Related
Is there a way to programatically access the parameters of a data class in kotlin?
data class Foo(
val a: Int,
val b: Double,
val c: Boolean,
val d: String,
) {
fun doubleA(): Int {
return (a * 2)
}
}
val something = Foo(1, 58.1, true, "Hey There")
val parameters = listOf("a", "b", "c", "d")
for (parameter in parameters) {
-> Access "something" with "parameter"
}
You can use the Reflection feature to do that at The Runtime
fun accessDataClassPropertyByName(clazz: Any, name: String): Any? {
return clazz::class.members.firstOrNull { it.name == name }?.call(clazz)
}
fun main() {
val something = Foo(1, 58.1, true, "Hey There")
val parameters = listOf("a", "b", "c", "d")
for (parameter in parameters) {
println(accessDataClassPropertyByName(something, parameter))
}
}
Output
1
58.1
true
Hey There
Another solution is to create an Annotation Processor that generates a class with function or function extensions at compile time to take string and call the property, you need to generate extension like this
fun Foo.accessWithName(name : String) : Any? {
return when (name) {
"a" -> a
"b" -> b
"c" -> c
"d" -> d
else -> null
}
}
Outside of reflection no, the only special thing a data class provides is a bunch of componentN functions that accesses the properties in the order they're declared. This is what's used to do destructuring declarations, so you could do this if you want:
val (a, b, c, d) = something
val parameters = listOf(a, b, c, d)
Really that's reading each property into a local val, then creating a list from all those values, so it's not super efficient or anything - but it's concise, if it's what you want to do! Also this is effectively read-only since you're just reading the current values of those properties into a list - you don't have references to the properties themselves in your loop, so if you wanted to do things like updating the values in the data class, this isn't the way to go.
You could do something like that programmatically with reflection - but at that point, you need to ask if this the right way to do whatever you're trying to do. This approach is basically stepping outside the type system - you're creating a general list of stuff instead of the structured data the data class provides. Maybe that's the right call! Or maybe you want to stay within the type system, and explicitly write code to handle each data class specifically, e.g. creating a sealed class hierarchy of all the data classes you need to handle. It really depends on what you're doing though!
I have these two objects A and B I want to use these objects interchangeably in the digit class like shown in this snippet code
internal object A {
internal const val ZERO = "ZERO"
internal const val ONE = "ONE"
}
internal object B {
internal const val ZERO = "ZERO"
internal const val ONE = "UN"
}
class Digit(Lang: String) {
private var X: Any? = null
init {
when (Lang) {
"eng" -> X = A
"fr" -> X = B
}
}
fun spell() {
println(X.ZERO)
}
}
I want inside the Digit class to use both objects, not at the same time, only when I want the English language the Digit class use object A and when I want french language the Digit class use the object B.
I should use reflection? or is there a better design?
The simplest answer is to have your objects all implement the same interface, e.g.:
interface Language {
val ZERO: String
val ONE: String
}
internal object A: Language {
override val ZERO = "ZERO"
override val ONE = "ONE"
}
// …
You can then set a Language reference to any object implementing that interface.
A related (and more concise) approach might be to use an enum:
enum class Language(val ZERO: String, val ONE: String) {
A("ZERO", "ONE"), B("ZERO", "UN")
}
You can then refer to the objects as Language.A &c.
But in practice, none of these approaches scale well. You're likely to end up with a good number of language strings, and probably quite a few languages to support, and those methods will get long-winded. And hard-coding all the strings will make it much more awkward to manage.
So it's more usual to store all the language strings in resource files and load them in at runtime. You could do that manually, e.g. storing the strings in a map — but many platforms and frameworks support standard ways to select the right language, load the strings, and use them. There are many existing questions about this.
data class Translation(val ZERO: String, val ONE: String)
val a = Translation(ZERO = "ZERO", ONE = "ONE")
val b = Translation(ZERO = "ZERO", ONE = "UN")
class Digit(Lang: Translation) {
private val x = Lang
fun spell() {
println(x.ONE)
}
}
Digit(a).spell()
Digit(b).spell()
Introduction
In Kotlin I have a generic conversion extension function that simplifies conversion of this object of type C to an object of another type T (declared as the receiver) with additional conversion action that treats receiver as this and also provides access to original object:
inline fun <C, T, R> C.convertTo(receiver: T, action: T.(C) -> R) = receiver.apply {
action(this#convertTo)
}
It is used like this:
val source: Source = Source()
val result = source.convertTo(Result()) {
resultValue = it.sourceValue
// and so on...
}
I noticed I often use this function on receivers that are created by parameterless constructors and thought it would be nice to simplify it even more by creating additional version of convertTo() that automates construction of the receiver based on its type, like this:
inline fun <reified T, C, R> C.convertTo(action: T.(C) -> R) = with(T::class.constructors.first().call()) {
convertTo(this, action) // calling the first version of convertTo()
}
Unfortunately, I cannot call it like this:
source.convertTo<Result>() {}
because Kotlin expects three type parameters provided.
Question
Given above context, is it possible in Kotlin to create a generic function with multiple type parameters that accepts providing just one type parameter while other types are determined from the call-site?
Additional examples (by #broot)
Imagine there is no filterIsInstance() in stdlib and we would like to implement it (or we are the developer of stdlib). Assume we have access to #Exact as this is important for our example. It would be probably the best to declare it as:
inline fun <T, reified V : T> Iterable<#Exact T>.filterTyped(): List<V>
Now, it would be most convenient to use it like this:
val dogs = animals.filterTyped<Dog>() // compile error
Unfortunately, we have to use one of workarounds:
val dogs = animals.filterTyped<Animal, Dog>()
val dogs: List<Dog> = animals.filterTyped()
The last one isn't that bad.
Now, we would like to create a function that looks for items of a specific type and maps them:
inline fun <T, reified V : T, R> Iterable<T>.filterTypedAndMap(transform: (V) -> R): List<R>
Again, it would be nice to use it just like this:
animals.filterTypedAndMap<Dog> { it.barkingVolume } // compile error
Instead, we have this:
animals.filterTypedAndMap<Animal, Dog, Int> { it.barkingVolume }
animals.filterTypedAndMap { dog: Dog -> dog.barkingVolume }
This is still not that bad, but the example is intentionally relatively simple to make it easy to understand. In reality the function would be more complicated, would have more typed params, lambda would receive more arguments, etc. and then it would become hard to use. After receiving the error about type inference, the user would have to read the definition of the function thoroughly to understand, what is missing and where to provide explicit types.
As a side note: isn't it strange that Kotlin disallows code like this: cat is Dog, but allows this: cats.filterIsInstance<Dog>()? Our own filterTyped() would not allow this. So maybe (but just maybe), filterIsInstance() was designed like this exactly because of the problem described in this question (it uses * instead of additional T).
Another example, utilizing already existing reduce() function. We have function like this:
operator fun Animal.plus(other: Animal): Animal
(Don't ask, it doesn't make sense)
Now, reducing a list of dogs seems pretty straightforward:
dogs.reduce { acc, item -> acc + item } // compile error
Unfortunately, this is not possible, because compiler does not know how to properly infer S to Animal. We can't easily provide S only and even providing the return type does not help here:
val animal: Animal = dogs.reduce { acc, item -> acc + item } // compile error
We need to use some awkward workarounds:
dogs.reduce<Animal, Dog> { acc, item -> acc + item }
(dogs as List<Animal>).reduce { acc, item -> acc + item }
dogs.reduce { acc: Animal, item: Animal -> acc + item }
The type parameter R is not necessary:
inline fun <C, T> C.convertTo(receiver: T, action: T.(C) -> Unit) = receiver.apply {
action(this#convertTo)
}
inline fun <reified T, C> C.convertTo(action: T.(C) -> Unit) = with(T::class.constructors.first().call()) {
convertTo(this, action) // calling the first version of convertTo()
}
If you use Unit, even if the function passed in has a non-Unit return type, the compiler still allows you to pass that function.
And there are other ways to help the compiler infer the type parameters, not only by directly specifying them in <>. You can also annotate the variable's result type:
val result: Result = source.convertTo { ... }
You can also change the name of convertTo to something like convert to make it more readable.
Another option is:
inline fun <T: Any, C> C.convertTo(resultType: KClass<T>, action: T.(C) -> Unit) = with(resultType.constructors.first().call()) {
convertTo(this, action)
}
val result = source.convertTo(Result::class) { ... }
However, this will conflict with the first overload. So you have to resolve it somehow. You can rename the first overload, but I can't think of any good names off the top of my head. I would suggest that you specify the parameter name like this
source.convertTo(resultType = Result::class) { ... }
Side note: I'm not sure if the parameterless constructor is always the first in the constructors list. I suggest that you actually find the parameterless constructor.
This answer does not solve the stated problem but incorporates input from #Sweeper to provide a workaround at least simplifying result object instantiation.
First of all, the main stated problem can be somewhat mitigated if we explicitly state variable's result type (i.e. val result: Result = source.convertTo {}) but it's not enough to solve the problem in cases described by #broot.
Secondly, using KClass<T> as result parameter type provides ability to use KClass<T>.createInstance() making sure we find a parameterless constructor (if there's any – if there is none, then result-instantiating convertTo() is not eligible for use). We can also benefit from Kotlin's default parameter values to make result parameter type omittable from calls, we just need to take into account that action might be provided as lambda (last parameter of call) or function reference – this will require two versions of result-instantiating convertTo().
So, taking all the above into account, I've come up with this implementation(s) of convertTo():
// version A: basic, expects explicitly provided instance of `receiver`
inline fun <C, T> C.convertTo(receiver: T, action: T.(C) -> Unit) = receiver.apply {
action(this#convertTo)
}
// version B: can instantiate result of type `T`, supports calls where `action` is a last lambda
inline fun <C, reified T : Any> C.convertTo(resultType: KClass<T> = T::class, action: T.(C) -> Unit) = with(resultType.createInstance()) {
(this#convertTo).convertTo(this#with, action)
}
// version C: can instantiate result of type `T`, supports calls where `action` is passed by reference
inline fun <C, reified T : Any> C.convertTo(action: T.(C) -> Unit, resultType: KClass<T> = T::class) = with(resultType.createInstance()) {
(this#convertTo).convertTo(T::class, action)
}
All three versions work together depending on a specific use case. Below is a set of examples explaining what version is used in what case.
class Source { var sourceId = "" }
class Result { var resultId = "" }
val source = Source()
fun convertX(result: Result, source: Source) {
result.resultId = source.sourceId
}
fun convertY(result: Result, source: Source) = true
fun Source.toResultX(): Result = convertTo { resultId = it.sourceId }
fun Source.toResultY(): Result = convertTo(::convertX)
val result0 = source.convertTo(Result()) { resultId = it.sourceId } // uses version A of convertTo()
val result1: Result = source.convertTo { resultId = it.sourceId } // uses version B of convertTo()
val result2: Result = source.convertTo(::convertX) // uses version C of convertTo()
val result3: Result = source.convertTo(::convertY) // uses version C of convertTo()
val result4: Result = source.toResultX() // uses version B of convertTo()
val result5: Result = source.toResultY() // uses version C of convertTo()
P.S.: As #Sweeper notices, convertTo might not be a good name for the result-instantiating versions (as it's not as readable as with basic version) but that's a secondary problem.
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)
}
I wish to have a good example for each function run, let, apply, also, with
I have read this article but still lack of an example
All these functions are used for switching the scope of the current function / the variable. They are used to keep things that belong together in one place (mostly initializations).
Here are some examples:
run - returns anything you want and re-scopes the variable it's used on to this
val password: Password = PasswordGenerator().run {
seed = "someString"
hash = {s -> someHash(s)}
hashRepetitions = 1000
generate()
}
The password generator is now rescoped as this and we can therefore set seed, hash and hashRepetitions without using a variable.
generate() will return an instance of Password.
apply is similar, but it will return this:
val generator = PasswordGenerator().apply {
seed = "someString"
hash = {s -> someHash(s)}
hashRepetitions = 1000
}
val pasword = generator.generate()
That's particularly useful as a replacement for the Builder pattern, and if you want to re-use certain configurations.
let - mostly used to avoid null checks, but can also be used as a replacement for run. The difference is, that this will still be the same as before and you access the re-scoped variable using it:
val fruitBasket = ...
apple?.let {
println("adding a ${it.color} apple!")
fruitBasket.add(it)
}
The code above will add the apple to the basket only if it's not null. Also notice that it is now not optional anymore so you won't run into a NullPointerException here (aka. you don't need to use ?. to access its attributes)
also - use it when you want to use apply, but don't want to shadow this
class FruitBasket {
private var weight = 0
fun addFrom(appleTree: AppleTree) {
val apple = appleTree.pick().also { apple ->
this.weight += apple.weight
add(apple)
}
...
}
...
fun add(fruit: Fruit) = ...
}
Using apply here would shadow this, so that this.weight would refer to the apple, and not to the fruit basket.
Note: I shamelessly took the examples from my blog
There are a few more articles like here, and here that are worth to take a look.
I think it is down to when you need a shorter, more concise within a few lines, and to avoid branching or conditional statement checking (such as if not null, then do this).
I love this simple chart, so I linked it here. You can see it from this as written by Sebastiano Gottardo.
Please also look at the chart accompanying my explanation below.
Concept
I think it as a role playing way inside your code block when you call those functions + whether you want yourself back (to chain call functions, or set to result variable, etc).
Above is what I think.
Concept Example
Let's see examples for all of them here
1.) myComputer.apply { } means you want to act as a main actor (you want to think that you're computer), and you want yourself back (computer) so you can do
var crashedComputer = myComputer.apply {
// you're the computer, you yourself install the apps
// note: installFancyApps is one of methods of computer
installFancyApps()
}.crash()
Yup, you yourself just install the apps, crash yourself, and saved yourself as reference to allow others to see and do something with it.
2.) myComputer.also {} means you're completely sure you aren't computer, you're outsider that wants to do something with it, and also wants it computer as a returned result.
var crashedComputer = myComputer.also {
// now your grandpa does something with it
myGrandpa.installVirusOn(it)
}.crash()
3.) with(myComputer) { } means you're main actor (computer), and you don't want yourself as a result back.
with(myComputer) {
// you're the computer, you yourself install the apps
installFancyApps()
}
4.) myComputer.run { } means you're main actor (computer), and you don't want yourself as a result back.
myComputer.run {
// you're the computer, you yourself install the apps
installFancyApps()
}
but it's different from with { } in a very subtle sense that you can chain call run { } like the following
myComputer.run {
installFancyApps()
}.run {
// computer object isn't passed through here. So you cannot call installFancyApps() here again.
println("woop!")
}
This is due to run {} is extension function, but with { } is not. So you call run { } and this inside the code block will be reflected to the caller type of object. You can see this for an excellent explanation for the difference between run {} and with {}.
5.) myComputer.let { } means you're outsider that looks at the computer, and want to do something about it without any care for computer instance to be returned back to you again.
myComputer.let {
myGrandpa.installVirusOn(it)
}
The Way to Look At It
I tend to look at also and let as something which is external, outside. Whenever you say these two words, it's like you try to act up on something. let install virus on this computer, and also crash it. So this nails down the part of whether you're an actor or not.
For the result part, it's clearly there. also expresses that it's also another thing, so you still retain the availability of object itself. Thus it returns it as a result.
Everything else associates with this. Additionally run/with clearly doesn't interest in return object-self back. Now you can differentiate all of them.
I think sometimes when we step away from 100% programming/logic-based of examples, then we are in better position to conceptualize things. But that depends right :)
There are 6 different scoping functions:
T.run
T.let
T.apply
T.also
with
run
I prepared a visual note as the below to show the differences :
data class Citizen(var name: String, var age: Int, var residence: String)
Decision depends on your needs. The use cases of different functions overlap, so that you can choose the functions based on the specific conventions used in your project or team.
Although the scope functions are a way of making the code more concise, avoid overusing them: it can decrease your code readability and lead to errors. Avoid nesting scope functions and be careful when chaining them: it's easy to get confused about the current context object and the value of this or it.
Here is another diagram for deciding which one to use from https://medium.com/#elye.project/mastering-kotlin-standard-functions-run-with-let-also-and-apply-9cd334b0ef84
Some conventions are as the following :
Use also for additional actions that don't alter the object, such as logging or printing debug information.
val numbers = mutableListOf("one", "two", "three")
numbers
.also { println("The list elements before adding new one: $it") }
.add("four")
The common case for apply is the object configuration.
val adam = Person("Adam").apply {
age = 32
city = "London"
}
println(adam)
If you need shadowing, use run
fun test() {
var mood = "I am sad"
run {
val mood = "I am happy"
println(mood) // I am happy
}
println(mood) // I am sad
}
If you need to return receiver object itself, use apply or also
let, also, apply, takeIf, takeUnless are extension functions in Kotlin.
To understand these function you have to understand Extension functions and Lambda functions in Kotlin.
Extension Function:
By the use of extension function, we can create a function for a class without inheriting a class.
Kotlin, similar to C# and Gosu, provides the ability to extend a class
with new functionality without having to inherit from the class or use
any type of design pattern such as Decorator. This is done via special
declarations called extensions. Kotlin supports extension functions
and extension properties.
So, to find if only numbers in the String, you can create a method like below without inheriting String class.
fun String.isNumber(): Boolean = this.matches("[0-9]+".toRegex())
you can use the above extension function like this,
val phoneNumber = "8899665544"
println(phoneNumber.isNumber)
which is prints true.
Lambda Functions:
Lambda functions are just like Interface in Java. But in Kotlin, lambda functions can be passed as a parameter in functions.
Example:
fun String.isNumber(block: () -> Unit): Boolean {
return if (this.matches("[0-9]+".toRegex())) {
block()
true
} else false
}
You can see, the block is a lambda function and it is passed as a parameter. You can use the above function like this,
val phoneNumber = "8899665544"
println(phoneNumber.isNumber {
println("Block executed")
})
The above function will print like this,
Block executed
true
I hope, now you got an idea about Extension functions and Lambda functions. Now we can go to Extension functions one by one.
let
public inline fun <T, R> T.let(block: (T) -> R): R = block(this)
Two Types T and R used in the above function.
T.let
T could be any object like String class. so you can invoke this function with any objects.
block: (T) -> R
In parameter of let, you can see the above lambda function. Also, the invoking object is passed as a parameter of the function. So you can use the invoking class object inside the function. then it returns the R (another object).
Example:
val phoneNumber = "8899665544"
val numberAndCount: Pair<Int, Int> = phoneNumber.let { it.toInt() to it.count() }
In above example let takes String as a parameter of its lambda function and it returns Pair in return.
In the same way, other extension function works.
also
public inline fun <T> T.also(block: (T) -> Unit): T { block(this); return this }
extension function also takes the invoking class as a lambda function parameter and returns nothing.
Example:
val phoneNumber = "8899665544"
phoneNumber.also { number ->
println(number.contains("8"))
println(number.length)
}
apply
public inline fun <T> T.apply(block: T.() -> Unit): T { block(); return this }
Same as also but the same invoking object passed as the function so you can use the functions and other properties without calling it or parameter name.
Example:
val phoneNumber = "8899665544"
phoneNumber.apply {
println(contains("8"))
println(length)
}
You can see in the above example the functions of String class directly invoked inside the lambda funtion.
takeIf
public inline fun <T> T.takeIf(predicate: (T) -> Boolean): T? = if (predicate(this)) this else null
Example:
val phoneNumber = "8899665544"
val number = phoneNumber.takeIf { it.matches("[0-9]+".toRegex()) }
In above example number will have a string of phoneNumber only it matches the regex. Otherwise, it will be null.
takeUnless
public inline fun <T> T.takeUnless(predicate: (T) -> Boolean): T? = if (!predicate(this)) this else null
It is the reverse of takeIf.
Example:
val phoneNumber = "8899665544"
val number = phoneNumber.takeUnless { it.matches("[0-9]+".toRegex()) }
number will have a string of phoneNumber only if not matches the regex. Otherwise, it will be null.
You can view similar answers which is usefull here difference between kotlin also, apply, let, use, takeIf and takeUnless in Kotlin
According to my experience, since such functions are inline syntactic sugar with no performance difference, you should always choose the one that requires writing the least amount of code in the lamda.
To do this, first determine whether you want the lambda to return its result (choose run/let) or the object itself (choose apply/also); then in most cases when the lambda is a single expression, choose the ones with the same block function type as that expression, because when it's a receiver expression, this can be omitted, when it's a parameter expression, it is shorter than this:
val a: Type = ...
fun Type.receiverFunction(...): ReturnType { ... }
a.run/*apply*/ { receiverFunction(...) } // shorter because "this" can be omitted
a.let/*also*/ { it.receiverFunction(...) } // longer
fun parameterFunction(parameter: Type, ...): ReturnType { ... }
a.run/*apply*/ { parameterFunction(this, ...) } // longer
a.let/*also*/ { parameterFunction(it, ...) } // shorter because "it" is shorter than "this"
However, when the lambda consists of a mix of them, it's up to you then to choose the one that fits better into the context or you feel more comfortable with.
Also, use the ones with parameter block function when deconstruction is needed:
val pair: Pair<TypeA, TypeB> = ...
pair.run/*apply*/ {
val (first, second) = this
...
} // longer
pair.let/*also*/ { (first, second) -> ... } // shorter
Here is a brief comparison among all these functions from JetBrains's official Kotlin course on Coursera Kotlin for Java Developers:
I must admit that the difference is not so obvious at first glance, among other things because these 5 functions are often interchangeable. Here is my understanding :
APPLY -> Initialize an object with theses properties and wait for the object
val paint = Paint().apply {
this.style = Paint.Style.FILL
this.color = Color.WHITE
}
LET -> Isolate a piece of code and wait for the result
val result = let {
val b = 3
val c = 2
b + c
}
or
val a = 1
val result = a.let {
val b = 3
val c = 2
it + b + c
}
or
val paint: Paint? = Paint()
paint?.let {
// here, paint is always NOT NULL
// paint is "Paint", not "Paint?"
}
ALSO -> Execute 2 operations at the same time and wait for the result
var a = 1
var b = 3
a = b.also { b = a }
WITH -> Do something with this variable/object and don't wait for a result (chaining NOT allowed )
with(canvas) {
this.draw(x)
this.draw(y)
}
RUN -> Do something with this variable/object and don't wait for a result (chaining allowed)
canvas.run {
this.draw(x)
this.draw(y)
}
or
canvas.run {this.draw(x)}.run {this.draw(x)}