Is it possible to obtain a reference to an element of a System::Collections::Generic::List when T is a value type?
The following generates warning C4172 because the value returned by the indexer is a temporary copy.
value struct
PluginInfo
{
//...
};
List<PluginInfo^ pluginInfos = gcnew List<PluginInfo>();
PluginInfo%
GetPluginInfo(Handle handle)
{
for (i32 i = 0; i < pluginInfos->Count; i++)
{
PluginInfo% pluginInfo = pluginInfos[i];
if (pluginInfo.handle == handle)
{
return pluginInfo;
}
}
}
No it's not possible.
The .NET generic collections classes were designed at a time when the main .NET languages (C#, VB.NET) didn't support byref returns. So element access is done exclusively through an (indexed) getter/setter pair, where copies are made.
This also avoids the drawback of direct element access in sorted collections (e.g. SortedList or Dictionary), which need to know every time an element value changes so that the item can be moved to the correct new location within the collection. In order to maintain a consistent interface, it's not likely that even brand new collections will use byref returns.
Have you considered using a reference type in your collection? Even if the type you want to store is a value type, you can make a reference class containing it as a member, and that will let you pass it around with reference semantics (at the cost of memory locality, of course).
Related
The zip that accepts iterable is turning my object to Object[] vs the merge. After the zip, I cannot perform other transformation because I lost my object type. Is this the same concept as the stream's reduce combiner? Just wondering how to properly use it. Thanks.
final List<Object[]> list = Flux
.zip(List.of(Mono.just("hello"), Mono.just("world")), objects -> objects)
.collectList().block();
final List<String> strings = Flux
.merge(List.of(Mono.just("hello"), Mono.just("world")))
.collectList().block();
It's an API limitation at present since the generic type of the Iterable's Publisher isn't captured, so that type information isn't available to you in the method. This means you'll unfortunately have to do something unsafe if you want to keep the type information here.
The most trivial change to your current code to get a List<String[]> would be the following:
final List<String[]> list = Flux
.zip(List.of(Mono.just("hello"), Mono.just("world")), objects -> Arrays.stream(objects).toArray(String[]::new))
.collectList().block();
...but of course, you do lose your type safety.
Depending on your use case (generally speaking, if you combinator can combine elements one at a time rather than all in one go), you may also be able to use Flux.zip() in a reducer:
List<Flux<String>> l = new ArrayList<>();
l.add(Flux.just("hello", "me"));
l.add(Flux.just("world", "hungry"));
final List<String> strings = Flux.fromIterable(l)
.reduce((a, b) -> Flux.zip(a, b, (x, y) -> x + ", " + y))
.flatMap(x -> x.collectList())
.block();
It's not equivalent, but may be a type-safe alternative depending on what you need.
Looks like the first argument to the zip function takes a Iterable<? extends Publisher<?>> the question marks mean it can take whatever object.
and its second argument Function<? super Object[],? extends O> is a function that the first argument is "something" that is an object in an array, and the second argument is "something" that extends a concrete type.
So sadly you will be getting a Object[] it's how it is written. You can cast your objects to the correct.
I have never used it before but i played around with it a bit.
final Flux<String> helloWorldString = Flux.zip(List.of(Mono.just("hello"), Mono.just(" "), Mono.just("world")), objects -> {
StringBuilder value = new StringBuilder();
for (var object : objects) {
value.append((String) object);
}
return value.toString();
});
As it is a combinator i think its purpose is to take any objects[] and build a concrete type out if it.
I'm currently using Reflection to inspect an element at runtime using the class.memberProperties function. The type of properties is collection<KProperty1<I, *>> so I run through each of the KProperty objects to find the one that I want by checking if the name is equal to "nameIWant", though I would much rather be able to get the instance of the property from the KProperty by using the .get() method on the property, so that then I could do a check such as:
if (property.get(receiver) is ClassIWant) {
//Do something
}
My code looks like this:
val properties = request.payload::class.memberProperties
properties.forEach { property ->
run {
if (property.name.equals("nameIWant")) {
}
}
}
So far I've been trying to use the .get() method on the KProperty1 type but it takes an argument receiver of type Nothing. I'm not able to work out what I need to pass in order to call the .get() method and get the particular instance of the property. I've also checked the documentation here: https://kotlinlang.org/api/latest/jvm/stdlib/kotlin.reflect/-k-property1/index.html but it hasn't really helped at all.
justPassingBy is right. but the more simple way is to use:
myObj.javaClass.kotlin.memberProperties.foreach { property ->
property.get(myObj)
}
If you want to get the value of the property, cast the class into invariant type.
instance::class.memberProperties.first() // returns KProperty1<out Instance, *>
(instance::class as KClass<Instance>).memberProperties.first() // returns KProperty1<Instance, *>
If your KClass<Instance> is KClass<*>, use Any as Instance.
Why did the KProperty.call take Nothing as receiver?
Because instance::class returns KClass<out Instance>, which propagates the covariant type argument down to the property, which it becomes KProperty<out Instance, *>, which narrows down the possible method receiver to any subtype of Instance, but because we do not know which, we can not safely supply any instance of Instance, as show by the rules of variance, which here limit the generic type argument to Nothing, which means it is impossible to call the method at all.
Why is ::class designed to be covariant?
To guarantee safety. This has been an issue of great debates as it seems somewhat illogical.
If you want to know the type of the value that the property can return, use
property.returnType
It returns a KType, wich is Kotlin's version of Java's Type, which is a more generic concept of a Class (which is one of the implementations of Type).
If you need to 'convert' the KType to a KClass, you need to do the same as if you needed to convert Type to a Class, which is get the raw type of the type. Raw type is type stripped of the any generic information, yes, an erased type. The way to do this is (seemingly) more complicated (involves handling each possible KType/Type implementation) and I recommend checking for answer to this problem separately.
You will be able to reuse Java implementation (that you will surely find on your own) using:
kType.javaType.covertJavaTypeToJavaClass().kotlin // returns KClass<*>
Corrections in your question. I recommend using the proper terms if you wish to receive proper answers:
* I in your question is type of the method receiver, not the value of the property
* collection is not a type, Collection is
* property is ClassIWantis ambiguous as property.type is type of the value in the property and property::class is simply the property implementation, is is also an instanceof check, but in reflection, you need to use KClass.isSubclassOf, or what is known in Java as type.isAssignableFrom (watch the call order), which then makes your condition to be ClassIWant.isSuperclassOf(property.type.getRawType())
* instance of the property properties have values, not instances. Only classes have instances. Instances are values and values are instances (of some class), but you must still say instance representing the value of the property
You can create a KType for your ClassIWant and then check the property's returnType. It will be something like this:
val properties = request.payload::class.memberProperties
val desiredType = ClassIWant::class.createType()
properties.forEach { property ->
if (property.name == "nameIWant" && property.returnType == desiredType) {
//todo
}
}
btw you can cast your property variable to correct type and use get
val properties = request.payload::class.memberProperties
properties.forEach { property ->
val value = (property as KProperty1<Payload, *>).get(request.payload)
if (property.name == "nameIWant" && value is ClassIWant) {
//todo
}
}
prop.getter.call(obj) as String?
In object-oriented and functional programming, an immutable object is
an object whose state cannot be modified after it is created. This is
in contrast to a mutable object, which can be modified after it is
created.
Mutable or Immutable class below? I think it's mutable because static field singleton changes after new MavenPush(project), but I need 100% correct answer. It's groovy code, but it's like Java code
final class MavenPush {
private static volatile MavenPush singleton = null
private final def project
private MavenPush(project) {
this.project = project
}
static MavenPush with(project) {
if (singleton == null) {
synchronized (MavenPush.class) {
if (singleton == null) {
singleton = new MavenPush(project)
}
}
}
return singleton
}
}
An instance of the class is immutable, the class is mutable as a field of the class gets mutated.
This is an immutable instance; but also useless - there are no getters (unless groovy does that implicitly - I am not aware if this happens).
As stated already, the instances of the class look immutable (final properties can only be initialized in the c'tor). But since you left the type out for project this really depends on that. If you pass a String you really have something immutable (Java strings are immutable) - if not: this is basically just an immutable reference to something mutable and all your expectiations about that may shatter at some point.
Now for that static member:
From an OO view, singleton seems like the wrong name. The singleton pattern is quite well known, but what you have here, is a "last item changed cache".
From an FP view: with is often used in a context, where you want to create a modified version of immutable data. So if you run with from instances you earlier got, you dont "copy and change" from the instance but from your "global last item cache (singleton)" - that is no problem with the simple example (just one property), but might be with the "real code".
Can someone please explain me the following code snippet?
value struct ValueStruct {
int x;
};
void SetValueOne(ValueStruct% ref) {
ref.x = 1;
}
void SetValueTwo(ValueStruct ref) {
ref.x = 2;
}
void SetValueThree(ValueStruct^ ref) {
ref->x = 3;
}
ValueStruct^ first = gcnew ValueStruct;
first->x = 0;
SetValueOne(*first);
ValueStruct second;
second.x = 0;
SetValueTwo(second); // am I creating a copy or what? is this copy Disposable even though value types don't have destructors?
ValueStruct^ third = gcnew ValueStruct;
third->x = 0;
SetValueThree(third); // same as the first ?
And my second question is: is there any reason to have something like that?:
ref struct RefStruct {
int x;
};
RefStruct% ref = *gcnew RefStruct;
// rather than:
// RefStruct^ ref = gcnew RefStruct;
// can I retrieve my handle from ref?
// RefStruct^ myref = ???
What is more: I see no difference between value type and ref type, since both can be pointed by handler ;(
Remember that the primary use of C++/CLI is for developing class libraries for consumption by GUIs / web services built in other .NET languages. So C++/CLI has to support both reference and value types because other .NET languages do.
Furthermore, C# can have ref parameters that are value typed as well, this isn't unique to C++/CLI and it doesn't in any way make value types equivalent to reference types.
To answer the questions in your code comments:
am I creating a copy or what?
Yes, SetValueTwo takes its parameter by value, so a copy is made.
is this copy Disposable even though value types don't have destructors?
Incorrect. Value types can have destructors. Value types cannot have finalizers. Since this particular value type has a trivial destructor, the C++/CLI compiler will not cause it to implement IDisposable. In any case, if a parameter is an IDisposable value type, the C++/CLI compiler will ensure that Dispose is called when the variable goes out of scope, just like stack semantics for local variables. This includes abnormal termination (thrown exception), and allows managed types to be used with RAII.
Both
ValueStruct% ref = *gcnew ValueStruct;
and
ValueStruct^ ref = gcnew ValueStruct;
are allowed, and put a boxed value type instance on the managed heap (which isn't a heap at all, but a FIFO queue, however Microsoft chooses to call it a heap like the native memory area for dynamic allocation).
Unlike C#, C++/CLI can keep typed handles to boxed objects.
If a tracking reference is to a value type instance on the stack or embedded in another object, then the value type content has to be boxed in the process of formed the reference.
Tracking references can also be used with reference types, and the syntax to obtain a handle is the same:
RefClass^ newinst = gcnew RefClass();
RefClass% reftoinst = *newinst;
RefClass^% reftohandle = newinst;
RefClass stacksem;
RefClass^ ssh = %stacksem;
One thing that I can never seem to remember completely is that the syntax isn't 100% consistent compared to native C++.
Declare a reference:
int& ri = i; // native
DateTime% dtr = dt; // managed tracking reference
Declare a pointer:
int* pi; // native
Stream^ sh; // tracking handle
Form a pointer:
int* pi = &ri; // address-of native object
DateTime^ dth = %dtr; // address-of managed object
Note that the unary address-of operator is the same as the reference notation in both standard C++ and C++/CLI. This seems to contradict a tracking reference cannot be used as a unary take-address operator (MSDN) which I'll get back to in a second.
First though, the inconsistency:
Form a reference from a pointer:
int& iref = *pi;
DateTime% dtref = *dth;
Note that the unary dereference operator is always *. It is the same as the pointer notation only in the native world, which is completely opposite of address-of which, as mentioned above, are always the same symbol as the reference notation.
Compilable example:
DateTime^ dth = gcnew DateTime();
DateTime% dtr = *dth;
DateTime dt = DateTime::Now;
DateTime^ dtbox = %dt;
FileInfo fi("temp.txt");
// FileInfo^ fih = &fi; causes error C3072
FileInfo^ fih = %fi;
Now, about unary address-of:
First, the MSDN article is wrong when it says:
The following sample shows that a tracking reference cannot be used as a unary take-address operator.
The correct statement is:
% is the address-of operator for creation of a tracking handle. However its use is limited as follows:
A tracking handle must point to an object on the managed heap. Reference types always exist on the managed heap so there is no problem. However, value types and native types may be on the stack (for local variables) or embedded within another object (member variables of value type). Attempts to form a tracking handle will form a handle to a boxed copy of the variable: the handle is not linked to the original variable. As a consequence of the boxing process, which requires metadata which does not exist for native types, it is never possible to have a tracking handle to an instance of a native type.
Example code:
int i = 5;
// int^ ih = %i; causes error C3071
System::Int32 si = 5;
// System::Int32^ sih = %si; causes error C3071
// error C3071: operator '%' can only be applied to an instance
// of a ref class or a value-type
If System::Int32 isn't a value type then I don't know what is. Let's try System::DateTime which is a non-primitive value type:
DateTime dt = DateTime::Now;
DateTime^ dtbox = %dt;
This works!
As a further unfortunate restriction, primitive types which have dual identity (e.g. native int and managed value type System::Int32) are not handled correctly, the % (form tracking reference) operator cannot perform boxing even when the .NET name for the type is given.
i have an object which represents a database table. I want to iterate through this object and print printing each value. What can i use to do this?
i want to do this inside my mxml not actionscript
for each object attribute i want to create an imput field
Look up the documentation on Flex 3 looping. If you do, you'll find this:
for..in
The for..in loop iterates through the properties of an object, or the elements of an array. For example, you can use a for..in loop to iterate through the properties of a generic object (object properties are not kept in any particular order, so properties may appear in a seemingly random order):
var myObj:Object = {x:20, y:30};
for (var i:String in myObj)
{
trace(i + ": " + myObj[i]);
}
// output:
// x: 20
// y: 30
Instead of trying to create an input field for each object, I'd suggest you take a look at DataGrid and custom ItemEditors.
I agree that this answer isn't useful. It only works with generic objects, not user declared
objects.
However, here's some code that should/could work using the describeType as suggested above. (And I don't really think it's too complex). Be aware that only public properties/methods, etc. are exposed:
var ct:CustomObject = new CustomObject();
var xml:XML = describeType(ct);
for each(var accessor in xml..accessor) {
var name:String = accessor.#name;
var type.String = accessor.#type;
trace(ct[name]);
}
The problem with "for...in" is that it iterates only on dynamic properties. That is, if your object is defined as a Class (and not dynamically), "for..in" won't give anything.
The ActionScript documentation suggest to use describeType() for fixed properties, but it looks over-complicated for this simple task…
You can write it like actionscript but include it inside the mxml file with the script tag:
<mx:Script>
<![CDATA[
public function LoopAndPrint() : void
{
//your code here
}
]]>
</mx:Script>