I'd like to try out classes and polymorphism in Chapel, so I am trying to
get the following example code to work:
module SomeAnimals {
class Animal {
}
class Bird: Animal {
}
class Fish: Animal {
}
proc Bird.fly() {
writeln("Flying ...!");
}
proc Fish.swim() {
writeln("Swimming ...!");
}
} // module SomeAnimals
proc main() {
use SomeAnimals;
var anim: Animal;
anim = new Fish();
select (anim.type) {
when Fish do anim.swim();
}
delete anim;
anim = new Bird();
select (anim.type) {
when Bird do anim.fly();
}
delete anim;
} // proc main
This compiles, but upon running it, it simply exits without producing any
print-out. Apparently, the calls to the anim.swim() and anim.fly() methods, contained within the select statements, aren't executed for some reason. Without making use of these select statements to check the actual type of the polymorphic variable "anim", the code, of course, doesn't compile.
The above example is actually a rather literal translation of a working
Fortran 2008 code that makes use of Fortran's "select type" statement. Does
Chapel provide a similar statement, or does this example have to be coded in a completely different fashion in order to work in Chapel? I couldn't find anything of relevance in the Chapel documentation.
The key for understanding why your code isn't working is that myVar.type in Chapel refers to the variable's static type rather than its dynamic type. So even though you and I can see that anim is a Fish initially and a Bird later, anim.type will always be Animal since it was declared as var anim: Animal; giving it the static type Animal. You can see this by changing your main() function to the following (try it online):
proc main() {
use SomeAnimals;
var anim: Animal;
anim = new Fish();
writeln(anim.type:string);
anim = new Bird();
writeln(anim.type:string);
} // proc main
where the output will be:
Animal
Animal
One way to reason about a class variable's dynamic type in Chapel is to apply the cast operator (:) to it, which behaves similarly to dynamic casts in C++. Namely, if I try to cast a variable whose static type is Animal to Fish but it's really a Bird, I'll get nil back, indicating that the class object was neither a Fish nor a subclass of Fish.
So a rewrite of your main() that behaves as you'd like would be the following (try it online):
proc main() {
use SomeAnimals;
var anim: Animal = new Fish();
var aFish = anim:Fish;
if aFish then
aFish.swim();
delete anim;
anim = new Bird();
var aBird = anim:Bird;
if aBird then
aBird.fly();
delete anim;
} // proc main
(where I'm using the shorthand if classVar ... for if classVar != nil ...)
Rewinding to your specific question about whether Chapel has a Fortran-like type select statement, it does not at present. For reasoning about static types (like int vs. real vs. my record R vs. a subclass of C), using the select statement on a variable's type as you did is completely reasonable (or you could provide overloads of a function where we'd choose the correct one based on the argument's static type). But for cases where you're working within a class hierarchy and have to reason about the dynamic type of the object, your main tools will be casting, as above, or dynamic dispatch, or storing an explicit field in the class to distinguish between the cases (which can be thought of as a manual implementation of the dynamic cast).
Related
I do not fully understand how variance in Generics work. In the code below the classes are as follows Any -> Mammals -> Cats. Any is the supertype, there is a parameter called from in the copy function
From what I understand about the out and in keywords, out allows reference to any of it's subtype, can only be produced not consumed.
in allows reference to any of it's supertype, can only be consumed not produced.
However in the copytest function we are instantiating the function copy. I gave it a catlist1 argument in the from parameter. Since the parameter has an out keyword wouldn't it mean that we can only input parameters that are a subtype of catlist2?
To top of my confusion I have seen many conflicting definitions, for instance , In Kotlin, we can use the out keyword on the generic type which means we can assign this reference to any of its supertypes.
Now I am really confused could anybody guide me on how all of these works? Preferably from scratch, thanks!
class list2<ITEM>{
val data = mutableListOf<ITEM>()
fun get(n:Int):ITEM = data[n]
fun add(Item:ITEM){data.add(Item)}
}
fun <T> Copy(from: list2<out T>, to:list2<T>){
}
fun copytest(){
val catlist1 = list2<Cat>()
val catlist2 = list2<Cat>()
val mammallist = list2<Mammal>()
Copy(catlist1,mammallist)
}
I think maybe you're mixing up class-declaration-site generics and use-site generics.
Class-declaration-site generics
Defined at the class declaration site with covariant out, it is true you cannot use the generic type as the type of a function parameter for any functions in the class.
class MyList<out T>(
private val items: Array<T>
) {
fun pullRandomItem(): T { // allowed
return items.random()
}
fun addItem(item: T) { // Not allowed by compiler!
// ...
}
}
// Reason:
val cowList = MyList<Cow>(arrayOf(Cow()))
// The declaration site out covariance allows us to up-cast to a more general type.
// It makes logical sense, any cow you pull out of the original list qualifies as an animal.
val animalList: MyList<Animal> = cowList
// If it let us put an item in, though:
animalList.addItem(Horse())
// Now there's a horse in the cow list. That doesn't make logical sense
cowList.pullRandomItem() // Might return a Horse, impossible!
It is not logical to say, "I'm going to put a horse in a list that may have the requirement that all items retrieved from it must be cows."
Use-site generics
This has nothing to do with the class level restriction. It's only describing what kind of input the function gets. It is perfectly logical to say, "my function does something with a container that I'm going to pull something out of".
// Given a class with no declaration-site covariance of contravariance:
class Bag<T: Any>(var contents: T?)
// This function will take any bag of food as a parameter. Inside the function, it will
// only get things out of the bag. It won't put things in it. This makes it possible
// to pass a Bag of Chips or a Bag of Pretzels
fun eatBagContents(bagOfAnything: Bag<out Food>) {
eat(bagOfAnything.contents) // we know the contents are food so this is OK
bagOfAnything.contents = myChips // Not allowed! we don't know what kind of stuff
// this bag is permitted to contain
}
// If we didn't define the function with "out"
fun eatBagContentsAndPutInSomething(bagOfAnything: Bag<Food>) {
eat(bagOfAnything.contents) // this is fine, we know it's food
bagOfAnything.contents = myChips // this is fine, the bag can hold any kind of Food
}
// but now you cannot do this
val myBagOfPretzels: Bag<Pretzels> = Bag(somePretzels)
eatBagContentsAndPutInSomething(myBagOfPretzels) // Not allowed! This function would
// try to put chips in this pretzels-only bag.
Combining both
What could be confusing to you is if you saw an example that combines both of the above. You can have a class where T is a declaration site type, but the class has functions where there are input parameters where T is part of the definition of what parameters the function can take. For example:
abstract class ComplicatedCopier<T> {
abstract fun createCopy(item: T): T
fun createCopiesFromBagToAnother(copyFrom: Bag<out T>, copyTo: Bag<in T>) {
val originalItem = copyFrom.contents
val copiedItem = createCopy(originalItem)
copyTo.contents = copiedItem
}
}
This logically makes sense since the class generic type has no variance restriction at the declaration site. This function has one bag that it's allowed to take items out of, and one bag that it's allowed to put items into. These in and out keywords make it more permissive of what types of bags you can pass to it, but it limits what you're allowed to do with each of those bags inside the function.
I am trying to create a swap function which takes in two parameters as shown below:
fun swap(a :Int, b:Int) {
}
I call it like this:
var a = 10
var b = 5
swap(a,b)
// a should be 5
// b should be 10
The problem is that even if I swap the values inside the swap function it won't be reflected on the caller's side because it is passed as a copy and not as a reference.
Is there anyway to pass value types to swap function and allow the function the ability to change them.
There is absolutely no way to do it directly. Kotlin copies a value for scalar types (Double, Float, Boolean, Int, etc.). So any internal changes are lost.
For any other type, Kotlin copy a reference of parameter passed to the function. So any property/field alteration of parameter, also changes the caller parameter.
There is no way to change this behaviour.
After trying many ways to overcome the impossibility of passing scalar by reference, as happens in Kotlin, Java and some other languages; my current strategy is using for any scalar type a plain and generic wrap, as an above comment suggest.
Recently, I'm using this trick for everything, including inside a function that otherwise would demand that I return multiple values. The alternative is joining the returns in a artificial class or destructuring declarations: val (a, b, c) = function-call() syntax. However, I hate articial classes and destructuring declaration is for local variables only, and it's annoying when some needs visibility out of current block of commands.
My code is very simple:
data class p<T>( // It's a generic wrap class for scalar type T
var v:T
)
fun <T>swap(a:p<T>, b:p<T>){ // It's a generic swap for scalar types
var aux:p<T> = a.copy()
a.v = b.v
b.v =aux.v
}
fun main() {
var a:p<Int> = p<Int>(2) // 'a' is a kind of 'Int' variable
var b:p<Int> = p<Int>(3) // and so is 'b'
swap(a,b) // Exchange 'a' and 'b' values
println(a.v) // 3
println(b.v) // 2
}
The only drawback is not being able to use syntax sugar of a real scalar type.
I am forced to add .v on any use of a scalar variable.
I only uses that for variables that I need pass by reference in some function and it's not so common. I try, when possible, avoid collateral effects.
You can have a function that gets the references of variables
var x = 10
var y = 20
fun main() {
println("x=$x, y=$y") // x=10, y=20
swap(::x, ::y)
println("x=$x, y=$y") // x=20, y=10
}
fun <T> swap(firstRef: KMutableProperty0<T>, secRef: KMutableProperty0<T>) {
val temp = firstRef.get()
firstRef.set(secRef.get())
secRef.set(temp)
}
and you can pass the references of properties of some class like this swap(someClass::x, someClass::y)
the only limitation is that you can't pass references of local variables which is not the end of the world.
if you don't like the messy syntax you can always define a typealias and make it pretty:
typealias Ref<T> = KMutableProperty0<T>
fun <T> swap(firstRef: Ref<T>, secRef: Ref<T>) {
...
}
I know that OP didn´t ask for this, but idiomatic Kotlin would look like:
var a = 1
var b = 2
a = b.also { b = a }
Seems like Kotlin behaves pretty much like Java does:
Is Kotlin "pass-by-value" or "pass-by-reference"?
simple way to swap is make support class
private fun swap(pair: Pair) {
pair.a += pair.b
pair.b = pair.a - pair.b
pair.a = pair.a - pair.b
}
private data class Pair(var a: Int, var b: Int)
fun main() {
val pair = Pair(10, 5)
swap(pair)
println(pair)
}
I encountered an unfamiliar pattern of initialization from Objective-C that I'm struggling to replicate in Swift.
Objective-C
In the example code, they defined a C struct such as this (abbreviated, original here):
struct AQPlayerState {
AudioFileID mAudioFile;
}
Here's an example that uses AQPlayerState:
AQPlayerState aqData; // 1
OSStattus result =
AudioFileOpenURL(
audioFileURL,
fsRdPerm,
0,
&aqData.mAudioFile // 2
);
The key takeaway from above is that aqData currently has uninitialized properties, and AudioFileOpenURL is initializing aqData.mAudioFile on it's behalf.
Swift
I'm trying to replicate this behaviour in Swift. Here's what I've tried so far:
Models:
class Person {
var name: String
init(name: String) {
self.name = name
}
}
class Foo {
var person: Person?
}
My idea was to replicate the Objective-C code by passing a reference of Foo.person into a function that would instantiate it on it's behalf.
Initialization Function:
func initializeWithBob(_ ptr: UnsafeMutablePointer<Person?>) {
ptr.pointee = Person(name: "Bob")
}
initializeWithBob takes a pointer to an address for a Person? type and initializes it with a Person(name: "Bob") object.
Here's my test code:
let foo = Foo()
let ptr = UnsafeMutablePointer<Person?>.allocate(capacity: 1)
ptr.initialize(to: foo.person)
defer {
ptr.deinitialize()
ptr.deallocate(capacity: 1)
}
initializeWithBob(ptr)
print(foo.person) // outputs nil
initializeWithBob failed to "install" an instance of type Person in my Foo instance. I presume some of my assumptions are wrong. Looking for help in correcting my assumptions and understanding of this situation.
Thanks in advance!
You can achieve what you are looking for via withUnsafeMutablePointer(to:_:) like so:
let foo = Foo()
withUnsafeMutablePointer(to: &foo.person) { (ptr) -> Void in
initializeWithBob(ptr)
}
print(foo.person!.name) // outputs Bob
However, I wouldn't recommend this approach. IMHO it makes more sense to wrap the APIs you are working with in a C function that you can make 'nice' to call from Swift. The problem with your current approach is that this type of Swift is hard to read for Swift developers and also hard to read for Audio Toolbox developers.
#kelvinlau Is this what you were thinking of trying to achieve?
func initializeWithBob(_ ptr: UnsafeMutablePointer<Foo>) {
ptr.pointee.person = Person(name: "Bob")
}
let foo = Foo()
let ptr = UnsafeMutablePointer<Foo>.allocate(capacity: 1)
ptr.initialize(to: foo)
initializeWithBob(ptr)
print(foo.person?.name ?? "nil")
ptr.deinitialize()
ptr.deallocate(capacity: 1)
print(foo.person?.name ?? "nil")
The code pattern you have in Objective-C is for out parameters, that is parameters which return a value, or in out parameters, that is parameters which both pass a value in and return one. Objective-C does not directly support these so pointers are used to produce the semantics.
Swift has in out parameters indicated by the keyword inout in the function declaration. Within the function an assignment to an inout parameters effectively assigns a value to the variable that was passed as the argument. At the function call site the variable must be prefixed by & to indicate it is the variable itself and not its value which is effectively being passed.
Keeping your Person and Foo as is your function becomes:
func initializeWithBob(_ ptr: inout Person?)
{
ptr = Person(name: "Bob")
}
and it may be used, for example, like:
var example = Foo()
initializeWithBob(&example.person)
Using inout in Swift is better than trying to build the same semantics using pointers.
HTH
Note: You can skip this unless you are curious
"Effectively" was used a few times above. Typically out parameters are implemented by the parameter passing method call-by-result, while in out use call-by-value-result. Using either of these methods the returned value is only assigned to the passed variable at the point the function returns.
Another parameter passing method is call-by-reference, which is similar to call-by-value-result except that each and every assignment to the parameter within the function is immediately made to passed variable. This means changes to the passed variable may be visible before the function returns.
Swift by design does not specify whether its inout uses call-by-value-result or call-by-reference. So rather than specify the exact semantics in the answer "effectively" is used.
I have a struct and I would like it to be initialised with some sensible default values.
Typically, the thing to do here is to use a constructor but since go isn't really OOP in the traditional sense these aren't true objects and it has no constructors.
I have noticed the init method but that is at the package level. Is there something else similar that can be used at the struct level?
If not what is the accepted best practice for this type of thing in Go?
There are some equivalents of constructors for when the zero values can't make sensible default values or for when some parameter is necessary for the struct initialization.
Supposing you have a struct like this :
type Thing struct {
Name string
Num int
}
then, if the zero values aren't fitting, you would typically construct an instance with a NewThing function returning a pointer :
func NewThing(someParameter string) *Thing {
p := new(Thing)
p.Name = someParameter
p.Num = 33 // <- a very sensible default value
return p
}
When your struct is simple enough, you can use this condensed construct :
func NewThing(someParameter string) *Thing {
return &Thing{someParameter, 33}
}
If you don't want to return a pointer, then a practice is to call the function makeThing instead of NewThing :
func makeThing(name string) Thing {
return Thing{name, 33}
}
Reference : Allocation with new in Effective Go.
There are actually two accepted best practices:
Make the zero value of your struct a sensible default. (While this looks strange to most people coming from "traditional" oop it often works and is really convenient).
Provide a function func New() YourTyp or if you have several such types in your package functions func NewYourType1() YourType1 and so on.
Document if a zero value of your type is usable or not (in which case it has to be set up by one of the New... functions. (For the "traditionalist" oops: Someone who does not read the documentation won't be able to use your types properly, even if he cannot create objects in undefined states.)
Go has objects. Objects can have constructors (although not automatic constructors). And finally, Go is an OOP language (data types have methods attached, but admittedly there are endless definitions of what OOP is.)
Nevertheless, the accepted best practice is to write zero or more constructors for your types.
As #dystroy posted his answer before I finished this answer, let me just add an alternative version of his example constructor, which I would probably write instead as:
func NewThing(someParameter string) *Thing {
return &Thing{someParameter, 33} // <- 33: a very sensible default value
}
The reason I want to show you this version is that pretty often "inline" literals can be used instead of a "constructor" call.
a := NewThing("foo")
b := &Thing{"foo", 33}
Now *a == *b.
There are no default constructors in Go, but you can declare methods for any type. You could make it a habit to declare a method called "Init". Not sure if how this relates to best practices, but it helps keep names short without loosing clarity.
package main
import "fmt"
type Thing struct {
Name string
Num int
}
func (t *Thing) Init(name string, num int) {
t.Name = name
t.Num = num
}
func main() {
t := new(Thing)
t.Init("Hello", 5)
fmt.Printf("%s: %d\n", t.Name, t.Num)
}
The result is:
Hello: 5
I like the explanation from this blog post:
The function New is a Go convention for packages that create a core type or different types for use by the application developer. Look at how New is defined and implemented in log.go, bufio.go and cypto.go:
log.go
// New creates a new Logger. The out variable sets the
// destination to which log data will be written.
// The prefix appears at the beginning of each generated log line.
// The flag argument defines the logging properties.
func New(out io.Writer, prefix string, flag int) * Logger {
return &Logger{out: out, prefix: prefix, flag: flag}
}
bufio.go
// NewReader returns a new Reader whose buffer has the default size.
func NewReader(rd io.Reader) * Reader {
return NewReaderSize(rd, defaultBufSize)
}
crypto.go
// New returns a new hash.Hash calculating the given hash function. New panics
// if the hash function is not linked into the binary.
func (h Hash) New() hash.Hash {
if h > 0 && h < maxHash {
f := hashes[h]
if f != nil {
return f()
}
}
panic("crypto: requested hash function is unavailable")
}
Since each package acts as a namespace, every package can have their own version of New. In bufio.go multiple types can be created, so there is no standalone New function. Here you will find functions like NewReader and NewWriter.
In Go, a constructor can be implemented using a function that returns a pointer to a modified structure.
type Colors struct {
R byte
G byte
B byte
}
// Constructor
func NewColors (r, g, b byte) *Colors {
return &Color{R:r, G:g, B:b}
}
For weak dependencies and better abstraction, the constructor does not return a pointer to a structure, but an interface that this structure implements.
type Painter interface {
paintMethod1() byte
paintMethod2(byte) byte
}
type Colors struct {
R byte
G byte
B byte
}
// Constructor return intreface
func NewColors(r, g, b byte) Painter {
return &Color{R: r, G: g, B: b}
}
func (c *Colors) paintMethod1() byte {
return c.R
}
func (c *Colors) paintMethod2(b byte) byte {
return c.B = b
}
another way is;
package person
type Person struct {
Name string
Old int
}
func New(name string, old int) *Person {
// set only specific field value with field key
return &Person{
Name: name,
}
}
If you want to force the factory function usage, name your struct (your class) with the first character in lowercase. Then, it won't be possible to instantiate directly the struct, the factory method will be required.
This visibility based on first character lower/upper case work also for struct field and for the function/method. If you don't want to allow external access, use lower case.
Golang is not OOP language in its official documents.
All fields of Golang struct has a determined value(not like c/c++), so constructor function is not so necessary as cpp.
If you need assign some fields some special values, use factory functions.
Golang's community suggest New.. pattern names.
I am new to go. I have a pattern taken from other languages, that have constructors. And will work in go.
Create an init method.
Make the init method an (object) once routine. It only runs the first time it is called (per object).
func (d *my_struct) Init (){
//once
if !d.is_inited {
d.is_inited = true
d.value1 = 7
d.value2 = 6
}
}
Call init at the top of every method of this class.
This pattern is also useful, when you need late initialisation (constructor is too early).
Advantages: it hides all the complexity in the class, clients don't need to do anything.
Disadvantages: you must remember to call Init at the top of every method of the class.
Tagged as homework.
I'm having trouble in the object oriented world while trying to implement a class.
I'm implenting various functions to take action on lists, that I'm using to mock a set.
I'm not too worried about my logic on how to find union, for example, but really just the structure.
For eg:
abstract class parentSet[T] protected () {
def union(other:parentSet[T]):parentSet[T]
}
Now I want a new class extending parentSet:
class childSet[T] private (l: List[T]) extends parentSet[T] {
def this() = this(List())
private val elems = l
val toList = List[T] => new List(l)
def union(other:parentSet[T]):childSet[T] = {
for (i <- this.toList) {
if (other contains i) {}
else {l :: i}
}
return l
}
}
Upon compiling, I receive errors such that type childSet isn't found in def union, nor is type T to keep it parametric. Also, I assume my toList isn't correct as it complains that it isn't a member of the object; to name a few.
Where in my syntax am I wrong?
EDIT
Now I've got that figured out:
def U(other:parentSet[T]):childSet[T] = {
var w = other.toList
for (i <- this.toList) {
if (!(other contains i)) {w = i::w}
}
return new childSet(w)
}
Now, I'm trying to do the same operations with map, and this is what I'm working on/with:
def U(other:parentSet[T]):MapSet[T] = {
var a = Map[T,Unit]
for (i <- this.toList) {
if (!(other contains i)) {a = a + (i->())}
}
return new MapSet(elems + (a->()))
}
I still want to use toList to make it easily traversable, but I'm still getting type errors while messing with maps..
This code has a few problems:
It seems that you are not realizing that List[T] is an immutable type, meaning you cannot change its value once created. So if you have a List[T] and you call the :: method to prepend a value, the function returns a new list and leaves your existing one unchanged. Scala has mutable collections such as ListBuffer which may behave more like you expect. So when you return l, you're actually returning the original list.
Also, you have the order wrong in using ::. It should go i :: l, since :: is a right-binding function (because it ends with a :).
Lastly, in your union method you are doing (other contains i). Maybe it's just the Scala syntax that's confusing you, but this is the same as doing (other.contains(i)) and clearly contains is not a defined method of parentSet. It is a method on the List[T] type, but you're not calling contains on a list.
You tagged this as homework so I'm not going to fix your code, but I think you should
Look at some examples of correct Scala code involving lists, try here for starters
Play around in the Scala REPL and try creating and working with some lists, so you get a feel for how immutable collections work.
To answer your direct question, even though childSet is inheriting parentSet the original method specify parentSet as the return type and not childSet. You can either only use parentSet as the type OR you could specify the return type to be anything that inherits parentSet.