In the code below:
var verticesCount: Int // to read a vertices count for graph
// Reading until we get a valid vertices count.
while (!Assertions.checkEnoughVertices(
verticesCount = consoleReader.readInt(null, Localization.getLocStr("type_int_vertices_count"))))
// The case when we don't have enough vertices.
println(String.format(Localization.getLocStr("no_enough_vertices_in_graph"),
Assertions.CONFIG_MIN_VERTICES_COUNT))
val resultGraph = Graph(verticesCount)
we are getting next error on the last line:
Error:(31, 33) Kotlin: Variable 'verticesCount' must be initialized
Assertions.checkEnoughVertices accepts a safe type variable as an argument (verticesCount: Int), so it's impossible for verticesCount to be uninitialized or null here (and we're getting no corresponding errors on those lines).
What's going on on the last line when already initialized variable becomes uninitialized again?
The syntax you've used denotes a function call with named arguments, not the assignment of a local variable. So verticesCount = is just an explanation to the reader that the value which is being passed here to checkEnoughVertices corresponds to the parameter of that function named verticesCount. It has nothing to do with the local variable named verticesCount declared just above, so the compiler thinks you've still to initialize that variable.
In Kotlin, the assignment to a variable (a = b) is not an expression, so it cannot be used as a value in other expressions. You have to split the assignment and the while-loop condition to achieve what you want. I'd do this with an infinite loop + a condition inside:
var verticesCount: Int
while (true) {
verticesCount = consoleReader.readInt(...)
if (Assertions.checkEnoughVertices(verticesCount)) break
...
}
val resultGraph = Graph(verticesCount)
Well, technically it is possible to assign values to variables in the while condition - and anything else you might want to do there, too.
The magic comes from the also function:
Try this: (excuse the completely useless thing this is doing...)
var i = 10
var doubleI: Int
while ((i * 2).also { doubleI = it } > 0) {
i--
println(doubleI)
}
Any expression can be "extended" with "something to do" by calling also which takes the expression it is called upon as the it parameter and executes the given block. The value also returns is identical to its caller value.
Here's a very good article to explain this and much more: https://medium.com/#elye.project/mastering-kotlin-standard-functions-run-with-let-also-and-apply-9cd334b0ef84
Related
If I have a var i : Int = 0, then i.inc().inc() works just fine, i.e. inc() is composable with itself. Why then does (i++)++ make Kotlin report the error "Variable expected"?
The effect of computing the expression [a++] is:
Store the initial value of a to a temporary storage a0.
Assign the result of a0.inc() to a.
Return a0 as the result of the expression.
So if you tried to use i++ as a above to determine the meaning of (i++)++, it would translate to
val i1 = i++
i++ = i1.inc()
i1
Of course, i++ = i1.inc() doesn't make sense (never mind that it would also calculate i++ twice).
When you call inc(), it returns a new Int and does nothing to the property or variable that held the original value. When you use it as an operator, it is interpreted as also setting the return value on the original property or variable. This cannot conceptually extend to using it as an operator on something that is not a variable or value.
After reading the Raku documentation, I only found this for undefining a variable. I believe that in Raku there are differences between assignment and binding.
Defining and undefining a scalar is easy.
> my $n
(Any)
> $n.defined
False
> $n = 3
3
> $n.defined
True
> $n = Nil
(Any)
> $n.defined
False
When the variable is binded, it's not possible.
> my $k := 5
5
> $k := Nil
===SORRY!=== Error while compiling:
Cannot use bind operator with this left-hand side
at line 2
------> <BOL>⏏<EOL>
> $k = Nil
Cannot assign to an immutable value
in block <unit> at <unknown file> line 1
For arrays or hashes, I can empty it, but the variable is still defined.
For functions, when you define a function with sub, you cannot undefine it, but you can with an anonymous function.
> my &pera = -> $n { $n + 2}
-> $n { #`(Block|140640519305672) ... }
> &pera = Nil
(Callable)
> &pera.defined
False
> my &pera = -> $n { $n + 2}
-> $n { #`(Block|140640519305672) ... }
> &pera = Nil
(Callable)
> &pera.defined
False
> sub foo ($n) { $n + 1}
&foo
> &foo.defined
True
> &foo = Nil
Cannot modify an immutable Sub (&foo)
in block <unit> at <unknown file> line 1
So what's the difference between assignment and binding?
How can I undefine a variable?
Lots of different issues to discuss here.
> my $k := 5;
> $k := Nil;
Cannot use bind operator
This first problem is the Raku REPL. cf your last SO. Have you tried CommaIDE or repl.it?
Your code is perfectly valid:
my $k := 5;
$k := Nil;
say $k; # Nil
Moving on:
my $k := 5;
$k = Nil;
Cannot assign to an immutable value
This is different. After binding 5 to $k, the $k = Nil code is attempting to assign a value into a number. Only containers[1] support assignment. A number isn't a container, so you can't assign into it.
Clarifying some cases you mentioned but didn't explicitly cover:
my #foo;
#foo := Nil;
Type check failed in binding; expected Positional...
While scalar variables (ones with a $ sigil) will bind to any value or container, an # sigil'd variable will only bind to a Positional container such as an Array. (Likewise a % to an Associative such as a Hash.)
Not only that, but these containers are always defined. So they still return True for .defined even if they're empty:
my #foo := Array.new; # An empty array
say #foo.elems; # 0 -- zero elements
say #foo.defined; # True -- despite array being empty
Now assigning Nil to an array:
my #foo;
#foo = Nil;
say #foo; # [(Any)]
If a declaration of an # sigil'd variable doesn't bind it to some explicit Positional type it is instead bound to the default choice for an # variable. Which is an Array with a default element value of Any.
The #foo = Nil; statement above assigns a Nil value into the first element of #foo. The assignment of a value into a non-existing element of a multi-element container means a new Scalar container pops into existence and is bound to that missing element before assignment continues. And then, because we're assigning a Nil, and because a Nil denotes an absence of a value, the Array's default value ((Any)) is copied into the Scalar instead of the Nil.
On to the sub case...
sub foo {}
&foo = {} # Cannot modify an immutable Sub (&foo)
&foo := {} # Cannot use bind operator ...
While a sub foo declaration generates an &foo identifier, it is deliberately neither assignable nor bindable. If you want a Callable variable, you must declare one using ordinary variable declaration.
Unbind or undefine a variable
You can't unbind variables in the sense of leaving them bound to nothing at all. (In other words, Raku avoids the billion dollar mistake.) In some cases you can rebind variables.
In some cases you can bind or assign an undefined value to a variable. If it's not a scalar variable then that's like the # variable example covered above. The scalar cases are considered next.
An example of the binding case:
my $foo := Any;
say $foo.defined; # False
say $foo; # (Any)
say $foo.VAR.WHAT; # (Any)
We'll see what the .VAR is about in a moment.
The assignment case:
my $foo = Any;
say $foo.defined; # False
say $foo.WHAT; # (Any)
say $foo.VAR.WHAT; # (Scalar)
It's important to understand that in this case the $foo is bound to a Scalar, which is a container, which is most definitely "defined", for some definition of "defined", despite appearances to the contrary in the say $foo.defined; line.
In the say $foo.WHAT; line the Scalar remains hidden. Instead we see an (Any). But the (Any) is the type of the value held inside the Scalar container bound to $foo.
In the next line we've begun to pierce the veil by calling .VAR.WHAT on $foo. The .VAR gets the Scalar to reveal itself, rather than yielding the value it contains. And so we see the type Scalar.
But if you call .defined on that Scalar it still insists on hiding!:
my $foo;
say $foo.VAR.defined; # False
say $foo.VAR.DEFINITE; # True
(The only way to force Raku to tell you the ultimate truth about its view of definiteness is to call the ultimate arbiter of definiteness, .DEFINITE.)
So what are the rules?
The compiler will let you assign or bind a given new value or container to a variable, if doing so is valid according to the original variable declaration.
Assigning or binding an undefined value follows the same rules.
Binding
All variables must be bound by the end of their declaration.
If a variable's declaration allows an undefined value to be bound/assigned to that variable, then the variable can be undefined in that sense. But in all other circumstances and senses variables themselves can never be "unbound" or "undefined".
Binding is about making a variable correspond to some container or value:
Variables with # and % sigils must be bound to a container (default Array and Hash respectively).
Variables with the $ sigil must be bound to either a container (default Scalar) or a value.
Variables with the & sigil must be bound to a Callable value or a Scalar constrained to contain a Callable value. (The & sigil'd variable that's visible as a consequence of declaring a sub does not allow rebinding or assignment.)
Assignment
Assignment means copying a value into a container.
If a variable is bound to a container, then you can assign into it, provided the assignment is allowed by the compiler according to the original variable declaration.
If a variable is not bound to a container, then the compiler will reject an assignment to it.
Scalar variables
If you use a scalar container as if it were a value, then you get the value that's held inside the container.
Binding a value (defined or undefined) to a scalar variable will mean it will stop acting as a container. If you then try to assign to that variable it won't work. You'd need to rebind it back to a container.
Footnotes
[1] In this answer I've used the word "container" to refer to any value that can serve as a container for containing other values. For example, instances of Array, Hash, or Scalar.
I find Lambda in Kotlin to be very confusing and on the top of it is "it".
There are two things I know about "it" and i.e.
If your Lambda has their own argument, you can replace its name with "it".
"It" is an automatically generated name for your Lambda, if it has
only one argument, and you don't specify a different argument name.
Still I don't understand what actually passes as "it".
For E.g. I wanted to apply modulo function on each element of a 3x3 matrix.
fun main(){
var result = Array(3) {
IntArray(3) { 3;2;4;6;7;9;12;11;23 }
}
result = Array(3){ IntArray(3) {it%2} }
println(result.joinToString("\n") { it.joinToString(" ") })
}
Here I assumed that "it" takes each element of the matrix which is clearly not the case as my output was:
0 1 0
0 1 0
0 1 0
So can you please explain me how "it" works, what is happening here? and what would be the correct way to implement this program?
Your line
result = Array(3){ IntArray(3) {it%2} }
isn't doing anything to the original Array that result is pointing at. You are creating a brand new group of array objects by calling the Array and IntArray constructors.
The lambda that you pass to the IntArray constructor has an input parameter that represents the array index, and the return value of your lambda is what will be put into the array at that index. So in this case it is the array index, and your lambda is returning 0 and 1 for even and odd indices respectively.
You are also instantiating your array incorrectly to begin with. Your lambda that you pass to that IntArray constructor is throwing away a bunch of pointless Int values and then returning 23 for each item. So you've created a 3x3 matrix that is completely filled with the number 23.
The correct syntax for creating an array with explicit values is to use arrayOf or intArrayOf.
val result = arrayOf(
intArrayOf(3, 2, 4),
intArrayOf(6, 7, 9),
intArrayOf(12, 11, 23)
)
To modify all the values of an array, you typically iterate the traditional way, not with a lambda:
for (innerArray in result) {
for (i in innerArray.indices)
innerArray[i] = innerArray[i] % 2
}
You were probably thinking of the map function, which lets you pass a lambda and returns a new List with the lambda function applied to every element of the input collection. Or when working with collections other than arrays, you can use forEach or onEach to iterate them without modifying them.
Suppose I have the following code:
my constant #suits = <Clubs Hearts Spades Diamonds>;
my constant #values = 2..14;
class Card {
has $.suit;
has $.value;
# order is mnemonic of "$value of $suit", i.e. "3 of Clubs"
multi method new($value, $suit) {
return self.bless(:$suit, :$value);
}
}
It defines some suits and some values and what it means to be a card.
Now, to build a deck, I essentially need to take the cross product of the suits and the values and apply that to the constructor.
The naiive approach to do this, would of course be to just iterate with a loop:
my #deck = gather for #values X #suits -> ($v, $c) {
take Card.new($v, $c);
}
But this is Raku, we have a cross function that can take a function as an optional argument!, so of course I'm gonna do that!
my #deck = cross(#values, #suits, :with(Card.new));
# Unexpected named argument 'with' passed
# in block <unit> at .\example.raku line 36
... wait no.
What about this?
my #deck = cross(#values, #suits):with(Card.new);
# Unexpected named argument 'with' passed
# in block <unit> at .\example.raku line 36
Still nothing. Reference maybe?
my #deck = cross(#values, #suits):with(&Card.new);
# ===SORRY!=== Error while compiling D:\Code\Raku/.\example.raku
# Illegally post-declared type:
# Card used at line 36
I read somewhere I can turn a function into an infix operator with []
my #deck = cross(#values, #suits):with([Card.new]);
# Unexpected named argument 'with' passed
# in block <unit> at .\example.raku line 36
That also doesn't work.
If classes are supposed to just be modules, shouldn't I then be able to pass a function reference?
Also why is it saying 'with' is that's unexpected? If I'm intuiting this right, what it's actually complaining about is the type of the input, rather than the named argument.
The error message is indeed confusing.
The :with parameter expects a Callable. Card.new is not a Callable. If you write it as :with( { Card.new($^number, $^suit) } ), it appears to work.
Note that I did not use $^value, $^suit, because they order differently alphabetically, so would produce the values in the wrong order. See The ^ twigil for more information on that syntax.
The error is LTA, this makes it a little bit better.
To get back to your question: you can find the code object that corresponds to Card.new with ^find_method. However, that will not work, as Card.new actually expects 3 arguments: the invocant (aka self), $value and $suit. Whereas the cross function will only pass the value and the suit.
The title of your question is “How do I take a reference to new?”, but that is not really what you want to do.
Raku being Raku, you can actually get a reference to new.
my $ref = Card.^lookup('new');
You can't use it like you want to though.
$ref(2,'Clubs'); # ERROR
The problem is that methods take a class or instance as the first argument.
$ref(Card, 2,'Clubs');
You could use .assuming to add it in.
$ref .= assuming(Card);
$ref(2,'Clubs');
But that isn't really any better than creating a block lambda
$ref = { Card.new( |#_ ) }
$ref(2,'Clubs');
All of these work:
cross( #values, #suits ) :with({Card.new(|#_)}) # adverb outside
cross( #values, #suits, :with({Card.new(|#_)}) ) # inside at end
cross( :with({Card.new(|#_)}), #values, #suits ) # inside at beginning
#values X[&( {Card.new(|#_)} )] #suits # cross meta-op with fake infix op
do {
sub new-card ($value,$suit) { Card.new(:$value,:$suit) }
#values X[&new-card] #suits
}
do {
sub with ($value,$suit) { Card.new(:$value,:$suit) }
cross(#values,#suits):&with
}
When declaring a block what's the rationale behind using this syntax (i.e. surrounding brackets and caret on the left)?
(^myBlock)
For example:
int (^myBlock)(int) = ^(int num) {
return num * multiplier;
};
C BLOCKS: Syntax and Usage
Variables pointing to blocks take on the exact same syntax as variables pointing to functions, except * is substituted for ^. For example, this is a function pointer to a function taking an int and returning a float:
float (*myfuncptr)(int);
and this is a block pointer to a block taking an int and returning a float:
float (^myblockptr)(int);
As with function pointers, you'll likely want to typedef those types, as it can get relatively hairy otherwise. For example, a pointer to a block returning a block taking a block would be something like void (^(^myblockptr)(void (^)()))();, which is nigh impossible to read. A simple typedef later, and it's much simpler:
typedef void (^Block)();
Block (^myblockptr)(Block);
Declaring blocks themselves is where we get into the unknown, as it doesn't really look like C, although they resemble function declarations. Let's start with the basics:
myvar1 = ^ returntype (type arg1, type arg2, and so on) {
block contents;
like in a function;
return returnvalue;
};
This defines a block literal (from after = to and including }), explicitly mentions its return type, an argument list, the block body, a return statement, and assigns this literal to the variable myvar1.
A literal is a value that can be built at compile-time. An integer literal (The 3 in int a = 3;) and a string literal (The "foobar" in const char *b = "foobar";) are other examples of literals. The fact that a block declaration is a literal is important later when we get into memory management.
Finding a return statement in a block like this is vexing to some. Does it return from the enclosing function, you may ask? No, it returns a value that can be used by the caller of the block. See 'Calling blocks'. Note: If the block has multiple return statements, they must return the same type.
Finally, some parts of a block declaration are optional. These are:
The argument list. If the block takes no arguments, the argument list can be skipped entirely.
Examples:
myblock1 = ^ int (void) { return 3; }; // may be written as:
myblock2 = ^ int { return 3; }
The return type. If the block has no return statement, void is assumed. If the block has a return statement, the return type is inferred from it. This means you can almost always just skip the return type from the declaration, except in cases where it might be ambiguous.
Examples:
myblock3 = ^ void { printf("Hello.\n"); }; // may be written as:
myblock4 = ^ { printf("Hello.\n"); };
// Both succeed ONLY if myblock5 and myblock6 are of type int(^)(void)
myblock5 = ^ int { return 3; }; // can be written as:
myblock6 = ^ { return 3; };
source: http://thirdcog.eu/pwcblocks/
I think the rationale is that it looks like a function pointer:
void (*foo)(int);
Which should be familiar to any C programmer.