I'm new to Elm, and have a basic question about the language.
The core function Basics.toString : a -> String has a native module (i.e. javascript) implementation.
It seems that by design Elm has no means to do run-time type inspection and no function overloading or, to put it another way, no ad-hoc polymorphism.
Am I correct in this assertion, and therefore that a native module implementation is the only way to implement any function like toString whose behaviour depends on the value of a type variable?
I'm not opposed to this, I can see simplicity such a constraint affords - I'm just wondering if I've understood things correctly!
Related
In our codebase we have a third-party library method that behaves in an unexpected manner when you pass null to it. To help prevent misuse of the method, I would like to write a test that walks through the codebase, finds all calls to the method, and makes sure the type of the single parameter passed in is not nullable.
Is this possible using Kotlin reflection? Is this possible in Kotlin at all? I can get to the point where I list out all the functions in the codebase, but am stumped on how to continue!
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.
In Alan Donovan and Brian Kernighan's "The Go programming language" book p333 (section 12.3 Display, a recursive value printer), it is mentioned that
Where possible, you should avoid exposing reflection in the API of a package. We'll define an unexported function display to do the real work of the recursion, and export Display, a simple wrapper around it that accepts an interface{} parameter.
func Display(name string, x interface{}) {
fmt.Printf("Display %s (%T):\n", name, x)
display(name, reflection.ValueOf(x))
And the display function prints different contents depending on the Kind of the input reflection value.
I have two questions
Why is it better to not expose the reflection in the package API?
Why is using an unexposed display function considered as not exposing reflection in the API? Don't we still call reflection.ValueOf() in Display?
I guess I don't know the definition of "exposing reflection in the package API". Does it just refer to the function arguments or both arguments and content? If it's the former case, then there seems no need to define display since the signature of Display is x interface{}. If it's the latter case, why is it better?
In the book's example
In the book's example, it is because the usage of reflection is an implementation detail. You should always try to hide the implementation details, so you may change the implementation at any time without breaking the "public" API of the package. If you export / add something to the API of your package, you have to carry that for the rest of your life (given you don't want to make backward-incompatible API changes, which is really bad in general).
In general
"interface{} says nothing" – Rob Pike. Given that, reflect.Value says even less. Unless you have a good reason (can't think of any outside of the reflect package itself), you shouldn't create public functions that expect reflect.Value as their arguments.
Even if you have a "general" function that must take a value of any type, interface{} is preferred as then at least the clients can pass what they have as-is, without having to wrap them in reflect.Value.
I'm tying to implement a novel way of overriding functions based on which DLLs I have loaded. In this model, I have a list of class instances from First = Highest Priority to Last = Lowest priority.
Any of those classes may implement a Hook function or callback. I'm currently at the stage where I can pass a string to a function, and then call it - my library convention looks like this:
Dim hookclasses as HooksList
Dim callable as Object
hookclasses.Add(new ClassA)
hookclasses.Add(new ClassB)
'... etc.
if hookclasses.Has("MyHookFunction", callable) then
callable.MyHookFunction()
end if
This all works, but I'd like to reduce typos by leveraging Intellisense. I've already thought of popping the strings into a class containing constant strings, so I'm after something better than that.
Ideally I'd like to have a fallback class that implements all of the hook functions (even if it simply returns), and if the language supported it, I'd like to do the following:
if hookclasses.Has(NameOf(FallbackClass.MyHookFunction), callable) then ...
Clearly there is no 'NameOf' operator, and I don't know how to write a NameOf function.
Is this possible?
Thanks.
Check this article nameOf (C# and Visual Basic reference)
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dn986596.aspx
It does exactly what you want. And before that String Litterals were almost the only option.
Edit :
Question was : "Clearly there is no 'NameOf' operator, and I don't know how to write a NameOf function."
If I understand your problem right, you have a list of classes that you fetched from dynamically loaded DLL, point is you don't know if a class implements all of the hooks or only a few.
If you use an interface, like IHookable and put all the hook functions in there, it means all the DLL have to implement all the hook functions, which is not what you want.
And (if I understand it properly) if the first class in list does not implement the hook, you check the second one and so on. So with an interface you wouldn't know if the hook is implemented or not.
This question already has answers here:
What is reflection and why is it useful?
(23 answers)
Closed 6 years ago.
I was just curious, why should we use reflection in the first place?
// Without reflection
Foo foo = new Foo();
foo.hello();
// With reflection
Class cls = Class.forName("Foo");
Object foo = cls.newInstance();
Method method = cls.getMethod("hello", null);
method.invoke(foo, null);
We can simply create an object and call the class's method, but why do the same using forName, newInstance and getMthod functions?
To make everything dynamic?
Simply put: because sometimes you don't know either the "Foo" or "hello" parts at compile time.
The vast majority of the time you do know this, so it's not worth using reflection. Just occasionally, however, you don't - and at that point, reflection is all you can turn to.
As an example, protocol buffers allows you to generate code which either contains full statically-typed code for reading and writing messages, or it generates just enough so that the rest can be done by reflection: in the reflection case, the load/save code has to get and set properties via reflection - it knows the names of the properties involved due to the message descriptor. This is much (much) slower but results in considerably less code being generated.
Another example would be dependency injection, where the names of the types used for the dependencies are often provided in configuration files: the DI framework then has to use reflection to construct all the components involved, finding constructors and/or properties along the way.
It is used whenever you (=your method/your class) doesn't know at compile time the type should instantiate or the method it should invoke.
Also, many frameworks use reflection to analyze and use your objects. For example:
hibernate/nhibernate (and any object-relational mapper) use reflection to inspect all the properties of your classes so that it is able to update them or use them when executing database operations
you may want to make it configurable which method of a user-defined class is executed by default by your application. The configured value is String, and you can get the target class, get the method that has the configured name, and invoke it, without knowing it at compile time.
parsing annotations is done by reflection
A typical usage is a plug-in mechanism, which supports classes (usually implementations of interfaces) that are unknown at compile time.
You can use reflection for automating any process that could usefully use a list of the object's methods and/or properties. If you've ever spent time writing code that does roughly the same thing on each of an object's fields in turn -- the obvious way of saving and loading data often works like that -- then that's something reflection could do for you automatically.
The most common applications are probably these three:
Serialization (see, e.g., .NET's XmlSerializer)
Generation of widgets for editing objects' properties (e.g., Xcode's Interface Builder, .NET's dialog designer)
Factories that create objects with arbitrary dependencies by examining the classes for constructors and supplying suitable objects on creation (e.g., any dependency injection framework)
Using reflection, you can very easily write configurations that detail methods/fields in text, and the framework using these can read a text description of the field and find the real corresponding field.
e.g. JXPath allows you to navigate objects like this:
//company[#name='Sun']/address
so JXPath will look for a method getCompany() (corresponding to company), a field in that called name etc.
You'll find this in lots of frameworks in Java e.g. JavaBeans, Spring etc.
It's useful for things like serialization and object-relational mapping. You can write a generic function to serialize an object by using reflection to get all of an object's properties. In C++, you'd have to write a separate function for every class.
I have used it in some validation classes before, where I passed a large, complex data structure in the constructor and then ran a zillion (couple hundred really) methods to check the validity of the data. All of my validation methods were private and returned booleans so I made one "validate" method you could call which used reflection to invoke all the private methods in the class than returned booleans.
This made the validate method more concise (didn't need to enumerate each little method) and garuanteed all the methods were being run (e.g. someone writes a new validation rule and forgets to call it in the main method).
After changing to use reflection I didn't notice any meaningful loss in performance, and the code was easier to maintain.
in addition to Jons answer, another usage is to be able to "dip your toe in the water" to test if a given facility is present in the JVM.
Under OS X a java application looks nicer if some Apple-provided classes are called. The easiest way to test if these classes are present, is to test with reflection first
some times you need to create a object of class on fly or from some other place not a java code (e.g jsp). at that time reflection is useful.