collection of variables and subprograms associated with a type, and the subprograms have implicit synchronization. These types can be instantiated and each instance will have its own memory where the variables live. This looks a lot like the class/object duality in mainstream OOP languages such as C++ and Java, minus inheritance, plus mandatory implicit synchronization.
Is there an equivalent to this construct, minus the synchronization? If not, what's the rationale behind this design choice?
To be entirely clear, I'm aware that Ada supports different styles of OOP without any kind of synchronization. My question is about the specific style of OOP I mentioned - as it is one of the most common styles found in mainstream languages, and is indeed also present in Ada in some form.
To further clarify the question, which had been intentionally (and misguidedly) left open-ended, I am aware that the answer is "packages". But then, consider the following:
We have packages, which are units containing variables and subprograms, of which several instances can be created
We have types, which are enums or projections/mod of built-it types (I know this is a very approximate definition, specifics don't really matter here)
We have protected types, which are... units containing variables and subprograms, of which several instances can be created. Plus, they have synchronization.
This begs the thought: why "protected types" and not "protected packages"? This thought is the origin of the present question.
OOP is a set of concepts in programming without any dependence in a particular syntax. According to the Ada 95 Rationale: "Type extension in Ada 95 builds upon the existing Ada 83 concept of a derived type. In Ada 83, a derived type inherited the operations of its parent and could add new operations; however, it was not possible to add new components to the type. The whole mechanism was thus somewhat static. By contrast, in Ada 95 a derived type can also be extended to add new components."
In Ada a type is a type, independently of it providing OOP features or not. Ada 95 provided extension on top of other POO features already provided by Ada 83 types. The advantage of that is that you can turn easily a non-tagged type to a tagged type, if you later need type-extension, without affecting current uses of the type. This also avoids introducing hidden features in the OOP syntax, like friend classes (types sharing the package), static members (global package variables), the implicit this, or const at the end of a method to indicate that this object is not modified, etc.
Why protected types do not follow this pattern? They probably follow that of Ada 83 task types, but the latter don't have a private part, so it is still inconsistent. The design probably chose syntax of task types as inspiration, but added private part for efficiency (that was the main concern: "protected types allows a more efficient implementation of standard problems of shared data access").
So this is an answer to the title of this question:
"What is the non-synchronized equivalent to a protected type in Ada?"
I'm adding this mainly for people searching this question looking for the answer to the topic's title question.
Take a simple example protected type:
protected type My_Type is
procedure Set_Value(Value : Integer);
function Get_Value return Integer;
private
The_Value : Integer := 0;
end My_Type;
protected body My_Type is
procedure Set_Value(Value : Integer) is
begin
The_Value := Value;
end Set_Value;
function Get_Value return Integer is
begin
return The_Value;
end Get_Value;
end My_Type;
The equivalent non synchronized version would be to use a record type (or a tagged record if you want type extension) within a package paired with the operations on that type:
package My_Types is
-- For type extension use:
-- type My_Type is tagged private;
type My_Type is private;
procedure Set_Value(Self : in out My_Type; Value : Integer);
function Get_Value(Self : My_Type) return Integer;
private
-- For type extension use:
-- type My_Type is tagged record
type My_Type is record
The_Value : Integer := 0;
end record;
end My_Types;
package body My_Types is
procedure Set_Value(Self : in out My_Type; Value : Integer) is
begin
Self.The_Value := Value;
end Set_Value;
function Get_Value(Self : My_Type) return Integer is
begin
return Self.The_Value;
end Get_Value;
-- Alternate syntax:
-- function Get_Value(Self : My_Type) return Integer is (Self.The_Value);
end My_Types;
Operations declared within a package that operate on a type in the package before that type is frozen are "associated" to that type (Ada calls them primitive operations). This includes functions that return those types.
For the "why" each layout was chosen differently, I don't really know. It might be helpful to take a look at the bottom of the following page and look through all the comments/emails/discussions of the ARG (credit to Simon Wright for the initial link):
http://archive.adaic.com/standards/ada95.html
If I had to guess without fully reading those sections Simon pointed me to (I will get to reading them all the way through), I would wager it has to do with the fact that records existed as is before protected types existed and protected types were thought more of an extension of the tasking model, so they iterated on the task type layout for protected type. Some of what I did read(here and here) already led me to believe they ran into some existing issues (either technical or philosophical) trying to layout protected types more like records.
Note that protected types do not give the full set of "information hiding" capabilities as most programmers expect, such as public vs private member variables (only private for protected types).
Credit to Simon Wright for the links I provided
The standard way to define a complete type (data + operations) is Ada is with a package containing the type declaration (often private) and the subprograms for the type.
In general, encapsulation and information hiding (package) are orthogonal to types and subprograms in Ada. In many commonly used languages, encapsulation and information hiding are provided only by the class construct.
This is a bit of a ramble round the topic ...
If you had a protected package, what parts of its contents would be synchronised? Any variable, spec or body? any type? child packages? And, to be able to create multiple instances of the package, it’d have to be generic. How then could you create an instance within a record? I think it needs to be a type.
As I understand it, there’s not really a parallel to package in C++, so you’d have to say protected class Foo ... which seems hard to distinguish from a protected type.
Given packages, which already encapsulate everything else, I guess the design team could have gone with something like
type P is record
...
end record;
pragma Protected (P);
where primitive operations of P would be synchronised, but you then have the problem of clarity (primitiveness being easy to get wrong) and of visibility (you really don’t want any of the components of P being accessible from outside). What syntax do we use for entry operations? Protected types seem a reasonable compromise.
Is there an equivalent to this construct, minus the synchronization?
If not, what's the rationale behind this design choice?
Ok, the other answers are really quite good, but here's the simple answer:
Ada defines a “type” as a set of values and a set of operations on those values; the notion of “subtype” is likewise defined as a type with an additional (possibly null) set of constraints on its values. — This leads to the ability to say “Subtype Natural is Integer 0..Integer'Last;” — In Ada 83 there was no way to add values to a type, but there was type-derivation where you could 'inherit' a type, possibly adding other operations and/or altering representational items. (Thus you could have “Type Native_Data is array(1..10, 1..200) of Integer;” and “Type External_Data is new Native_Data;” with "For External_Data'Convention use Fortran;"1 and convert between native and external formats via conversion: Data:= Native_Data( From_Disk(File => "Import.dat") ).)
So, Ada95 built atop type-derivation allowing more values which are the type-extension (as well as the more operations). — Ada95 also extended the library/compilation-units structure from a 'flat' notion to a hierarchical one, but the basic unit of organization was (and is still) the package.
Now, we get to protected types, protected types are synchronization types, the data encapsulated into the construct and manipulated via accessors and mutators — this construct is pretty much the bastard child of packages and tasks: it is structured reminiscent of the package and has the queue-like access (entries, functions. procedures) of tasks, albeit a bit more 'exposed'/explicit than the implicit nature of task entries and the rendezvous.
So then, what is a protected type without synchronization?
Simple, a regular type.
This begs the thought: why "protected types" and not "protected
packages"?
While I'm sure that the above provides enough information for you to suss things out, the simple answer is this:
Packages are really interfaces (in the general notion, not the keyword/tagged-type notion) and namespaces: they declare the public view and also segregate the private implementation, as well as encapsulating the scope of the things within.
Thus a “Protected Package” would essentially be the protected type "but with namespacing" — and thus be a really redundant construct, not to mention that one of the motivating factors for protected types was the ability to drop the active thread of control required from tasks for synchronization: all that can be handled by the compiler inserting the proper queuing/bookkeeping around accesses without any of the complexity (and timing/scheduling impositions) that a task would require — so there would have to be special rules for a "protected package" either disallowing Task or requiring some special form, which would add complexity to the compiler.
1 — Fortran uses column-major ordering for its multidimensional arrays, Ada uses row-major ordering [I don't recall if this is required by the LRM]; this 'trick' allows you to have the compiler handle the "trans-positioning", as well as using the type-system to keep track of which is which. (You can use this with things like network-format vs native-format in protocols, too.)
I have an application that creates xml strings from abap structures using many different simple transformations and consequently many different abap structures.
I want to use a more flexible OO approach with an Interface to do this but due to the different structures the method signatures importing parameter is always different.
What are the pros and cons of typing the importing parameter generic instead so I can implement one method from one interface in each class handling the different transformations?
INTERFACE if_transformer.
METHODS transform_xml
IMPORTING isource_structure TYPE REF TO data
RETURNING VALUE(rxml_string) TYPE string.
ENDINTERFACE.
...
CLASS material_transformer definition.
PUBLIC SECTION.
INTERFACES if_transformer.
ENDCLASS.
CLASS material_transformer IMPLEMENTATION.
METHOD if_transformer~transform_xml.
FIELD-SYMBOLS <structure> TYPE concrete_structure.
ASSIGN isource_structure->* TO <structure>.
...
ENDMETHOD.
ENDCLASS.
The more specific your types, the earlier you notice errors, the easier your interfaces can be understood, and the less overhead you have in validating and casting/converting to the concrete types you want to handle.
For example, consider you type the method add_number as methods add_number importing n type i. The compiler will then reject the wrong statement add_number( 'xyz' ) and this class of errors will never make it into executable code. In turn, anybody reading that method's declaration can easily see that the method accepts only integer numbers, not floats, not packeds, and definitely not strings that contain numbers. Within the method, you can probably directly take the input n and do something with it, such as result = sum_so_far + n, without having to first validate the input or convert it to something else.
In contrast, consider you type the same method add_number as methods add_number importing n type ref to data. The compiler will gladly accept add_number( ref #( 'xyz' ) ), although it is complete nonsense; this class of error will thus only be detected at runtime, with type conversion exceptions that the code around this will have to react to in a meaningful way. People reading the method's declaration have to consult its docu, unit tests, and/or code to find out what kind of input it accepts; there is no way to guess it from the specification alone. Finally, within the method, you will first have to validate and convert the input before you can process it, such as is_integer( n ), cast, assign, and the like; in case the input is unacceptable, you need to find suitable error handling mechanisms, such as throwing nice exceptions.
With softly typed languages like JavaScript, using generic types is the default. However, history shows that people often prefer stronger typing, at least on the server side, leading to follow-up evolutions such as TypeScript or Deno. With strongly-typed languages like ABAP, the rule of thumb is to choose a data type as precise as possible.
Note that there are several levels of relaxation in generic types. For example, you should consider resorting to "partially" generic types like simple, which accepts ABAP structures, or standard table, which accepts tables, before resorting to the maximum-generic type data.
Excellent answer by Florian. I might add that an approach I've used in similar scenarios is to use a factory class that inspects the input data and instantiates the appropriate class to deal with it.
I know it's possible to defer the definition of procedures from an abstract type to its derived types. Is it possible to include 'deferred' data in an abstract type, i.e., data whose type and value is only defined in derived classes?
The closest question I found on stackoverflow was here. It does not address my needs.
If clarification is needed, please ask. Many thanks.
There's no straightforward way to defer the definition of a data component of an (abstract) derived type as there is for procedure components, so no declaration such as
type(magic), deferred :: element
which can be overridden by a concrete declaration in an extended type. I think the easy (?) workaround would be to use class in the declaration. For ultimate flexibility you could use an unlimited polymorphic component, eg
type :: stype
class(*), allocatable :: element
end type style
What you can't then do is specify the type in a concrete extended type with a (re-)declaration something like
type, extends(stype) :: mstype
integer :: element
end type mstype
Instead, if you want to define an extended type which has an integer element you would create the type and write a constructor for it that ensures its element is allocated with type integer.
If your requirements are more modest the 2003 feature of parameterised derived types might satisfy you, but as far as I know only the Cray and IBM XL compilers implement that yet.
I have a lot to learn in the way of OO patterns and this is a problem I've come across over the years. I end up in situations where my classes' sole purpose is procedural, just basically wrapping a procedure up in a class. It doesn't seem like the right OO way to do things, and I wonder if someone is experienced with this problem enough to help me consider it in a different way. My specific example in the current application follows.
In my application I'm taking a set of points from engineering survey equipment and normalizing them to be used elsewhere in the program. By "normalize" I mean a set of transformations of the full data set until a destination orientation is reached.
Each transformation procedure will take the input of an array of points (i.e. of the form class point { float x; float y; float z; }) and return an array of the same length but with different values. For example, a transformation like point[] RotateXY(point[] inList, float angle). The other kind of procedure wold be of the analysis type, used to supplement the normalization process and decide what transformation to do next. This type of procedure takes in the same points as a parameter but returns a different kind of dataset.
My question is, what is a good pattern to use in this situation? The one I was about to code in was a Normalization class which inherits class types of RotationXY for instance. But RotationXY's sole purpose is to rotate the points, so it would basically be implementing a single function. This doesn't seem very nice, though, for the reasons I mentioned in the first paragraph.
Thanks in advance!
The most common/natural approach for finding candidate classes in your problem domain is to look for nouns and then scan for the verbs/actions associated with those nouns to find the behavior that each class should implement. While this is generally a good advise, it doesn't mean that your objects must only represent concrete elements. When processes (which are generally modeled as methods) start to grow and become complex, it is a good practice to model them as objects. So, if your transformation has a weight on its own, it is ok to model it as an object and do something like:
class RotateXY
{
public function apply(point p)
{
//Apply the transformation
}
}
t = new RotateXY();
newPoint = t->apply(oldPoint);
in case you have many transformations you can create a polymorphic hierarchy and even chain one transformation after another. If you want to dig a bit deeper you can also take a look at the Command design pattern, which closely relates to this.
Some final comments:
If it fits your case, it is a good idea to model the transformation at the point level and then apply it to a collection of points. In that way you can properly isolate the transformation concept and is also easier to write test cases. You can later even create a Composite of transformations if you need.
I generally don't like the Utils (or similar) classes with a bunch of static methods, since in most of the cases it means that your model is missing the abstraction that should carry that behavior.
HTH
Typically, when it comes to classes that contain only static methods, I name them Util, e.g. DbUtil for facading DB access, FileUtil for file I/O etc. So find some term that all your methods have in common and name it that Util. Maybe in your case GeometryUtil or something along those lines.
Since the particulars of the transformations you apply seem ad-hoc for the problem and possibly prone to change in the future you could code them in a configuration file.
The point's client would read from the file and know what to do. As for the rotation or any other transformation method, they could go well as part of the Point class.
I see nothing particularly wrong with classes/interfaces having just essentially one member.
In your case the member is an "Operation with some arguments of one type that returns same type" - common for some math/functional problems. You may find convenient to have interface/base class and helper methods that combine multiple transformation classes together into more complex transformation.
Alternative approach: if you language support it is just go functional style altogether (similar to LINQ in C#).
On functional style suggestion: I's start with following basic functions (probably just find them in standard libraries for the language)
collection = map(collection, perItemFunction) to transform all items in a collection (Select in C#)
item = reduce (collection, agregateFunction) to reduce all items into single entity (Aggregate in C#)
combine 2 functions on item funcOnItem = combine(funcFirst, funcSecond). Can be expressed as lambda in C# Func<T,T> combined = x => second(first(x)).
"bind"/curry - fix one of arguments of a function functionOfOneArg = curry(funcOfArgs, fixedFirstArg). Can be expressed in C# as lambda Func<T,T> curried = x => funcOfTwoArg(fixedFirstArg, x).
This list will let you do something like "turn all points in collection on a over X axis by 10 and shift Y by 15": map(points, combine(curry(rotateX, 10), curry(shiftY(15))).
The syntax will depend on language. I.e. in JavaScript you just pass functions (and map/reduce are part of language already), C# - lambda and Func classes (like on argument function - Func<T,R>) are an option. In some languages you have to explicitly use class/interface to represent a "function" object.
Alternative approach: If you actually dealing with points and transformation another traditional approach is to use Matrix to represent all linear operations (if your language supports custom operators you get very natural looking code).
i know this question has been already asked, but i didnt get it quite right, i would like to know, which is the base one, class or the type. I have few questions, please clear those for me,
Is type the base of a programing data type?
type is hard coded into the language itself. Class is something we can define ourselves?
What is untyped languages, please give some examples
type is not something that fall in to the oop concepts, I mean it is not restricted to oop world
Please clear this for me, thanks.
I didn't work with many languages. Maybe, my questions are correct in terms of : Java, C#, Objective-C
1/ I think type is actually data type in some way people talk about it.
2/ No. Both type and class we can define it. An object of Class A has type A. For example if we define String s = "123"; then s has a type String, belong to class String. But the vice versa is not correct.
For example:
class B {}
class A extends B {}
B b = new A();
then you can say b has type B and belong to both class A and B. But b doesn't have type A.
3/ untyped language is a language that allows you to change the type of the variable, like in javascript.
var s = "123"; // type string
s = 123; // then type integer
4/ I don't know much but I think it is not restricted to oop. It can be procedural programming as well
It may well depend on the language. I treat types and classes as the same thing in OO, only making a distinction between class (the definition of a family of objects) and instance (or object), specific concrete occurrences of a class.
I come originally from a C world where there was no real difference between language-defined types like int and types that you made yourself with typedef or struct.
Likewise, in C++, there's little difference (probably none) between std::string and any class you put together yourself, other than the fact that std::string will almost certainly be bug-free by now. The same isn't always necessary in our own code :-)
I've heard people suggest that types are classes without methods but I don't believe that distinction (again because of my C/C++ background).
There is a fundamental difference in some languages between integral (in the sense of integrated rather than integer) types and class types. Classes can be extended but int and float (examples for C++) cannot.
In OOP languages, a class specifies the definition of an object. In many cases, that object can serve as a type for things like parameter matching in a function.
So, for an example, when you define a function, you specify the type of data that should be passed to the function and the type of data that is returned:
int AddOne(int value) { return value+1; } uses int types for the return value and the parameter being passed in.
In languages that have both, the concepts of type and class/object can almost become interchangeable. However, there are many languages that do not have both. For instance, I believe that standard C has no support for custom-defined objects, but it certainly does still have types. On the otherhand, both PHP and Javascript are examples of languages where type is very loosely defined (basically, types are either single item, collection/array/object, or undefined [js only]), but they have full support for classes/objects.
Another key difference: you can have methods and custom-functions associated with a class/object, but not with a standard data-type.
Hopefully that clarified some. To answer your specific questions:
In some ways, type could be considered a base concept of programming, yes.
Yes, with the exception that classes can be treated as types in functions, as in the example above.
An untyped language is one that lets you use any type of variable interchangeably. Meaning that you can handle a string with the same code that handles an int, for instance. In practice most 'untyped' languages actually implement a concept called duck-typing, so named because they say that 'if it acts like a duck, it should be treated like a duck' and attempt to use any variable as the type that makes sense for the code encountered. Again, php and javascript are two languages which do this.
Very true, type is applicable outside of the OOP world.