data class DisjointSetNode<T>(var parent: DisjointSetNode<T>, var data: T, var rank: Int) {
constructor(data: T): this(parent = this, data = data, rank = 0)
I was wondering why I am getting an error saying that I cannot use the this keyword in the constructor call because I have not called the superclass constructor first. There is no superclass, and I want to make itself a parent. Any ideas of how I would go about doing this?
the problem is that you can't calling this during calling another constructor by this(...). you can take a look at JLS:
It is a compile-time error for a constructor to directly or indirectly invoke itself through a series of one or more explicit constructor invocations involving this.
directly means calling this in this(...) at the first statement, e.g: this(this);.
indirectly means calling its members during call this(...), e.g:this(parent).
but you can makes the primary constructor to a secondary constructor to achieve your way, for example:
data class DisjointSetNode<T>(var data: T, var rank: Int = 0) {
var parent: DisjointSetNode<T> = this
constructor(parent: DisjointSetNode<T>, data: T) : this(data = data){
this.parent = parent
}
}
You cannot reference this in this context because it is not yet defined.
You can however move parent to outside the constructor signature. e.g.:
data class DisjointSetNode<T>(var data: T, var rank: Int = 0) {
var parent: DisjointSetNode<T> = this
}
Related
From the documentation of mockk.io regarding the mocking capabilities of constructors I can see the following:
class MockCls(private val a: Int = 0) {
constructor(x: String) : this(x.toInt())
fun add(b: Int) = a + b
}
mockkConstructor(MockCls::class)
every { constructedWith<MockCls>().add(1) } returns 2
As far as I understood it is possible to mock the construction of an object and get a result for an executed method.
What I would like to have is e.g. the following
data class MyDataClass(val first: String) {
constructor(anotherDataClass: AnotherDataClass) : this(
first = anotherDataClass.second
)
}
data class AnotherDataClass(val second: String)
mockkConstructor(MyDataClass::class)
every { constructedWith<MyDataClass>() } returns mockk<MyDataClass>
or
every { anyConstructed<MockCls>() } returns mockk<MyDataClass>
In the end, I want to bypass the construction and directly return a constructed mock and not first execute a method and return the result.
Avoiding constructor execution while mocking not currently (<=1.12.0) possible by design (https://github.com/mockk/mockk/issues/515)
If you really want to capture instance while doing constructor mocking, you can get away with this:
val myMockedInstance: MyClass = MockKGateway.implementation().constructorMockFactory.mockPlaceholder(
MyClass::class,
args = arrayOf<Matcher<*>>(
EqMatcher(dummyParamOfMine)
) as Array<Matcher<*>>
)
So I have ArrayList<AbstractObject> which is class type abstract. And I have 2 items which extends AbstractObject. If I use abstractList.add(Object1) it says that ArrayList expects object of type AbstractObject and not Object1. I thought that this is possible. Reason why I want to do this is to use multiple objects with 2 different data in single RecyclerView. (ViewTypes)
abstract class ListItem {
abstract val type: Int
companion object {
const val TYPE_HEADER = 0
const val TYPE_ITEM = 1
}
}
class HeaderItem(val headerTitle: String) : ListItem() {
val type: Int
get() = TYPE_HEADER
}
class ObjectItem(val object: ParseObject) : ListItem() {
val type: Int
get() = TYPE_ITEM
}
Init #1:
var recyclerViewArray: ArrayList<out ListItem> = ArrayList()
This is error if I want to add HeaderItem to this list:
Init #2:
var recyclerViewArray: ArrayList<ListItem> = ArrayList()
This says Type mismatch. Tried with as but as is yellowed with message This cast can never succeed.
It is possible and it works fine. If in some expression Kotlin infers the type wrong, you can always specify it manually. In your case
abstractList.add(Object1 as AbstractObject)
Remove out from the declaration of recyclerViewArray and it should work (I just tried it and it ran fine). e.g. I could run this line of code:
recyclerViewArray.add(HeaderItem("test"))
Note that when you remove out you still need to keep the fact that it's an ArrayList of ListItem objects. So you should declare it as:
var recyclerViewArray = arrayListOf<ListItem>()
Some of your code didn't quite compile for me, like having a property called object (I had to put backticks around that) and not putting the override modifier on the type property on HeaderItem.
My goal: I have a simple class with a public
val reds = IntArray(10)
val greens = IntArray(10)
val blues = IntArray(10)
val lums = IntArray(10)
If someone modifies any red value, I'd like to update the lum value.
myObj.reds[5] = 100 // Should update myObj.lums[5] = reds[5]+greens[5]+blues[5]
The problems is that the by Delegates.observable seem to only be used for var objects - nothing mentions "and if you modify an element of an array, here is what gets triggered"
Maybe this isn't possible and I have to do all modifications through getters and setters - but I'd much rather have something trigger like an observable!
You will have to use a custom class instead, IntArray is mapped to primitive int[] array so it doesn't provide any place to inject callback - changing value like your example (myObj.reds[5] = 100) you only know when array is returned, but have no control over changes after that.
For example you can create class like this:
class IntArrayWrapper(size: Int,
val setterObs : ((index: Int, value: Int) -> Unit)? = null){
val field = IntArray(size)
val size
get() = field.size
operator fun iterator() = field.iterator()
operator fun get(i: Int) : Int {
return field[i]
}
operator fun set(i: Int, value: Int){
field[i] = value
setterObs?.invoke(i, value)
}
}
Operator functions will let you get values from underlying array with same syntax as if you were accessing it directly. setterObs argument in constructor lets you pass the "observer" for setter method:
val reds = IntArrayWrapper(10){index, value ->
println("$index changed to $value")
invalidateLums(index) // method that modifies lums or whatever you need
}
val a = reds[2] // getter usage
reds[3] = 5 // setter usage that triggers the setter observer callback
reds.field[4] = 3 // set value in backing array directly, allows modification without setter callback
Note that this imposes limitations, as you won't be able to freely use IntArray extension methods without referencing backing field nor will you be able to pass this class as an Array argument.
I do not know if it is the cleanest way of solving your problem but, you could use the ObservableList (FX observable collections):
var numbers: ObservableList<Int> = FXCollections.observableArrayList()
numbers.addListener(ListChangeListener<Int> {
//Do things on change
})
But as I mentioned, by adding these collections you are mixing FX components into your application, which I do not know if it is wanted or even if it works on various platforms like android!
Simply put, I have a variable that tells me which property I need to modify on an object, but cannot call that property AS the variable.
data class MyDataClass(var one: String, var two: Int)
fun doSomething() {
myData = MyDataClass("first", 2)
val propertyImInterestedIn = "one"
myData.{propertyImInterestedIn} = "second" // How do I do this?
assertEquals("second", myData.one)
}
You can either do it at compile time if You can directly reference the fields, or at runtime but you will lose compile-time safety:
// by referencing KProperty directly (compile-time safety, does not require kotlin-reflect.jar)
val myData = MyDataClass("first", 2)
val prop = myData::one
prop.set("second")
// by reflection (executed at runtime - not safe, requires kotlin-reflect.jar)
val myData2 = MyDataClass("first", 2)
val reflectProp = myData::class.memberProperties.find { it.name == "one" }
if(reflectProp is KMutableProperty<*>) {
reflectProp.setter.call(myData2, "second")
}
You can use the Kotlin reflection API to do that, and bound callable references in particular:
val propertyImInterestedIn = myData::one
propertyImInterestedIn.set("second")
Note that you need to add kotlin-reflect as a dependency to your project.
I am trying to create a swap function which takes in two parameters as shown below:
fun swap(a :Int, b:Int) {
}
I call it like this:
var a = 10
var b = 5
swap(a,b)
// a should be 5
// b should be 10
The problem is that even if I swap the values inside the swap function it won't be reflected on the caller's side because it is passed as a copy and not as a reference.
Is there anyway to pass value types to swap function and allow the function the ability to change them.
There is absolutely no way to do it directly. Kotlin copies a value for scalar types (Double, Float, Boolean, Int, etc.). So any internal changes are lost.
For any other type, Kotlin copy a reference of parameter passed to the function. So any property/field alteration of parameter, also changes the caller parameter.
There is no way to change this behaviour.
After trying many ways to overcome the impossibility of passing scalar by reference, as happens in Kotlin, Java and some other languages; my current strategy is using for any scalar type a plain and generic wrap, as an above comment suggest.
Recently, I'm using this trick for everything, including inside a function that otherwise would demand that I return multiple values. The alternative is joining the returns in a artificial class or destructuring declarations: val (a, b, c) = function-call() syntax. However, I hate articial classes and destructuring declaration is for local variables only, and it's annoying when some needs visibility out of current block of commands.
My code is very simple:
data class p<T>( // It's a generic wrap class for scalar type T
var v:T
)
fun <T>swap(a:p<T>, b:p<T>){ // It's a generic swap for scalar types
var aux:p<T> = a.copy()
a.v = b.v
b.v =aux.v
}
fun main() {
var a:p<Int> = p<Int>(2) // 'a' is a kind of 'Int' variable
var b:p<Int> = p<Int>(3) // and so is 'b'
swap(a,b) // Exchange 'a' and 'b' values
println(a.v) // 3
println(b.v) // 2
}
The only drawback is not being able to use syntax sugar of a real scalar type.
I am forced to add .v on any use of a scalar variable.
I only uses that for variables that I need pass by reference in some function and it's not so common. I try, when possible, avoid collateral effects.
You can have a function that gets the references of variables
var x = 10
var y = 20
fun main() {
println("x=$x, y=$y") // x=10, y=20
swap(::x, ::y)
println("x=$x, y=$y") // x=20, y=10
}
fun <T> swap(firstRef: KMutableProperty0<T>, secRef: KMutableProperty0<T>) {
val temp = firstRef.get()
firstRef.set(secRef.get())
secRef.set(temp)
}
and you can pass the references of properties of some class like this swap(someClass::x, someClass::y)
the only limitation is that you can't pass references of local variables which is not the end of the world.
if you don't like the messy syntax you can always define a typealias and make it pretty:
typealias Ref<T> = KMutableProperty0<T>
fun <T> swap(firstRef: Ref<T>, secRef: Ref<T>) {
...
}
I know that OP didn´t ask for this, but idiomatic Kotlin would look like:
var a = 1
var b = 2
a = b.also { b = a }
Seems like Kotlin behaves pretty much like Java does:
Is Kotlin "pass-by-value" or "pass-by-reference"?
simple way to swap is make support class
private fun swap(pair: Pair) {
pair.a += pair.b
pair.b = pair.a - pair.b
pair.a = pair.a - pair.b
}
private data class Pair(var a: Int, var b: Int)
fun main() {
val pair = Pair(10, 5)
swap(pair)
println(pair)
}