The Java
Consider the following Java:
private void example() {
Optional<String> foo = ...
Optional<String> bar =
foo.map(this::transform1)
.map(this::transform2)
}
private String transform1(String s) {
return s + "!";
}
private String transform2(String s) {
return "#" + s;
}
Note that the transform methods accept non-Optional values.
Question
Does Kotlin have a built-in mechanism to achieve the same thing when using its nullable/non-nullabe types?
The first attempt
I managed to achieve this effect with the following:
fun <A, B> nullMap(a: A?, mapper: (a: A) -> B?): B? =
if (a != null) mapper.invoke(a) else null
fun example() {
val foo: String? = "Space cookies"
val bar1: String? = nullMap(foo, Example::transform1)
val bar2: String? = nullMap(bar1, Example::transform2)
}
fun transform(s: String) = s + "!"
fun transform2(s: String) = "#" + s
(Again, we note that for the transform methods, s is a non-nullable String.)
So, my question stated another way is: Does a nullMap equivalent already exist in Kotlin's standard library? And/or: is there a different standard way of doing this?
Finally, can the visually cleaner chaining approach be achieved in Kotlin, rather than either separate assignments (above) or nested function calls? For a moment I considered that you could add nullMap as an extension method on Any, but sometimes the receiver you're trying to invoke a method on is null (so that won't work).
We use safe call operator:
val foo: Foo? = ...
foo?.toA()?.toB()
Or
foo?.let(this::transform1)?.let(this::transform2)
Kotlin emphasis on null safety. There is an entire chapter in its manual describing related technics.
Related
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'd like to understand Kotlin extension functions more and am trying to implement an extension function for a List, to get the index of an element by passing the value of the position (if that makes sense).
What I have:
fun List<String>.getItemPositionByName(item: String): Int {
this.forEachIndexed { index, it ->
if (it == item)
return index
}
return 0
}
Although this works fine, I would need the same thing for Int too.
To my question, is there a way of combining this into one extension function instead of two seperate ones? I acknowledge that this isn't a lot of code and wouldn't hurt to be duplicated but out of interest and for future references.
I'm aware of this question Extension functions for generic classes in Kotlin where the response is - as I understand it at least - "doesn't quite work like this, but I don't really need it for type but "just" for String and Int.
Kotlin supports what C++ people would refer to as specialization to a certain degree. It works just fine for very basic types like you're using so what you're asking of is definitely possible.
We can declare the following declarations. Of course you could just duplicate the code and you'd be on your way.
public fun List<String>.getItemPositionByName(item: String) = ...
public fun List<Int>.getItemPositionByName(item: String) = ...
If you're not a fan of repeating the code, the idiomatic way would be to make use of file-private functions and simply delegating to the private function.
private fun <T> getItemImpl(list: List<T>, item: T): Int {
list.forEachIndexed { index, it ->
if (it == item)
return index
}
return -1
}
public fun List<String>.getItemPositionByName(item: String) = getItemImpl(this, item)
public fun List<Int>.getItemPositionByName(item: Int) = getItemImpl(this, item)
This limits the getItemImpl which is fully generic to the current file you're in while the Int and String specializations are publicly available anywhere else.
Attempting to call getItemPositionByName on any list which is not of type List<Int> or List<String> will fail with a type error.
Kotlin Playground Link: https://pl.kotl.in/NvIRXwmpU
And just in case you weren't aware, the method you're implementing already exists in the standard library (https://kotlinlang.org/api/latest/jvm/stdlib/kotlin.collections/index-of.html)
The Kotlin standard library already has a function that does this: indexOf().
val one = listOf("a", "b", "c").indexOf("b")
check(one == 1)
One option is to look at the implementation of that function.
There is also the first() function, which you could use if you wanted write your own generic version:
fun <T> List<T>.getItemPositionByName(item: T) = withIndex()
.first { (_, value) -> item == value }
.index
fun main(args: Array<String>) {
val one = listOf("a", "b", "c").getItemPositionByName("b")
check(one == 1)
}
Or, rewriting your original version to use generics:
fun <T> List<T>.getItemPositionByName(item: T): Int {
this.forEachIndexed { index, it ->
if (it == item)
return index
}
return 0
}
I am trying to use the public interface Function (as I learned it in Java) in Kotlin.
For this I created my method
fun foo(input: List<String>, modifier1: Function<List<String>>? = null){
}
as far I remember here I should be able to do modifier1.apply(input)
but seems like it is not possible (it is possible to do modifier1.apply{input} though)
Reading more about it I found this:
Kotlin: how to pass a function as parameter to another?
So I changed my method signature to this:
fun foo(input:String, modifier2: (List<String>) -> (List<String>){
}
Here I am able to do modifier2(input)
and I can call foo this way
service.foo(input, ::myModifierFunction)
where
fun myModifierFunction(input:List<String>):List<String>{
//do something
return input
}
So far this seems possible but it is not acceptable to have the function reference as nullable, is there any way I can do that? or use Function ?
You were using kotlin.Function instead of java.util.function.Function in your first example. Note that the latter takes 2 generic types: 1 for the incoming parameter and 1 for the resulting one.
The apply method you saw is the default Kotlin one: apply, not the one of Java's Function-interface.
If you really want to have the Java-function as nullable type the following should work:
fun foo(input: List<String>, modifier1: java.util.function.Function<List<String>, List<String>>? = null) {
modifier1?.apply(input) ?: TODO("what should be done if there wasn't passed any function?")
}
Kotlin variant for the same:
fun foo(input: List<String>, modifier1: ((List<String>) -> List<String>)? = null) {
modifier1?.invoke(input) ?: TODO("what should be done if there wasn't passed any function?")
}
Maybe also a default function, such as { it } instead of null might better suite your needs? (Java variant would be Function.identity()):
// java modifier1 : Function<List<String>, List<String>> = Function.identity()
// kotlin modifier1 : (List<String>) -> List<String> = { it }
You can make the reference nullable simply with ? — the only wrinkle is that the whole function type needs to be in parens first:
fun foo(input: String, modifier2: ((List<String>) -> List<String>)? = null) {
}
As required, modifier2 is optional; if specified, it may contain null, or it may contain a function taking and returning a list of strings.
As mentioned in another answer, kotlin.Function is not the same as java.util.function.Function — though in practice you shouldn't need to refer to either directly, as the -> notation is simpler.
If you want to pass in a function that takes List<String> as its parameter and returns nothing meaningful, the type for you is Function1<List<String>, Unit>. The method name for invoking a function is invoke(), which you could also do with just regular parentheses, if it wasn't nullable. All in all, your code could look something like this:
fun foo(input: List<String>, modifier1: Function1<List<String>, Unit>? = null) {
modifier1?.invoke(input)
}
The 1 in the typename of Function1 means that it's a one parameter function, there's also Function0, Function2, etc.
The Function type on its own is not something you can use to call that function, as it's an empty marker interface. All functions implement this regardless of how many parameters they have.
Let's say I have an object which helps me to deserialize other objects from storage:
val books: MutableList<Book> = deserializer.getBookList()
val persons: MutableList<Person> = deserializer.getPersonList()
The methods getBookList and getPersonList are extension functions I have written. Their logic is allmost the same so I thought I may can combine them into one method. My problem is the generic return type. The methods look like this:
fun DataInput.getBookList(): MutableList<Book> {
val list = mutableListOf<Book>()
val size = this.readInt()
for(i in 0 .. size) {
val item = Book()
item.readExternal(this)
list.add(item)
}
return list
}
Is there some Kotlin magic (maybe with inline functions) which I can use to detect the List type and generify this methods? I think the problem would be val item = T() which will not work for generic types, right? Or is this possible with inline functions?
You cannot call the constructor of a generic type, because the compiler can't guarantee that it has a constructor (the type could be from an interface). What you can do to get around this though, is to pass a "creator"-function as a parameter to your function. Like this:
fun <T> DataInput.getList(createT: () -> T): MutableList<T> {
val list = mutableListOf<T>()
val size = this.readInt()
for(i in 0 .. size) {
val item = createT()
/* Unless readExternal is an extension on Any, this function
* either needs to be passed as a parameter as well,
* or you need add an upper bound to your type parameter
* with <T : SomeInterfaceWithReadExternal>
*/
item.readExternal(this)
list.add(item)
}
return list
}
Now you can call the function like this:
val books: MutableList<Book> = deserializer.getList(::Book)
val persons: MutableList<Person> = deserializer.getList(::Person)
Note:
As marstran mentioned in a comment, this requires the class to have a zero-arg constructor to work, or it will throw an exception at runtime. The compiler will not warn you if the constructor doesn't exist, so if you pick this way, make sure you actually pass a class with a zero-arg constructor.
You can't initialize generic types, in Kotlin or Java. At least not in the "traditional" way. You can't do this:
val item = T()
In Java, you'd pass a Class<T> and get the constructor. Very basic example of that:
public <T> void x(Class<T> cls){
cls.getConstructor().newInstance(); // Obviously you'd do something with the return value, but this is just a dummy example
}
You could do the same in Kotlin, but Kotlin has a reified keyword that makes it slightly easier. This requires an inline function, which means you'd change your function to:
inline fun <reified T> DataInput.getBookList(): MutableList<T> { // Notice the `<reified T>`
val list = mutableListOf<T>() // Use T here
val size = this.readInt()
for(i in 0 .. size) {
// This is where the initialization happens; you get the constructor, and create a new instance.
// Also works with arguments, if you have any, but you used an empty one so I assume yours is empty
val item = T::class.java.getConstructor().newInstance()!!
item.readExternal(this) // However, this is tricky. See my notes below this code block
list.add(item)
}
return list
}
However, readExternal isn't present in Any, which will present problems. The only exception is if you have an extension function for either Any or a generic type with that name and input.
If it's specific to some classes, then you can't do it like this, unless you have a shared parent. For an instance:
class Book(){
fun readExternal(input: DataInput) { /*Foo bar */}
}
class Person(){
fun readExternal(input: DataInput) { /*Foo bar */}
}
Would not work. There's no shared parent except Any, and Any doesn't have readExternal. The method is manually defined in each of them.
You could create a shared parent, as an interface or abstract class (assuming there isn't one already), and use <reified T : TheSharedParent>, and you would have access to it.
You could of course use reflection, but it's slightly harder, and adds some exceptions you need to handle. I don't recommend doing this; I'd personally use a superclass.
inline fun <reified T> DataInput.getBookList(): MutableList<T> {
val list = mutableListOf<T>()
val size = this.readInt()
val method = try {
T::class.java.getMethod("readExternal", DataInput::class.java)
}catch(e: NoSuchMethodException){
throw RuntimeException()
}catch(e: SecurityException){
throw RuntimeException()// This could be done better; but error handling is up to you, so I'm just making a basic example
// The catch clauses are pretty self-explanatory; if something happens when trying to get the method itself,
// These two catch them
}
for(i in 0 .. size) {
val item: T = T::class.java.getConstructor().newInstance()!!
method.invoke(item, this)
list.add(item)
}
return list
}