I was trying to understand the following code:
def() ->commands
if(deferred_passive_abilities != [],
let [{ability: class passive_ability, creature: class creature}] items = [];
let found = false;
map(deferred_passive_abilities,
if(cmd = null, add(items, [value]), [cmd, set(found, true)])
where cmd = value.ability.static_effect(me, value.creature));
if(found,
set(deferred_passive_abilities, items);
evaluate_deferred_passive_abilities(),
set(deferred_passive_abilities, []))
)
Haskell appears to have both let and where, but I didn't learn much by a superficial reading of their haskell docs. They also have a let...in, which I didn't understand but it would be good to know if FFL has that.
So, what is the significance of using let versus where? Was it necessary to use let here? (Also, possibly another question: why does it need those semicolons?)
Using let introduces a variable that can be modified. Note how found and items are modified. By contrast, where always introduces immutable symbols.
Semi-colons are used in FFL to create a command pipeline. Normally in FFL, an entire formula is evaluated, resulting in a command or list of commands, and then the commands are executed.
When a semi-colon is present, everything before the semi-colon is treated as an entirely separate formula to everything after the semi-colon. The first formula is evaluated and executed and then the second formula is evaluated and executed.
Semi-colons effectively allow a much more procedural programming style in FFL, without semi-colons it is a purely functional language.
Never knew of let in FFL before this, must be very rare.
Regardless of the insights, the semicolon has to be absolutely necessary, in order to force execution before using the bound variable. In other words, until used the semicolon, the variable does not exist. Does not have a bound value.
This is a big difference to where, which doesn't need of semicolons.
Given the semicolon is not a construction for complete beginners, I could somewhat recommend beginners about variables to stick in where until understanding the trickery of the semicolons.
Related
to is an infix function within the standard library. It can be used to create Pairs concisely:
0 to "hero"
in comparison with:
Pair(0, "hero")
Typically, it is used to initialize Maps concisely:
mapOf(0 to "hero", 1 to "one", 2 to "two")
However, there are other situations in which one needs to create a Pair. For instance:
"to be or not" to "be"
(0..10).map { it to it * it }
Is it acceptable, stylistically, to (ab)use to in this manner?
Just because some language features are provided does not mean they are better over certain things. A Pair can be used instead of to and vice versa. What becomes a real issue is that, does your code still remain simple, would it require some reader to read the previous story to understand the current one? In your last map example, it does not give a hint of what it's doing. Imagine someone reading { it to it * it}, they would be most likely confused. I would say this is an abuse.
to infix offer a nice syntactical sugar, IMHO it should be used in conjunction with a nicely named variable that tells the reader what this something to something is. For example:
val heroPair = Ironman to Spiderman //including a 'pair' in the variable name tells the story what 'to' is doing.
Or you could use scoping functions
(Ironman to Spiderman).let { heroPair -> }
I don't think there's an authoritative answer to this. The only examples in the Kotlin docs are for creating simple constant maps with mapOf(), but there's no hint that to shouldn't be used elsewhere.
So it'll come down to a matter of personal taste…
For me, I'd be happy to use it anywhere it represents a mapping of some kind, so in a map{…} expression would seem clear to me, just as much as in a mapOf(…) list. Though (as mentioned elsewhere) it's not often used in complex expressions, so I might use parentheses to keep the precedence clear, and/or simplify the expression so they're not needed.
Where it doesn't indicate a mapping, I'd be much more hesitant to use it. For example, if you have a method that returns two values, it'd probably be clearer to use an explicit Pair. (Though in that case, it'd be clearer still to define a simple data class for the return value.)
You asked for personal perspective so here is mine.
I found this syntax is a huge win for simple code, especial in reading code. Reading code with parenthesis, a lot of them, caused mental stress, imagine you have to review/read thousand lines of code a day ;(
I am using a MixHash to combine two Hashes with the Bag add (+) operator. This seems to work - but ... I am a bit surprised that the result of the union needs to be re-coerced back to a MixHash.
My guess is that the Bag add (+) infix operator coerces everything to a Bag first and returns the result as a Bag. This may be risky for me as some of my weights are negative (thus the Mix in the first place). Will this properly add negative weights?
Alternatively, is there a Mix add (+) operator?
my MixHash $dim-mix;
for ... {
my $add-mix = $!dims.MixHash;
$dim-mix = $dim-mix ?? ( $dim-mix (+) $add-mix ).MixHash !! $add-mix;
}
dd $dim-mix;
Now I look at this paraphrased code, perhaps there is some formulation of ternary ?? !! that can avoid spelling out $dim-mix in the test since already on the left?
Many thanks for any advice!
my $add-mix = (foo => 0.22, bar => -0.1).Mix;
my $dim-mix;
for ^5 {
$dim-mix (+)= $add-mix;
}
dd $dim-mix; # Mix $dim-mix = ("foo"=>1.1,"bar"=>-0.5).Mix
Obviously I've not used a MixHash, but you can sort that out if you need to after the loop.
(And of course you might be thinking "but isn't a Mix immutable?" It is -- but you have to distinguish variables and values. $dim-mix is a variable, a Scalar variable. Even if you type it -- my Mix $dim-mix; it's still a Scalar variable holding a Mix value. You can always assign to a Scalar.)
I'm starting to get a routine for questions like this where I don't know what's going on but I think I ought to be able to figure it out. Here was my process:
I got your code to run to see what it did. I tried to simplify the ternary. Hmm.
I turned to the doc. There was the doc page for (+). That called it "Baggy addition". That was worrisome given that a Bag only holds (positive) integers.
I turned to the source. I fired off a search of the rakudo sources for "Baggy addition". One result. I focused on the multi with (Mixy:D $a, QuantHash:D $b) signature. This showed me that the result should stay Mixy, i.e. the doc's implication it would or could go Baggy is a red herring.
I returned to the code and started wondering what I could do. When I initially tried to use (+)= to simplify the main assignment the compiler complained expected MixHash but got Mix. I tried a half dozen things that didn't work then just changed the MixHash constraint on $dim-mix to Mixy and it worked.
Then I thought through what was going on and realized that almost all the types were getting in the way of P6 just doing the right thing.
You can add some types back in if you really need them.
(But do you really need them? When types are absolutely necessary they're great. Otherwise, imo, think twice, and then twice again, before introducing them. They can easily make code harder to read, reason about, compose, and slower.)
(Of course there are occasions on which they're not strictly necessary but do really help overall. Imo, as with all things, keep it simple at first and only complexify if you see clear benefits for a particular line of code.)
The large majority of SonarLint rules that I've come across in Java seemed plausible and justified. However, ever since I've started using SonarLint for VB.NET, I've come across several rules that left me questioning their usefulness or even whether or not they are working correctly.
I'd like to know if this is simply a problem of me using some VB.NET constructs in a suboptimal way or whether the rule really is flawed.
(Apologies if this question is a little longer. I didn't know if I should create a separate question for each individual rule.)
The following rules I found to leave some cases unconsidered that would actually turn up as false-positives:
S1871: Two branches in the same conditional structure should not have exactly the same implementation
I found this one to bring up a lot of false-positives for me, because sometimes the order in which the conditions are checked actually does matter. Take the following pseudo code as example:
If conditionA() Then
doSomething()
ElseIf conditionB() AndAlso conditionC() Then
doSomethingElse()
ElseIf conditionD() OrElse conditionE() Then
doYetAnotherThing()
'... feel free to have even more cases in between here
Else Then
doSomething() 'Non-compliant
End If
If I wanted to follow this Sonar rule and still make the code behave the same way, I'd have to add the negated version of each ElseIf-condition to the first If-condition.
Another example would be the following switch:
Select Case i
Case 0 To 40
value = 0
Case 41 To 60
value = 1
Case 61 To 80
value = 3
Case 81 To 100
value = 5
Case Else
value = 0 'Non-compliant
There shouldn't be anything wrong with having that last case in a switch. True, I could have initialized value beforehand to 0 and ignored that last case, but then I'd have one more assignment operation than necessary. And the Java ruleset has conditioned me to always put a default case in every switch.
S1764: Identical expressions should not be used on both sides of a binary operator
This rule does not seem to take into account that some functions may return different values every time you call them, for instance collections where accessing an element removes it from the collection:
stack.Push(stack.Pop() / stack.Pop()) 'Non-compliant
I understand if this is too much of an edge case to make special exceptions for it, though.
The following rules I am not actually sure about:
S3385: "Exit" statements should not be used
While I agree that Return is more readable than Exit Sub, is it really bad to use a single Exit For to break out of a For or a For Each loop? The SonarLint rule for Java permits the use of a single break; in a loop before flagging it as an issue. Is there a reason why the default in VB.NET is more strict in that regard? Or is the rule built on the assumption that you can solve nearly all your loop problems with LINQ extension methods and lambdas?
S2374: Signed types should be preferred to unsigned ones
This rule basically states that unsigned types should not be used at all because they "have different arithmetic operators than signed ones - operators that few developers understand". In my code I am only using UInteger for ID values (because I don't need negative values and a Long would be a waste of memory in my case). They are stored in List(Of UInteger) and only ever compared to other UIntegers. Is this rule even relevant to my case (are comparisons part of these "arithmetic operators" mentioned by the rule) and what exactly would be the pitfall? And if not, wouldn't it be better to make that rule apply to arithmetic operations involving unsigned types, rather than their declaration?
S2355: Array literals should be used instead of array creation expressions
Maybe I don't know VB.NET well enough, but how exactly would I satisfy this rule in the following case where I want to create a fixed-size array where the initialization length is only known at runtime? Is this a false-positive?
Dim myObjects As Object() = New Object(someOtherList.Count - 3) {} 'Non-compliant
Sure, I could probably just use a List(Of Object). But I am curious anyway.
Thanks for raising these points. Note that not all rules apply every time. There are cases when we need to balance between false positives/false negatives/real cases. For example with identical expressions on both sides of an operator rule. Is it a bug to have the same operands? No it's not. If it was, then the compiler would report it. Is it a bad smell, is it usually a mistake? Yes in many cases. See this for example in Roslyn. Should we tune this rule to exclude some cases? Yes we should, there's nothing wrong with 2 << 2. So there's a lot of balancing that needs to happen, and we try to settle for an implementation that brings the most value for the users.
For the points you raised:
Two branches in the same conditional structure should not have exactly the same implementation
This rule generally states that having two blocks of code match exactly is a bad sign. Copy-pasted code should be avoided for many reasons, for example if you need to fix the code in one place, you'll need to fix it in the other too. You're right that adding negated conditions would be a mess, but if you extract each condition into its own method (and call the negated methods inside them) with proper names, then it would probably improves the readability of your code.
For the Select Case, again, copy pasted code is always a bad sign. In this case you could do this:
Select Case i
...
Case 0 To 40
Case Else
value = 0 ' Compliant
End Select
Or simply remove the 0-40 case.
Identical expressions should not be used on both sides of a binary operator
I think this is a corner case. See the first paragraph of the answer.
"Exit" statements should not be used
It's almost always true that by choosing another type of loop, or changing the stop condition, you can get away without using any "Exit" statements. It's good practice to have a single exit point from loops.
Signed types should be preferred to unsigned ones
This is a legacy rule from SonarQube VB.NET, and I agree with you that it shouldn't be enabled by default in SonarLint. I created the following ticket in our JIRA: https://jira.sonarsource.com/browse/SLVS-1074
Array literals should be used instead of array creation expressions
Yes, it seems to be a false positive, we shouldn't report on array creations when the size is explicitly specified. https://jira.sonarsource.com/browse/SLVS-1075
This might be an odd question, but I'm looking for a word to use in a function name. I'm normally good at coming up with succinct, meaningful function names, but this one has me stumped so I thought I'd appeal for help.
The function will take some desired state as an argument and compare it to the current state. If no change is needed, the function will exit normally without doing anything. Otherwise, the function will take some action to achieve the desired state.
For example, if wanted to make sure the front door was closed, i might say:
my_house.<something>_front_door('closed')
What word or term should use in place of the something? I'd like it to be short, readable, and minimize the astonishment factor.
A couple clarifying points...
I would want someone calling the function to intuitively know they didn't need to wrap the function an 'if' that checks the current state. For example, this would be bad:
if my_house.front_door_is_open():
my_house.<something>_front_door('closed')
Also, they should know that the function won't throw an exception if the desired state matches the current state. So this should never happen:
try:
my_house.<something>_front_door('closed')
except DoorWasAlreadyClosedException:
pass
Here are some options I've considered:
my_house.set_front_door('closed')
my_house.setne_front_door('closed') # ne=not equal, from the setne x86 instruction
my_house.ensure_front_door('closed')
my_house.configure_front_door('closed')
my_house.update_front_door('closed')
my_house.make_front_door('closed')
my_house.remediate_front_door('closed')
And I'm open to other forms, but most I've thought of don't improve readability. Such as...
my_house.ensure_front_door_is('closed')
my_house.conditionally_update_front_door('closed')
my_house.change_front_door_if_needed('closed')
Thanks for any input!
I would use "ensure" as its succinct, descriptive and to the point:
EnsureCustomerExists(CustomerID)
EnsureDoorState(DoorStates.Closed)
EnsureUserInterface(GUIStates.Disabled)
Interesting question!
From the info that you have supplied, it seems to me that setstate (or simply set, if you are setting other things than states) would be fine, though ensure is good if you want to really emphasize the redundancy of an if.
To me it is however perfectly intuitive that setting a state does not throw an exception, or require an if. Think of setting the state of any other variable:
In C:
int i;
i = 5; // Would you expect this to throw an exception if i was already 5?
// Would you write
if (i != 5)
i = 5;
// ?
Also it only takes about one sentence to document this behaviour:
The function does nothing if the
current state equals the requested
state.
EDIT: Actually, thinking about it, if it is really important to you (for some reason) that the user is not confused about this, I would in fact pick ensure (or some other non-standard name). Why? Because as a user, a name like that would make me scratch my head a bit and look up the documentation ("This is more than just an ordinary set-function, apparently").
EDIT 2: Only you know how you design your programs, and which function name fits in best. From what you are saying, it seems like your setting functions sometimes throw exceptions, and you need to name a setting function that doesn't - e.g. set_missile_target. If that is the case, I think you should consider the set_if, set_when, set_cond or cond_set names. Which one would kind of depend on the rest of your code. I would also add that one line of documentation (or two, if you're generous), which clarifies the whole thing.
For example:
// Sets missile target if current target is not already the requested target,
// in which case it does nothing. No exceptions are thrown.
function cond_set_missile_target ()
or function cond_set_MissileTarget ()
or function condSet_MissileTarget ()
or function condSetMissileTarget ()
ensure is not so bad, but to me it implies only that there is additional logic required to set the state (e.g. multiple states tied together, or other complications). It helps to make the user avoid adding unnecessary ifs, but it does not help much with the exception issue. I would expect an ensure function to throw an exception sooner than a set function, since the ensure function clearly has more responsibilities for, well, ensuring that this setting operation is in fact done right.
I'd go for ensure for the function you describe. I'd also use camelCase, but I suppose you may be in a language that prefers underscores.
You could always document (shock!) your API so that others don't make the mistakes you describe.
In this question, a user commented to never use the With block in VB. Why?
"Never" is a strong word.
I think it fine as long as you don't abuse it (like nesting)
IMHO - this is better:
With MyCommand.Parameters
.Count = 1
.Item(0).ParameterName = "#baz"
.Item(0).Value = fuz
End With
Than:
MyCommand.Parameters.Count = 1
MyCommand.Parameters.Item(0).ParameterName = "#baz"
MyCommand.Parameters.Item(0).Value = fuz
There is nothing wrong about the With keyword. It's true that it may reduce readibility when nested but the solution is simply don't use nested With.
There may be namespace problems in Delphi, which doesn't enforce a leading dot but that issue simply doesn't exist in VB.NET so the people that are posting rants about Delphi are losing their time in this question.
I think the real reason many people don't like the With keyword is that is not included in C* languages and many programmers automatically think that every feature not included in his/her favourite language is bad.
It's just not helpful compared to other options.
If you really miss it you can create a one or two character alias for your object instead. The alias only takes one line to setup, rather than two for the With block (With + End With lines).
The alias also gives you a quick mouse-over reference for the type of the variable. It provides a hook for the IDE to help you jump back to the top of the block if you want (though if the block is that large you have other problems). It can be passed as an argument to functions. And you can use it to reference an index property.
So we have an alternative that gives more function with less code.
Also see this question:
Why is the with() construct not included in C#, when it is really cool in VB.NET?
The with keyword is only sideswiped in a passing reference here in an hilarious article by the wonderful Verity Stob, but it's worth it for the vitriol: See the paragraph that starts
While we are on identifier confusion. The with keyword...
Worth reading the entire article!
The With keyword also provides another benefit - the object(s) in the With statement only need to be "qualified" once, which can improve performance. Check out the information on MSDN here:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/wc500chb(VS.80).aspx
So by all means, use it.