I'm using reflection to serialize an object. Getting the values as objects is a real murder on performance due to late binding penalties. CType / DirectCast can get rid of most of it but I can't feed a type variable into it so currently I'm using a switch case block on the type variable to select the correct DirectCast.
It came to my attention that CTypeDynamic exists and takes type variables but the return type is Object so... it converts an object into an object, cool. That got me wondering, what is the purpose of this function?
The CTypeDynamic function looks for dynamic information and performs the cast/conversion appropriately. This is different from the CType operator which looks for static information at compile time or relies on the types being IConvertible.
This function examines the object at runtime including looking for Shared (aka static) custom operators. As always, if you know the type then use CType, but if you need dynamic casting then you need to use CTypeDynamic.
More information here: http://blogs.msmvps.com/bill/2010/01/24/ctypedynamic/
Related
There seems to be a difference in the implementation of PrimitiveBoxingDelegate and PrimitiveUnboxingDelegate.
Basically I would like to box a primitive value on the stack, so it can be returned as a reference (ie. the method returns Object)
PrimitiveUnboxingDelegate.forPrimitive() provides me with a StackManipulation but unfortunately PrimitiveBoxingDelegate.forPrimitive() does not.
Is there an easy way to create a boxing StackManipulation?
You can, you just need to specify the type to which the value should be boxed to what is implicit for unboxing:
StackManipulation sm = PrimitiveBoxingDelegate
.forPrimitive(...)
.assignBoxedTo(..., Assigner.DEFAULT, Assigner.Typing.STATIC);
You can cast an int to for example a Object or a Number. You can however create illegal combinations as well what is sometimes necessary for Byte Buddy's own purposes.
I am using a procedure which involves parameter passing and the parameter being passed is a variable. Because I have explicitly declared the data type of another parameter, I need to do the same for this one. What data type do I declare the parameter as if it is a variable?
Thanks
An example of what you are doing and what Types you are dealing with would have been nice. You can implement Overloading to provide for different parameter Types:
Friend Function FooBar(n As Integer) As Integer
Friend Function FooBar(n As Int64) As Integer
Friend Function FooBar(n As Short) As Integer
The compiler will pick the function which matches the data type being passed. Internally, they might do whatever based on the Type passed, then call another procedure to perform any stuff common to them all.
There is probably a finite number of types you need it to work with. For instance Font, Point and Rectangle probably make no sense. Even Date is dubious because you cannot do stuff to a date in the same way as with an Int or Long. String is also not likely needed because you can always pass it as FooBar(CInt(someString)) provided it does contain a valid integer or whatever.
You can also use a generic to tell the function what you are passing:
Private Function FooBar(Of T)(parm As T) As Integer
' called as:
ziggy = FooBar(Of Int32)(n)
zoey = FooBar(Of String)(str)
This might even be Private Function FooBar(Of T)(parm As T) As T if the function return varies depending on the parameter Type passed. There are many uses for this (one of which is to avoid passing a param as Object), but as a general purpose way of passing any type you want it is not a good idea: internally you will likely have to have a big If/Else to handle the different types their own way.
Turning off Option Strict is never advisable since all sorts of unwanted type conversions can take place.
In VB.NET, you can use Object as the type but with Option Strict Off. You can pass any kind of parameter in that case.
for more information, refer : https://stackoverflow.com/a/2890023/3660930
Is it possible to create variables to be a specific type in Lua?
E.g. int x = 4
If this is not possible, is there at least some way to have a fake "type" shown before the variable so that anyone reading the code will know what type the variable is supposed to be?
E.g. function addInt(int x=4, int y=5), but x/y could still be any type of variable? I find it much easier to type the variable's type before it rather than putting a comment at above the function to let any readers know what type of variable it is supposed to be.
The sole reason I'm asking isn't to limit the variable to a specific data type, but simply to have the ability to put a data type before the variable, whether it does anything or not, to let the reader know what type of variable that it is supposed to be without getting an error.
You can do this using comments:
local x = 4 -- int
function addInt(x --[[int]],
y --[[int]] )
You can make the syntax a = int(5) from your other comment work using the following:
function int(a) return a end
function string(a) return a end
function dictionary(a) return a end
a = int(5)
b = string "hello, world!"
c = dictionary({foo = "hey"})
Still, this doesn't really offer any benefits over a comment.
The only way I can think of to do this, would be by creating a custom type in C.
Lua Integer type
No. But I understand your goal is to improve understanding when reading and writing functions calls.
Stating the expected data type of parameters adds only a little in terms of giving a specification for the function. Also, some function parameters are polymorphic, accepting a specific value, or a function or table from which to obtain the value for a context in which the function operates. See string.gsub, for example.
When reading a function call, the only thing known at the call site is the name of the variable or field whose value is being invoked as a function (sometimes read as the "name" of the function) and the expressions being passed as actual parameters. It is sometimes helpful to refactor parameter expressions into named local variables to add to the readability.
When writing a function call, the name of the function is key. The names of the formal parameters are also helpful. But still, names (like types) do not comprise much of a specification. The most help comes from embedded structured documentation used in conjunction with an IDE that infers the context of a name and performs content assistance and presentations of available documentation.
luadoc is one such a system of documentation. You can write luadoc for function you declare.
Eclipse Koneki LDT is one such an IDE. Due to the dynamic nature of Lua, it is a difficult problem so LDT is not always as helpful as one would like. (To be clear, LDT does not use luadoc; It evolved its own embedded documentation system.)
I am trying to trace managed object creation/disposing in a CLI/C++ prog:
::System::Diagnostics::Trace::WriteLine(String::Format(
"Created {0} #{1:X8}",
this->GetType()->Name,
((UInt64)this).ToString()));
Which fails with
error C2440: 'type cast' : cannot convert from 'MyType ^const ' to 'unsigned __int64'
Is there a way to keep track of the unique object IDs this way?
Thanks!
First of all, why this doesn't work. Managed handle types ^ aren't pointers. They aren't just addresses. An instance of a managed type can and will be moved around in memory by GC, so addresses aren't stable; hence why it wouldn't let you do such a cast (as GC can execute at any moment, and you do not know when, any attempt to use such an address as a raw value is inherently a race condition).
Another thing that is often recommended, but doesn't actually work, is Object.GetHashCode(). For one thing, it returns an int, obviously not enough to be unique on x64. Furthermore, the documentation doesn't guarantee that values are unique, and they actually aren't in 2.0+.
The only working solution is to create a an instance of System.Runtime.InteropServices.GCHandle for your object, and then cast it to IntPtr - that is guaranteed to be both unique, and stable.
Check out the GCHandle type: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.runtime.interopservices.gchandle.aspx. Looks like it would do what you want, though it looks it would be a bit of a pain to use for your purposes...
Even if you could cast this to some integral value for display, it probably wouldn't be a useful unique identifier. This is because unlike C++, in C++/CLI the location of a (managed) object (and by extension the value of this) can potentially change during that object's lifetime. The (logically) same object could print two different strings at different points in the program.
MyType ^const is a reference type. Hence it's in the managed memory space, and you can't get direct memory pointers to these types, as they can change at any time.
Is there a way to keep track of the unique object IDs this way? Thanks!
You could use MyType.GetHashCode();
Are there any other ways of changing a variable's type in a statically typed language like Java and C++, except 'casting'?
I'm trying to figure out what the main difference is in practical terms between dynamic and static typing and keep finding very academic definitions. I'm wondering what it means in terms of what my code looks like.
Make sure you don't get static vs. dynamic typing confused with strong vs. weak typing.
Static typing: Each variable, method parameter, return type etc. has a type known at compile time, either declared or inferred.
Dynamic typing: types are ignored/don't exist at compile time
Strong typing: each object at runtime has a specific type, and you can only perform those operations on it that are defined for that type.
Weak typing: runtime objects either don't have an explicit type, or the system attempts to automatically convert types wherever necessary.
These two opposites can be combined freely:
Java is statically and strongly typed
C is statically and weakly typed (pointer arithmetics!)
Ruby is dynamically and strongly typed
JavaScript is dynamically and weakly typed
Genrally, static typing means that a lot of errors are caught by the compiler which are runtime errors in a dynamically typed language - but it also means that you spend a lot of time worrying about types, in many cases unnecessarily (see interfaces vs. duck typing).
Strong typing means that any conversion between types must be explicit, either through a cast or through the use of conversion methods (e.g. parsing a string into an integer). This means more typing work, but has the advantage of keeping you in control of things, whereas weak typing often results in confusion when the system does some obscure implicit conversion that leaves you with a completely wrong variable value that causes havoc ten method calls down the line.
In C++/Java you can't change the type of a variable.
Static typing: A variable has one type assigned at compile type and that does not change.
Dynamic typing: A variable's type can change while runtime, e.g. in JavaScript:
js> x="5" <-- String
5
js> x=x*5 <-- Int
25
The main difference is that in dynamically typed languages you don't know until you go to use a method at runtime whether that method exists. In statically typed languages the check is made at compile time and the compilation fails if the method doesn't exist.
I'm wondering what it means in terms of what my code looks like.
The type system does not necessarily have any impact on what code looks like, e.g. languages with static typing, type inference and implicit conversion (like Scala for instance) look a lot like dynamically typed languages. See also: What To Know Before Debating Type Systems.
You don't need explicit casting. In many cases implicit casting works.
For example:
int i = 42;
float f = i; // f ~= 42.0
int b = f; // i == 42
class Base {
};
class Subclass : public Base {
};
Subclass *subclass = new Subclass();
Base *base = subclass; // Legal
Subclass *s = dynamic_cast<Subclass *>(base); // == subclass. Performs type checking. If base isn't a Subclass, NULL is returned instead. (This is type-safe explicit casting.)
You cannot, however, change the type of a variable. You can use unions in C++, though, to achieve some sort of dynamic typing.
Lets look at Java for he staitically typed language and JavaScript for the dynamc. In Java, for objects, the variable is a reference to an object. The object has a runtime type and the reference has a type. The type of the reference must be the type of the runtime object or one of its ancestors. This is how polymorphism works. You have to cast to go up the hierarchy of the reference type, but not down. The compiler ensures that these conditions are met. In a language like JavaScript, your variable is just that, a variable. You can have it point to whatever object you want, and you don't know the type of it until you check.
For conversions, though, there are lots of methods like toInteger and toFloat in Java to do a conversion and generate an object of a new type with the same relative value. In JavaScript there are also conversion methods, but they generate new objects too.
Your code should actally not look very much different, regardless if you are using a staticly typed language or not. Just because you can change the data type of a variable in a dynamically typed language, doesn't mean that it is a good idea to do so.
In VBScript, for example, hungarian notation is often used to specify the preferred data type of a variable. That way you can easily spot if the code is mixing types. (This was not the original use of hungarian notation, but it's pretty useful.)
By keeping to the same data type, you avoid situations where it's hard to tell what the code actually does, and situations where the code simply doesn't work properly. For example:
Dim id
id = Request.QueryString("id") ' this variable is now a string
If id = "42" Then
id = 142 ' sometimes turned into a number
End If
If id > 100 Then ' will not work properly for strings
Using hungarian notation you can spot code that is mixing types, like:
lngId = Request.QueryString("id") ' putting a string in a numeric variable
strId = 42 ' putting a number in a string variable