Related
How is it related to extension functions? Why is with a function, not a keyword?
There appears to be no explicit documentation for this topic, only the assumption of knowledge in reference to extensions.
It is true that there appears to be little existing documentation for the concept of receivers (only a small side note related to extension functions), which is surprising given:
their existence springing out of extension functions;
their role in building a DSL using said extension functions;
the existence of a standard library function with, which given no knowledge of receivers might look like a keyword;
a completely separate syntax for function types.
All these topics have documentation, but nothing goes in-depth on receivers.
First:
What's a receiver?
Any block of code in Kotlin may have a type (or even multiple types) as a receiver, making functions and properties of the receiver available in that block of code without qualifying it.
Imagine a block of code like this:
{ toLong() }
Doesn't make much sense, right? In fact, assigning this to a function type of (Int) -> Long - where Int is the (only) parameter, and the return type is Long - would rightfully result in a compilation error. You can fix this by simply qualifying the function call with the implicit single parameter it. However, for DSL building, this will cause a bunch of issues:
Nested blocks of DSL will have their upper layers shadowed:
html { it.body { // how to access extensions of html here? } ... }
This may not cause issues for a HTML DSL, but may for other use cases.
It can litter the code with it calls, especially for lambdas that use their parameter (soon to be receiver) a lot.
This is where receivers come into play.
By assigning this block of code to a function type that has Int as a receiver (not as a parameter!), the code suddenly compiles:
val intToLong: Int.() -> Long = { toLong() }
Whats going on here?
A little side note
This topic assumes familiarity with function types, but a little side note for receivers is needed.
Function types can also have one receiver, by prefixing it with the type and a dot. Examples:
Int.() -> Long // taking an integer as receiver producing a long
String.(Long) -> String // taking a string as receiver and long as parameter producing a string
GUI.() -> Unit // taking an GUI and producing nothing
Such function types have their parameter list prefixed with the receiver type.
Resolving code with receivers
It is actually incredibly easy to understand how blocks of code with receivers are handled:
Imagine that, similar to extension functions, the block of code is evaluated inside the class of the receiver type. this effectively becomes amended by the receiver type.
For our earlier example, val intToLong: Int.() -> Long = { toLong() } , it effectively results in the block of code being evaluated in a different context, as if it was placed in a function inside Int. Here's a different example using handcrafted types that showcases this better:
class Bar
class Foo {
fun transformToBar(): Bar = TODO()
}
val myBlockOfCodeWithReceiverFoo: (Foo).() -> Bar = { transformToBar() }
effectively becomes (in the mind, not code wise - you cannot actually extend classes on the JVM):
class Bar
class Foo {
fun transformToBar(): Bar = TODO()
fun myBlockOfCode(): Bar { return transformToBar() }
}
val myBlockOfCodeWithReceiverFoo: (Foo) -> Bar = { it.myBlockOfCode() }
Notice how inside of a class, we don't need to use this to access transformToBar - the same thing happens in a block with a receiver.
It just so happens that the documentation on this also explains how to use an outermost receiver if the current block of code has two receivers, via a qualified this.
Wait, multiple receivers?
Yes. A block of code can have multiple receivers, but this currently has no expression in the type system. The only way to achieve this is via multiple higher-order functions that take a single receiver function type. Example:
class Foo
class Bar
fun Foo.functionInFoo(): Unit = TODO()
fun Bar.functionInBar(): Unit = TODO()
inline fun higherOrderFunctionTakingFoo(body: (Foo).() -> Unit) = body(Foo())
inline fun higherOrderFunctionTakingBar(body: (Bar).() -> Unit) = body(Bar())
fun example() {
higherOrderFunctionTakingFoo {
higherOrderFunctionTakingBar {
functionInFoo()
functionInBar()
}
}
}
Do note that if this feature of the Kotlin language seems inappropriate for your DSL, #DslMarker is your friend!
Conclusion
Why does all of this matter? With this knowledge:
you now understand why you can write toLong() in an extension function on a number, instead of having to reference the number somehow. Maybe your extension function shouldn't be an extension?
You can build a DSL for your favorite markup language, maybe help parsing the one or other (who needs regular expressions?!).
You understand why with, a standard library function and not a keyword, exists - the act of amending the scope of a block of code to save on redundant typing is so common, the language designers put it right in the standard library.
(maybe) you learned a bit about function types on the offshoot.
When you call:
"Hello, World!".length()
the string "Hello, World!" whose length you're trying to get is called the receiver.
More generally, any time you write someObject.someFunction(), with a . between the object and the function name, the object is acting as the receiver for the function. This isn't special to Kotlin, and is common to many programming languages that use objects. So the concept of a receiver is likely very familiar to you, even if you haven't heard the term before.
It's called a receiver because you can think of the function call as sending a request which the object will receive.
Not all functions have a receiver. For example, Kotlin's println() function is a top-level function. When you write:
println("Hello, World!")
you don't have to put any object (or .) before the function call. There's no receiver because the println() function doesn't live inside an object.
On the receiving end
Now let's look at what a function call looks like from the point of view of the receiver itself. Imagine we've written a class that displays a simple greeting message:
class Greeter(val name: String) {
fun displayGreeting() {
println("Hello, ${this.name}!")
}
}
To call displayGreeting(), we first create an instance of Greeter, then we can use that object as a receiver to call the function:
val aliceGreeter = Greeter("Alice")
val bobGreeter = Greeter("Bob")
aliceGreeter.displayGreeting() // prints "Hello, Alice!"
bobGreeter.displayGreeting() // prints "Hello, Bob!"
How does the displayGreeting function know which name to display each time? The answer is the keyword this, which always refers to the current receiver.
When we call aliceGreeter.displayGreeting(), the receiver is aliceGreeter, so this.name points to "Alice".
When we call bobGreeter.displayGreeting(), the receiver is bobGreeter, so this.name points to "Bob".
Implicit receivers
Most of the time, there's actually no need to write this. We can replace this.name with just name and it will implicitly point to the name property of the current receiver.
class Greeter(val name: String) {
fun displayGreeting() {
println("Hello, $name!")
}
}
Notice how that differs from accessing a property from outside the class. To print the name from outside, we'd have to write out the full name of the receiver:
println("Hello, ${aliceGreeter.name}")
By writing the function inside the class, we can omit the receiver completely, making the whole thing much shorter. The call to name still has a receiver, we just didn't have to write it out. We can say that we accessed the name property using an implicit receiver.
Member functions of a class often need to access many other functions and properties of their own class, so implicit receivers are very useful. They shorten the code and can make it easier to read and write.
How do receivers relate to extensions?
So far, it seems like a receiver is doing two things for us:
Sending a function call to a specific object, because the function lives inside that object
Allowing a function convenient and and concise access to the other properties and functions that live inside the same object
What if we want to write a function that can use an implicit receiver for convenient access to the properties and functions of an object, but we don't want to (or can't) write our new function inside that object/class? This is where Kotlin's extension functions come in.
fun Greeter.displayAnotherGreeting() {
println("Hello again, $name!")
}
This function doesn't live inside Greeter, but it accesses Greeter as if it was a receiver. Notice the receiver type before the function name, which tells us that this is an extension function. In the body of the extension function, we can once again access name without its receiver, even though we're not actually inside the Greeter class.
You could say that this isn't a "real" receiver, because we're not actually sending the function call to an object. The function lives outside the object. We're just using the syntax and appearance of a receiver because it makes for convenient and concise code. We can call this an extension receiver, to distinguish it from the dispatch receiver that exists for functions that are really inside an object.
Extension functions are called in the same way as member functions, with a receiver object before the function name.
val aliceGreeter = Greeter("Alice")
aliceGreeter.displayAnotherGreeting() // prints "Hello again, Alice!"
Because the function is always called with an object in the receiver position before the function name, it can access that object using the keyword this. Like a member function, an extension function can also leave out this and access the receiver's other properties and functions using the current receiver instance as the implicit receiver.
One of the main reasons extension functions are useful is that the current extension receiver instance can be used as an implicit receiver inside the body of the function.
What does with do?
So far we've seen two ways to make something available as an implicit receiver:
Create a function inside the receiver class
Create an extension function outside the class
Both approaches require creating a function. Can we have the convenience of an implicit receiver without declaring a new function at all?
The answer is to call with:
with(aliceGreeter) {
println("Hello again, $name!")
}
Inside the block body of the call to with(aliceGreeter) { ... }, aliceGreeter is available as an implicit receiver and we can once again access name without its receiver.
So how come with can be implemented as a function, rather than a language feature? How is it possible to simply take an object and magic it into an implicit receiver?
The answer lies with lambda functions. Let's consider our displayAnotherGreeting extension function again. We declared it as a function, but we could instead write it as a lambda:
val displayAnotherGreeting: Greeter.() -> Unit = {
println("Hello again, $name!")
}
We can still call aliceGreeter.displayAnotherGreeting() the same as before, and the code inside the function is the same, complete with implicit receiver. Our extension function has become a lambda with receiver. Note the way the Greeter.() -> Unit function type is written, with the extension receiver Greeter listed before the (empty) parameter list ().
Now, watch what happens when we pass this lambda function as an argument to another function:
fun runLambda(greeter: Greeter, lambda: Greeter.() -> Unit) {
greeter.lambda()
}
The first argument is the object that we want to use as the receiver. The second argument is the lambda function we want to run. All runLambda does is to call the provided lambda parameter, using the greeter parameter as the lambda's receiver.
Substituting the code from our displayAnotherGreeting lambda function into the second argument, we can call runLambda like this:
runLambda(aliceGreeter) {
println("Hello again, $name!")
}
And just like that, we've turned aliceGreeter into an implicit receiver. Kotlin's with function is simply a generic version of this that works with any type.
Recap
When you call someObject.someFunction(), someObject is acting as the receiver that receives the function call
Inside someFunction, someObject is "in scope" as the current receiver instance, and can be accessed as this
When a receiver is in scope, you can leave out the word this and access its properties and functions using an implicit receiver
Extension functions let you benefit from the receiver syntax and implicit receivers without actually dispatching a function call to an object
Kotlin's with function uses a lambda with receiver to make receivers available anywhere, not just inside member functions and extension functions
Kotlin knows the concept of a function literals with receiver. It enables access on visible methods and properties of a receiver of a lambda within its body without having to use any additional qualifier. That's very similar to extension functions in which you can as well access members of the receiver object inside the extension.
A simple example, also one of the greatest functions in the Kotlin standard library, is apply:
public inline fun <T> T.apply(block: T.() -> Unit): T {
block()
return this
}
Here, block is a function literal with receiver. This block parameter is executed by the function and the receiver of apply, T, is returned to the caller. In action this looks as follows:
val foo: Bar = Bar().apply {
color = RED
text = "Foo"
}
We instantiate an object of Bar and call apply on it. The instance of Bar becomes the receiver of apply. The block, passed as an argument in curly brackets does not need to use additional qualifiers to access and modify the properties color and text.
The concept of lambdas with receiver is also the most important feature for writing DSLs with Kotlin.
var greet: String.() -> Unit = { println("Hello $this") }
this defines a variable of type String.() -> Unit, which tells you
String is the receiver
() -> Unit is the function type
Like F. George mentioned above, all methods of this receiver can be called in the method body.
So, in our example, this is used to print the String. The function can be invoked by writing...
greet("Fitzgerald") // result is "Hello Fitzgerald"
the above code snippet was taken from Kotlin Function Literals with Receiver – Quick Introduction by Simon Wirtz.
Simply put ( without any extra words or complications) , the "Receiver" is the type being extended in the extension function or the class name. Using the examples given in answers above
fun Foo.functionInFoo(): Unit = TODO()
Type "Foo" is the "Receiver"
var greet: String.() -> Unit = { println("Hello $this") }
Type "String" is the "Receiver"
Additional tip: Look out for the Class before the fullstop(.) in the "fun" (function) declaration
fun receiver_class.function_name() {
//...
}
Simply put:
the receiver type is the type an extension function extends
the receiver object is the object an extension function is called on; the this keyword inside the function body corresponds to the receiver object
An extension function example:
// `Int` is the receiver type
// `this` is the receiver object
fun Int.squareDouble() = toLong() * this
// a receiver object `8` of type `Int` is passed to the `square` function
val result = 8.square()
A function literal example, which is pretty much the same:
// `Int` is the receiver type
// `this` is the receiver object
val square: Int.() -> Long = { toLong() * this }
// a receiver object `8` of type `Int` is passed to the `square` function
val result1 = 8.square()
val result2 = square(8) // this call is equal to the previous one
The object instance before the . is the receiver. This is in essence the "Scope" you will define this lambda within. This is all you need to know, really, because the functions and properties(varibles, companions e.t.c) you will be using in the lambda will be those provided within this scope.
class Music(){
var track:String=""
fun printTrack():Unit{
println(track)
}
}
//Music class is the receiver of this function, in other words, the lambda can be piled after a Music class just like its extension function Since Music is an instance, refer to it by 'this', refer to lambda parameters by 'it', like always
val track_name:Music.(String)->Unit={track=it;printTrack()}
/*Create an Instance of Music and immediately call its function received by the name 'track_name', and exclusively available to instances of this class*/
Music().track_name("Still Breathing")
//Output
Still Breathing
You define this variable with and all the parameters and return types it will have but among all the constructs defined, only the object instance can call the var, just like it would an extension function and supply to it its constructs, hence "receiving" it.
A receiver would hence be loosely defined as an object for which an extension function is defined using the idiomatic style of lambdas.
Typically in Java or Kotlin you have methods or functions with input parameters of type T. In Kotlin you can also have extension functions that receive a value of type T.
If you have a function that accepts a String parameter for example:
fun hasWhitespace(line: String): Boolean {
for (ch in line) if (ch.isWhitespace()) return true
return false
}
converting the parameter to a receiver (which you can do automatically with IntelliJ):
fun String.hasWhitespace(): Boolean {
for (ch in this) if (ch.isWhitespace()) return true
return false
}
we now have an extension function that receives a String and we can access the value with this
How can I pass property getter to a function that accepts function type?
Here is an example of what I want achieve:
class Test {
val test: String
get() = "lol"
fun testFun(func: ()->String) {
// invoke it here
}
fun callTest() {
testFun(test::get)
// error: Type mismatch: inferred type is
// KFunction1<#ParameterName Int, Char> but () -> String was expected
}
}
Is there a way?
You can reference the getter by writing ::test (or this::test).
When you write test::get, you are actually referencing the get method on String. That method takes an index and returns the character at that index.
If the property was a var and you want a reference to its setter, you can write ::test::set.
For more info on property references, see here: https://kotlinlang.org/docs/reference/reflection.html#bound-function-and-property-references-since-11
As already mentioned, you can use this::test to refer to the getter. Alternatively, if you have kotlin-reflect, you can do this::test.getter.
When you pass the field as a function, it assumes you mean the getter. As a result, if you want the setter, you have two options:
this::test::set
or
this::test.setter
The latter, just like this::test.getter requires kotlin-reflect, or the program will crash (tested locally with Kotlin 1.2.50)
You can, however, get the getter in another way. But I recommend you just stick with this::test because it's shorter.
You can do:
this::something::get
With just something::get it refers to the method inside the String class, which returns a char at an index. For reference, the method declaration:
public override fun get(index: Int): Char
If you don't mind, just use { test } (e.g. testFun { test }). This will exactly translate to your () -> String. The next best alternative is probably ::test (or this::test) as was already mentioned.
The second has probably only minor (negligible?) impact on performance. I did not test it myself, nor did I found any source which tells something regarding it. The reason why I say this, is how the byte code underneath looks like. Just due to this question I asked myself about the difference of the two: Is the property reference (::test) equivalent to a function accessing the property ({ test }) when passed as argument e.g. `() -> String`?
It seems that you are doing something wrong on logical level.
If you are overriding get method of a variable, then you can access it's value through this get method. Thus, why bother with test::get (which is totally different method, by the way, all you are doing is trying to access char from string), when you can just access variable by it's name?
How is it related to extension functions? Why is with a function, not a keyword?
There appears to be no explicit documentation for this topic, only the assumption of knowledge in reference to extensions.
It is true that there appears to be little existing documentation for the concept of receivers (only a small side note related to extension functions), which is surprising given:
their existence springing out of extension functions;
their role in building a DSL using said extension functions;
the existence of a standard library function with, which given no knowledge of receivers might look like a keyword;
a completely separate syntax for function types.
All these topics have documentation, but nothing goes in-depth on receivers.
First:
What's a receiver?
Any block of code in Kotlin may have a type (or even multiple types) as a receiver, making functions and properties of the receiver available in that block of code without qualifying it.
Imagine a block of code like this:
{ toLong() }
Doesn't make much sense, right? In fact, assigning this to a function type of (Int) -> Long - where Int is the (only) parameter, and the return type is Long - would rightfully result in a compilation error. You can fix this by simply qualifying the function call with the implicit single parameter it. However, for DSL building, this will cause a bunch of issues:
Nested blocks of DSL will have their upper layers shadowed:
html { it.body { // how to access extensions of html here? } ... }
This may not cause issues for a HTML DSL, but may for other use cases.
It can litter the code with it calls, especially for lambdas that use their parameter (soon to be receiver) a lot.
This is where receivers come into play.
By assigning this block of code to a function type that has Int as a receiver (not as a parameter!), the code suddenly compiles:
val intToLong: Int.() -> Long = { toLong() }
Whats going on here?
A little side note
This topic assumes familiarity with function types, but a little side note for receivers is needed.
Function types can also have one receiver, by prefixing it with the type and a dot. Examples:
Int.() -> Long // taking an integer as receiver producing a long
String.(Long) -> String // taking a string as receiver and long as parameter producing a string
GUI.() -> Unit // taking an GUI and producing nothing
Such function types have their parameter list prefixed with the receiver type.
Resolving code with receivers
It is actually incredibly easy to understand how blocks of code with receivers are handled:
Imagine that, similar to extension functions, the block of code is evaluated inside the class of the receiver type. this effectively becomes amended by the receiver type.
For our earlier example, val intToLong: Int.() -> Long = { toLong() } , it effectively results in the block of code being evaluated in a different context, as if it was placed in a function inside Int. Here's a different example using handcrafted types that showcases this better:
class Bar
class Foo {
fun transformToBar(): Bar = TODO()
}
val myBlockOfCodeWithReceiverFoo: (Foo).() -> Bar = { transformToBar() }
effectively becomes (in the mind, not code wise - you cannot actually extend classes on the JVM):
class Bar
class Foo {
fun transformToBar(): Bar = TODO()
fun myBlockOfCode(): Bar { return transformToBar() }
}
val myBlockOfCodeWithReceiverFoo: (Foo) -> Bar = { it.myBlockOfCode() }
Notice how inside of a class, we don't need to use this to access transformToBar - the same thing happens in a block with a receiver.
It just so happens that the documentation on this also explains how to use an outermost receiver if the current block of code has two receivers, via a qualified this.
Wait, multiple receivers?
Yes. A block of code can have multiple receivers, but this currently has no expression in the type system. The only way to achieve this is via multiple higher-order functions that take a single receiver function type. Example:
class Foo
class Bar
fun Foo.functionInFoo(): Unit = TODO()
fun Bar.functionInBar(): Unit = TODO()
inline fun higherOrderFunctionTakingFoo(body: (Foo).() -> Unit) = body(Foo())
inline fun higherOrderFunctionTakingBar(body: (Bar).() -> Unit) = body(Bar())
fun example() {
higherOrderFunctionTakingFoo {
higherOrderFunctionTakingBar {
functionInFoo()
functionInBar()
}
}
}
Do note that if this feature of the Kotlin language seems inappropriate for your DSL, #DslMarker is your friend!
Conclusion
Why does all of this matter? With this knowledge:
you now understand why you can write toLong() in an extension function on a number, instead of having to reference the number somehow. Maybe your extension function shouldn't be an extension?
You can build a DSL for your favorite markup language, maybe help parsing the one or other (who needs regular expressions?!).
You understand why with, a standard library function and not a keyword, exists - the act of amending the scope of a block of code to save on redundant typing is so common, the language designers put it right in the standard library.
(maybe) you learned a bit about function types on the offshoot.
When you call:
"Hello, World!".length()
the string "Hello, World!" whose length you're trying to get is called the receiver.
More generally, any time you write someObject.someFunction(), with a . between the object and the function name, the object is acting as the receiver for the function. This isn't special to Kotlin, and is common to many programming languages that use objects. So the concept of a receiver is likely very familiar to you, even if you haven't heard the term before.
It's called a receiver because you can think of the function call as sending a request which the object will receive.
Not all functions have a receiver. For example, Kotlin's println() function is a top-level function. When you write:
println("Hello, World!")
you don't have to put any object (or .) before the function call. There's no receiver because the println() function doesn't live inside an object.
On the receiving end
Now let's look at what a function call looks like from the point of view of the receiver itself. Imagine we've written a class that displays a simple greeting message:
class Greeter(val name: String) {
fun displayGreeting() {
println("Hello, ${this.name}!")
}
}
To call displayGreeting(), we first create an instance of Greeter, then we can use that object as a receiver to call the function:
val aliceGreeter = Greeter("Alice")
val bobGreeter = Greeter("Bob")
aliceGreeter.displayGreeting() // prints "Hello, Alice!"
bobGreeter.displayGreeting() // prints "Hello, Bob!"
How does the displayGreeting function know which name to display each time? The answer is the keyword this, which always refers to the current receiver.
When we call aliceGreeter.displayGreeting(), the receiver is aliceGreeter, so this.name points to "Alice".
When we call bobGreeter.displayGreeting(), the receiver is bobGreeter, so this.name points to "Bob".
Implicit receivers
Most of the time, there's actually no need to write this. We can replace this.name with just name and it will implicitly point to the name property of the current receiver.
class Greeter(val name: String) {
fun displayGreeting() {
println("Hello, $name!")
}
}
Notice how that differs from accessing a property from outside the class. To print the name from outside, we'd have to write out the full name of the receiver:
println("Hello, ${aliceGreeter.name}")
By writing the function inside the class, we can omit the receiver completely, making the whole thing much shorter. The call to name still has a receiver, we just didn't have to write it out. We can say that we accessed the name property using an implicit receiver.
Member functions of a class often need to access many other functions and properties of their own class, so implicit receivers are very useful. They shorten the code and can make it easier to read and write.
How do receivers relate to extensions?
So far, it seems like a receiver is doing two things for us:
Sending a function call to a specific object, because the function lives inside that object
Allowing a function convenient and and concise access to the other properties and functions that live inside the same object
What if we want to write a function that can use an implicit receiver for convenient access to the properties and functions of an object, but we don't want to (or can't) write our new function inside that object/class? This is where Kotlin's extension functions come in.
fun Greeter.displayAnotherGreeting() {
println("Hello again, $name!")
}
This function doesn't live inside Greeter, but it accesses Greeter as if it was a receiver. Notice the receiver type before the function name, which tells us that this is an extension function. In the body of the extension function, we can once again access name without its receiver, even though we're not actually inside the Greeter class.
You could say that this isn't a "real" receiver, because we're not actually sending the function call to an object. The function lives outside the object. We're just using the syntax and appearance of a receiver because it makes for convenient and concise code. We can call this an extension receiver, to distinguish it from the dispatch receiver that exists for functions that are really inside an object.
Extension functions are called in the same way as member functions, with a receiver object before the function name.
val aliceGreeter = Greeter("Alice")
aliceGreeter.displayAnotherGreeting() // prints "Hello again, Alice!"
Because the function is always called with an object in the receiver position before the function name, it can access that object using the keyword this. Like a member function, an extension function can also leave out this and access the receiver's other properties and functions using the current receiver instance as the implicit receiver.
One of the main reasons extension functions are useful is that the current extension receiver instance can be used as an implicit receiver inside the body of the function.
What does with do?
So far we've seen two ways to make something available as an implicit receiver:
Create a function inside the receiver class
Create an extension function outside the class
Both approaches require creating a function. Can we have the convenience of an implicit receiver without declaring a new function at all?
The answer is to call with:
with(aliceGreeter) {
println("Hello again, $name!")
}
Inside the block body of the call to with(aliceGreeter) { ... }, aliceGreeter is available as an implicit receiver and we can once again access name without its receiver.
So how come with can be implemented as a function, rather than a language feature? How is it possible to simply take an object and magic it into an implicit receiver?
The answer lies with lambda functions. Let's consider our displayAnotherGreeting extension function again. We declared it as a function, but we could instead write it as a lambda:
val displayAnotherGreeting: Greeter.() -> Unit = {
println("Hello again, $name!")
}
We can still call aliceGreeter.displayAnotherGreeting() the same as before, and the code inside the function is the same, complete with implicit receiver. Our extension function has become a lambda with receiver. Note the way the Greeter.() -> Unit function type is written, with the extension receiver Greeter listed before the (empty) parameter list ().
Now, watch what happens when we pass this lambda function as an argument to another function:
fun runLambda(greeter: Greeter, lambda: Greeter.() -> Unit) {
greeter.lambda()
}
The first argument is the object that we want to use as the receiver. The second argument is the lambda function we want to run. All runLambda does is to call the provided lambda parameter, using the greeter parameter as the lambda's receiver.
Substituting the code from our displayAnotherGreeting lambda function into the second argument, we can call runLambda like this:
runLambda(aliceGreeter) {
println("Hello again, $name!")
}
And just like that, we've turned aliceGreeter into an implicit receiver. Kotlin's with function is simply a generic version of this that works with any type.
Recap
When you call someObject.someFunction(), someObject is acting as the receiver that receives the function call
Inside someFunction, someObject is "in scope" as the current receiver instance, and can be accessed as this
When a receiver is in scope, you can leave out the word this and access its properties and functions using an implicit receiver
Extension functions let you benefit from the receiver syntax and implicit receivers without actually dispatching a function call to an object
Kotlin's with function uses a lambda with receiver to make receivers available anywhere, not just inside member functions and extension functions
Kotlin knows the concept of a function literals with receiver. It enables access on visible methods and properties of a receiver of a lambda within its body without having to use any additional qualifier. That's very similar to extension functions in which you can as well access members of the receiver object inside the extension.
A simple example, also one of the greatest functions in the Kotlin standard library, is apply:
public inline fun <T> T.apply(block: T.() -> Unit): T {
block()
return this
}
Here, block is a function literal with receiver. This block parameter is executed by the function and the receiver of apply, T, is returned to the caller. In action this looks as follows:
val foo: Bar = Bar().apply {
color = RED
text = "Foo"
}
We instantiate an object of Bar and call apply on it. The instance of Bar becomes the receiver of apply. The block, passed as an argument in curly brackets does not need to use additional qualifiers to access and modify the properties color and text.
The concept of lambdas with receiver is also the most important feature for writing DSLs with Kotlin.
var greet: String.() -> Unit = { println("Hello $this") }
this defines a variable of type String.() -> Unit, which tells you
String is the receiver
() -> Unit is the function type
Like F. George mentioned above, all methods of this receiver can be called in the method body.
So, in our example, this is used to print the String. The function can be invoked by writing...
greet("Fitzgerald") // result is "Hello Fitzgerald"
the above code snippet was taken from Kotlin Function Literals with Receiver – Quick Introduction by Simon Wirtz.
Simply put ( without any extra words or complications) , the "Receiver" is the type being extended in the extension function or the class name. Using the examples given in answers above
fun Foo.functionInFoo(): Unit = TODO()
Type "Foo" is the "Receiver"
var greet: String.() -> Unit = { println("Hello $this") }
Type "String" is the "Receiver"
Additional tip: Look out for the Class before the fullstop(.) in the "fun" (function) declaration
fun receiver_class.function_name() {
//...
}
Simply put:
the receiver type is the type an extension function extends
the receiver object is the object an extension function is called on; the this keyword inside the function body corresponds to the receiver object
An extension function example:
// `Int` is the receiver type
// `this` is the receiver object
fun Int.squareDouble() = toLong() * this
// a receiver object `8` of type `Int` is passed to the `square` function
val result = 8.square()
A function literal example, which is pretty much the same:
// `Int` is the receiver type
// `this` is the receiver object
val square: Int.() -> Long = { toLong() * this }
// a receiver object `8` of type `Int` is passed to the `square` function
val result1 = 8.square()
val result2 = square(8) // this call is equal to the previous one
The object instance before the . is the receiver. This is in essence the "Scope" you will define this lambda within. This is all you need to know, really, because the functions and properties(varibles, companions e.t.c) you will be using in the lambda will be those provided within this scope.
class Music(){
var track:String=""
fun printTrack():Unit{
println(track)
}
}
//Music class is the receiver of this function, in other words, the lambda can be piled after a Music class just like its extension function Since Music is an instance, refer to it by 'this', refer to lambda parameters by 'it', like always
val track_name:Music.(String)->Unit={track=it;printTrack()}
/*Create an Instance of Music and immediately call its function received by the name 'track_name', and exclusively available to instances of this class*/
Music().track_name("Still Breathing")
//Output
Still Breathing
You define this variable with and all the parameters and return types it will have but among all the constructs defined, only the object instance can call the var, just like it would an extension function and supply to it its constructs, hence "receiving" it.
A receiver would hence be loosely defined as an object for which an extension function is defined using the idiomatic style of lambdas.
Typically in Java or Kotlin you have methods or functions with input parameters of type T. In Kotlin you can also have extension functions that receive a value of type T.
If you have a function that accepts a String parameter for example:
fun hasWhitespace(line: String): Boolean {
for (ch in line) if (ch.isWhitespace()) return true
return false
}
converting the parameter to a receiver (which you can do automatically with IntelliJ):
fun String.hasWhitespace(): Boolean {
for (ch in this) if (ch.isWhitespace()) return true
return false
}
we now have an extension function that receives a String and we can access the value with this
I want to implement a callback in a swift project just like I used to do in Objective-C
I need a variable of type closure. That closure should take as a parameter an object and return nothing.
var downloadCompleted: (MLBook) -> (Void)!
When I need to trigger the callback I do this:
if self.downloadCompleted {
self.downloadCompleted(book)
}
The compiler complains with this error message:
Type '(MLBook) -> (Void)!' does not conform to protocol 'BooleanType'
If I remove the if statement the compiler says:
Property 'self.downloadCompleted' not initialized
even though it's implicitly unwrapped.
When I try to get the callback:
BookStore.sharedInstance.downloadCompleted{(book: MLBook) -> () in
println("Print if you got the callback")
}
I get this error message:
'(MLBook) -> ()' is not convertible to 'MLBook'
I'm more worried about the last error message as I'm not quite sure what it is trying to tell me.
Any help would be appreciated. Thanks
Here is your working example. You have a number of mistakes which the attached illustrates. Note
I had the download() method return Bool so that the result can be see in this screen shot.
But, your use of an implicitly unwrapped optional (aka '!') is incorrect. Such an optional is used when the value may be nil but will be assigned at a known time and not changed (see Apple documentation for a description). Your downloadCompleted is a true optional (at least in your example use). Thus, better code, which turns out to be slightly simpler is:
2 mistakes. 1st, The whole type should be wrapped in (), then followed a ? or ! as a optional or implicit unwrapped optional. 2nd, you should check with nil, in swift, no implicit boolean conversion.
In your use case, you should use Optional instead of Implicit unwrapped. Because there is big chance that your property has a nil value. With IUO(Implicit unwrapped optional), you skip compiler warning and will get a runtime error.
import Foundation
class MLBook {
var name = "name"
}
class A {
var downloadCompleted: ((MLBook) -> Void)?
func down(){
var book = MLBook()
if let cb = self.downloadCompleted {
cb(book)
}
}
}
var a = A()
a.downloadCompleted = {
(book: MLBook) -> Void in
println(book.name)
}
a.down()
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.