Due in part to the fact that I cannot create data classes without parameters in Kotlin, I use objects for those cases, e.g.
sealed class Node {
object Leaf : Node()
data class Branch(val left:Node, val right:Node) : Node()
}
The issue is that sometimes, I end up with multiple instances of the Leaf class. Obviously this should not generally happen, but it occurs when serializing and deserializing with some frameworks and with some test cases.
Now, you might argue that I should fix those cases, but it's hard to know where they might be, and not always possible or desirable to modify the deserialization semantics of frameworks.
As such, I want all instances of my objects to act as the same value, much like a parameter-less data class would (or a parameterless case class in Scala).
My best solution so far is the following, included in every object I create that might encounter this issue:
object SaneLeaf {
override fun hashCode() = javaClass.hashCode()
override fun equals(other: Any?) = other?.javaClass == javaClass
}
Obviously, this is verbose and error prone, since it doesn't seem possible to abstract away those implementations to an interface. A super-class would work in cases where the object doesn't need to extend another class, but that's often not the case.
Alternatively, I can create a data class with a Nothing parameter. But that seems like even more of a hack.
How have others dealt with this issue? Are there plans to add hashCode and equals implementations to objects that follow the presumed semantics of those classes (all instances should be equal / same hashCode)?
I believe having multiple instances of an object's underlying class is really an issue you should fix, but there's a simpler workaround that allows you to have the equality semantics you described.
You can define an abstract class that performs the equality logic and make the sealed class inherit from it, like this:
abstract class SingletonEquality {
override fun equals(other: Any?): Boolean =
this::class.objectInstance != null && other?.javaClass == this.javaClass ||
super.equals(other)
override fun hashCode(): Int =
if (this::class.objectInstance != null)
javaClass.hashCode() else
super.hashCode()
}
And the usage:
sealed class Node : SingletonEquality() {
object Leaf : Node()
data class Branch(val left:Node, val right:Node) : Node()
}
Here, Leaf will inherit the equals implementation from SingletonEquality and get compared just the way you want.
Related
I'm exploring the Substitution principal and from what I've understood about the principal is that a sub type of any super type should be passable into a function/class. Using this idea in a new section of code that I'm writing, I wanted to implement a abstract interface for a Filter like so
interface Filter {
fun filter(): Boolean
}
I would then imagine that this creates the contract for all classes that inherit this interface that they must implement the function filter and return a boolean output. Now my interpretation of this is that the input doesn't need to be specified. I would like it that way as I want a filter interface that guarantee the implementation of a filter method with a guarantee of a return type boolean. Does this concept even exists in Kotlin? I would then expect to implement this interface like so
class LocationFilter {
companion object : Filter {
override fun filter(coord1: Coordinate, coord2: Coordinate): Boolean {
TODO("Some business logic here")
}
}
}
But in reality this doesn't work. I could remove remove the filter method from the interface but that just defeats the point of the whole exercise. I have tried using varargs but again that's not resolving the issue as each override must implement varargs which is just not helpful. I know this may seem redundant, but is there a possibility to have the type of abstraction that I'm asking for? Or am I missing a point of an Interface?
Let's think about it a little. The main point of abstraction is that we can use Filter no matter what is the implementation. We don't need to know implementations, we only need to know interfaces. But how could we use Filter if we don't know what data has to be provided to filter? We would need to use LocationFilter directly which also defeats the point of creating an interface.
Your problem isn't really related to Kotlin, but to OOP in general. In most languages it is solved by generics/templates/parameterized types. It means that an interface/class is parameterized by another type. You use it in Kotlin like this:
interface Filter<in T> {
fun filter(value: T): Boolean
}
object LocationFilter : Filter<Coordinate> {
override fun filter(value: Coordinate): Boolean {
TODO()
}
}
fun acquireCoordinateFilter(): Filter<Coordinate> = LocationFilter
fun main() {
val coord: Coordinate = TODO()
val filter: Filter<Coordinate> = acquireCoordinateFilter()
val result = filter.filter(coord)
}
Filter is parameterized, meaning that we can have a filter for filtering strings (type is: Filter<String>), for filtering integers (Filter<Int>) or for filtering coordinates (Filter<Coordinate>). Then we can't use e.g. Filter<String> to filter integers.
Note that the code in main() does not use LocationFilter directly, it only knows how to acquire Filter<Coordinate>, but the specific implementation is abstracted from it.
Also note there is already a very similar interface in Java stdlib. It is called Predicate.
my interpretation of this is that the input doesn't need to be specified.
Where did you get that interpretation from?
You can see that it can't be correct, by looking at how the method would be called. You should be able to write code that works for any instance of Filter — and that can only happen if the number and type of argument(s) is specified in the interface. To use your example:
val f: Filter = someMethodReturningAFilterInstance()
val result = f.filter(coord1, coord2)
could only work if all implementations used two Coordinate parameters. If some used one String param, and others used nothing at all, then how would you call it safely?
There are a few workarounds you could use.
If every implementation takes the same number of parameters, then you could make the interface generic, with type parameter(s), e.g.:
interface Filter<T1, T2> {
fun filter(t1: T1, t2: T2): Boolean
}
Then it's up to the implementation to specify which types are needed. However, the calling code either needs to know the types of the particular implementation, or needs to be generic itself, or the interface needs to provide type bounds with in variance.
Or if you need a variable number of parameters, you could bundle them up into a single object and pass that. However, you'd probably need an interface for that type, in order to handle the different numbers and types of parameters, and/or make that type a type parameter on Filter — all of which smells pretty bad.
Ultimately, I suspect you need to think about how your interface is going to be used, and in particular how its method is going to be called. If you're only ever going to call it when the caller knows the implementation type, then there's probably no point trying to specify that method in the interface (and maybe no point having the interface at all). Or if you'll want to handle Filter instances without knowing their concrete type, then look at how you'll want to make those calls.
The whole this is wrong!
First, OOP is a declarative concept, but in your example the type Filter is just a procedure wrapped in an object. And this is completely wrong.
Why do you need this type Filter? I assume you need to get a collection filtered, so why not create a new object that accepts an existing collection and represents it filtered.
class Filtered<T>(private val origin: Iterable<T>) : Iterable<T> {
override fun iterator(): Iterator<T> {
TODO("Filter the original iterable and return it")
}
}
Then in your code, anywhere you can pass an Iterable and you want it to be filtered, you simply wrap this original iterable (any List, Array or Collection) with the class Filtered like so
acceptCollection(Filtered(listOf(1, 2, 3, 4)))
You can also pass a second argument into the Filtered and call it, for example, predicate, which is a lambda that accepts an element of the iterable and returns Boolean.
class Filtered<T>(private val origin: Iterable<T>, private val predicate: (T) -> Boolean) : Iterable<T> {
override fun iterator(): Iterator<T> {
TODO("Filter the original iterable and return it")
}
}
Then use it like:
val oddOnly = Filtered(
listOf(1, 2, 3, 4),
{ it % 2 == 1 }
)
I was looking into co- and contravariance in several programming languages' collection libraries, and stumbled over Kotlin's Set interface.
It is documented as
interface Set<out E> : Collection<E>
which means it is covariant – only "producing" E objects, following the Kotlin documentation, not consuming them.
And Set<String> becomes a subtype of Set<Any>.
Yet, it has those two methods:
abstract fun contains(element: E): Boolean
abstract fun containsAll(elements: Collection<E>): Boolean
So when I create a class implementing Set<String>, I have to implement (beside others) contains(String). But later someone can use my class as a Set<Any> and call set.contains(5).
I actually tried this:
class StringSet : Set<String> {
override val size = 2
override fun contains(element: String): Boolean {
println("--- StringSet.contains($element)")
return element == "Hallo" || element == "World"
}
override fun containsAll(elements: Collection<String>) : Boolean =
elements.all({it -> contains(it)})
override fun isEmpty() = false
override fun iterator() = listOf("Hallo", "World").iterator()
}
fun main() {
val sset : Set<String> = StringSet()
println(sset.contains("Hallo"))
println(sset.contains("xxx"))
//// compiler error:
// println(set.contains(5))
val aset : Set<Any> = sset
println(aset.contains("Hallo"))
println(aset.contains("xxx"))
// this compiles (and returns false), but the method is not actually called
println(aset.contains(5))
}
(Run online)
So it turns out that Set<String> is not a "real" subtype of Set<Any>, as the set.contains(5) works with the second but not the first.
Actually calling the contains method even works at runtime – just my implementation will never be called, and it just prints false.
Looking into the source code of the interface, it turns out that the two methods are actually declared as
abstract fun contains(element: #UnsafeVariance E): Boolean
abstract fun containsAll(elements: Collection<#UnsafeVariance E>): Boolean
What is going on here?
Is there some special compiler magic for Set?
Why is this not documented anywhere?
Declaration-site covariance in the form of the out modifier misses a useful use case of making sure that an instance passed as an argument is generally sensible to pass here. The contains functions are a good example.
In the particular case of Set.contains, the #UnsafeVariance annotation is used to ensure that the function accepts an instance of E, as passing an element that is not E into contains makes no sense – all proper implementation of Set will always return false. The implementations of Set are not supposed to store the element passed to contains and thus should never return it from any other function with the return type E. So a properly implemented Set won't violate the variance restrictions at runtime.
The #UnsafeVariance annotation actually suppresses the compiler variance conflicts, like using an out-projected type parameter in an in-position.
Its motiviation is best described in this blog post:
#UnsafeVariance annotation
Sometimes we need to suppress declaration-site variance checks in our classes. For example, to make Set.contains typesafe while keeping read-only sets co-variant, we had to do it:
interface Set<out E> : Collection<E> {
fun contains(element: #UnsafeVariance E): Boolean
}
This puts some responsibility on the implementor of contains, because with this check suppressed the actual type of element may be anything at all at runtime, but it’s sometimes necessary to achieve convenient signatures. See more on the type-safety of collections below.
So, we introduced the #UnsafeVariance annotation on types for this purpose. It’s been deliberately made long and stands out to warn agains abusing it.
The rest of the blog post also explicitly mentions that the signature of contains using #UnsafeVariance improves type-safety.
The alternative to introducing #UnsafeVariance was to keep contains accepting Any, but this option lacks the type check on contains calls that would detect erroneous calls with elements that can't be present in the set due to not being instances of E.
I would like to semantically constrain a map to only accept "data" class object types as the value in kotlin like so:
class Test(
val test : Int
)
data class Test2 (
val test : Int
)
fun test(map : Map<String, /* compile error on Test, but accept Test2 or any other data class */>) {
}
I'm mainly trying to do this so that I can keep everything in the map cloneable, but when I do this:
fun <T: Cloneable> test(map : Map<String, T>) {
// test clone
map.map { it.key.uuid to it.value.clone() } .toMap() // error on .clone() Cannot access 'clone': it is protected in 'Cloneable'
}
but I thought implementing the Cloneable interface made your clone method public? Essentially I'm looking for a compile time guarantee that all data is copyable in that method invocation, (is a primitive type, a data class that I can call .copy() on, or any object that has implemented Cloneable). Is my only option reflection and runtime assertions?
I thought implementing the Cloneable interface made your clone method public?
No, it's simply a marker interface, which tells the protected Object.clone() method not to throw a CloneNotSupportedException. In practice, classes that implement Cloneable will usually override clone() and make it public, but that's not necessary. And of course that's no help when you don't know the exact type!
The cloning mechanism was an early part of Java, and not very well-designed. (Effective Java calls it “a highly atypical use of interfaces and not one to be emulated”.) But it's still used, so we're stuck with it…
(See also these related answers.)
I don't know whether this is the best way or not, but how about you to use property like below.
SomeClass::class.isData
Kdoc says
true if this class is a data class.
I've bumped into this code and I'm not sure why would anyone do this. Basically the author decided for making the class constructor private so that it cannot be instantiated outside the file, and added a public method to a companion object in the class that creates a new instance of this class. What is the benefit of this approach?
This is what I found:
class Foo private constructor(private val arg1: Any) {
//more code here..
companion object {
fun newFoo(arg1: Any) = Foo(arg1 = arg1)
}
}
Why is it better than this?
class Foo(private val arg1: Any) {
//more code here..
}
There are several benefits to providing a factory method instead of a public constructor, including:
It can do lots of processing before calling the construstor. (This can be important if the superclass constructor takes parameters that need to be calculated.)
It can return cached values instead of new instances where appropriate.
It can return a subclass. (This allows you to make the top class an interface, as noted in another answer.) The exact class can differ between calls, and can even be an anonymous type.
It can have a name (as noted in another answer). This is especially important if you need multiple methods taking the same parameters. (E.g. a Point object which could be constructed from rectangular or polar co-ordinates.) However, a factory method doesn't need a specific name; if you implement the invoke() method in the companion object, you can call it in exactly the same way as a constructor.
It makes it easier to change the implementation of the class without affecting its public interface.
It also has an important drawback:
It can't be used by subclass constructors.
Factory methods seem to be less used in Kotlin than Java, perhaps due to Kotlin's simpler syntax for primary constructors and properties. But they're still worth considering — especially as Kotlin companion objects can inherit.
For much deeper info, see this article, which looks at the recommendation in Effective Java and how it applies to Kotlin.
If you want to change Foo into an interface in the future the code based on the method will keep working, since you can return a concrete class which still implements Foo, unlike the constructor which no longer exists.
An example specific to android is, that Fragments should be constructed with an empty constructed, and any data you'd like to pass through to them should be put in a bundle.
We can create a static/companion function, which takes in the arguments we need for that fragment, and this method would construct the fragment using the empty constructor and pass in the data using a bundle.
There are many useful cases, for example what Kiskae described. Another good one would be to be able to "give your constructors names":
class Foo<S: Any, T: Any> private constructor(private val a: S, private val b: T) {
//more code here...
companion object {
fun <S: Any> createForPurposeX(a: S) = Foo(a = a, b = "Default value")
fun createForPurposeY() = Foo(a = 1, b = 2)
}
}
Call site:
Foo.createForPurposeX("Hey")
Foo.createForPurposeY()
Note: You should use generic types instead of Any.
I'm aware of two differences between Abstract classes and Interfaces in Kotlin:
An abstract class can have state (e.g. var...)
A class can implement multiple interfaces, but not multiple abstract classes.
Since Kotlin is a rather fresh language, I wonder why Abstract Classes were not abandoned? Interfaces seem superior tool, with a very little need for Abstract Classes.
To elaborate: Kotlin does support concrete function implementation in interfaces, e.g.:
interface Shiny {
fun shine(amount : Int) // abstract function
fun reflect(s : String) { print ("**$s**") } // concrete function
}
Can someone provide a strong practical example of the need for Abstract Classes?
The practical side of abstract classes is that you can encapsulate a part of implementation that works with the state, so that it cannot be overridden in the derived classes.
In an interface, you can only define a property without a backing field, and an implementation class must override that property (with either a backing field or custom accessors).
Given that, you cannot define logic that stores some state in an interface in a reliable way: an implementation class might override the properties in an unexpected way.
Example:
interface MyContainer {
var size: Int
fun add(item: MyItem) {
// ...
size = size + 1
}
}
Here, we provide a default implementation for add that increments size. But it might break if an implementing class is defined like this:
class MyContainerImpl : MyContainer {
override val size: Int
get() = 0
set(value) { println("Just ignoring the $value") }
}
On contrary, abstract classes support this use case and thus allow you to provide some guarantees and contract for all their implementations: they can define some state and its transitions that will stay the same in a derived class.
Apart from that, abstract classes can have non-public API (internal, protected) and final members, whereas interfaces cannot (they can only have private members, which can be used in the default implementations), and all their default implementations can be overridden in the classes.
Abstract classes exist essentially for a hierarchy of classes. For example, if the abstract parent class had a concrete function that was also defined in the child class which extends the parent class, then in certain cases it would be necessary to call the parent's function. When you use an interface it is impossible to do so due to the entirely abstract nature of the class.