The behaviour can be observed by placing this code in a playground:
import Foundation
import ObjectiveC
class TestClass {}
var obj = TestClass()
let stringValue = "xyz"
let key = "def"
objc_setAssociatedObject(obj, key, stringValue, objc_AssociationPolicy.OBJC_ASSOCIATION_RETAIN_NONATOMIC)
//let f = "f"
let returnedString = objc_getAssociatedObject(obj, key)
This works and returns "xyz" from the objc_getAssociatedObject call.
However, if you remove the comment from the let f = "f" line. The objc_getAssociatedObject call now returns nil.
I'm baffled as to how setting a totally unrelated variable can effect the call.
Any ideas?
Looks like a bug.
The objc_... methods are part of the Objective-C runtime. They shouldn't exist in Swift.
That said they clearly do. So my guess is that there's something happening when you set that method that kicks the runtime, similar to calling synchronize on NSUserDefaults.
Edit: This NSHipster article explains that the ObjC runtime is actually there.
Edit 2: I tried a few experiments, and I'll make your question even weirder. Wrapping the test case inside the object yields the same result. But changing the variable name to an underscore fixes the problem:
let _ = "f"
I bet assigning a variable overwrites whatever runtime associations you set manually. The underscore just tells the compiler that you aren't using the result of the assignment.
Related
I encountered an unfamiliar pattern of initialization from Objective-C that I'm struggling to replicate in Swift.
Objective-C
In the example code, they defined a C struct such as this (abbreviated, original here):
struct AQPlayerState {
AudioFileID mAudioFile;
}
Here's an example that uses AQPlayerState:
AQPlayerState aqData; // 1
OSStattus result =
AudioFileOpenURL(
audioFileURL,
fsRdPerm,
0,
&aqData.mAudioFile // 2
);
The key takeaway from above is that aqData currently has uninitialized properties, and AudioFileOpenURL is initializing aqData.mAudioFile on it's behalf.
Swift
I'm trying to replicate this behaviour in Swift. Here's what I've tried so far:
Models:
class Person {
var name: String
init(name: String) {
self.name = name
}
}
class Foo {
var person: Person?
}
My idea was to replicate the Objective-C code by passing a reference of Foo.person into a function that would instantiate it on it's behalf.
Initialization Function:
func initializeWithBob(_ ptr: UnsafeMutablePointer<Person?>) {
ptr.pointee = Person(name: "Bob")
}
initializeWithBob takes a pointer to an address for a Person? type and initializes it with a Person(name: "Bob") object.
Here's my test code:
let foo = Foo()
let ptr = UnsafeMutablePointer<Person?>.allocate(capacity: 1)
ptr.initialize(to: foo.person)
defer {
ptr.deinitialize()
ptr.deallocate(capacity: 1)
}
initializeWithBob(ptr)
print(foo.person) // outputs nil
initializeWithBob failed to "install" an instance of type Person in my Foo instance. I presume some of my assumptions are wrong. Looking for help in correcting my assumptions and understanding of this situation.
Thanks in advance!
You can achieve what you are looking for via withUnsafeMutablePointer(to:_:) like so:
let foo = Foo()
withUnsafeMutablePointer(to: &foo.person) { (ptr) -> Void in
initializeWithBob(ptr)
}
print(foo.person!.name) // outputs Bob
However, I wouldn't recommend this approach. IMHO it makes more sense to wrap the APIs you are working with in a C function that you can make 'nice' to call from Swift. The problem with your current approach is that this type of Swift is hard to read for Swift developers and also hard to read for Audio Toolbox developers.
#kelvinlau Is this what you were thinking of trying to achieve?
func initializeWithBob(_ ptr: UnsafeMutablePointer<Foo>) {
ptr.pointee.person = Person(name: "Bob")
}
let foo = Foo()
let ptr = UnsafeMutablePointer<Foo>.allocate(capacity: 1)
ptr.initialize(to: foo)
initializeWithBob(ptr)
print(foo.person?.name ?? "nil")
ptr.deinitialize()
ptr.deallocate(capacity: 1)
print(foo.person?.name ?? "nil")
The code pattern you have in Objective-C is for out parameters, that is parameters which return a value, or in out parameters, that is parameters which both pass a value in and return one. Objective-C does not directly support these so pointers are used to produce the semantics.
Swift has in out parameters indicated by the keyword inout in the function declaration. Within the function an assignment to an inout parameters effectively assigns a value to the variable that was passed as the argument. At the function call site the variable must be prefixed by & to indicate it is the variable itself and not its value which is effectively being passed.
Keeping your Person and Foo as is your function becomes:
func initializeWithBob(_ ptr: inout Person?)
{
ptr = Person(name: "Bob")
}
and it may be used, for example, like:
var example = Foo()
initializeWithBob(&example.person)
Using inout in Swift is better than trying to build the same semantics using pointers.
HTH
Note: You can skip this unless you are curious
"Effectively" was used a few times above. Typically out parameters are implemented by the parameter passing method call-by-result, while in out use call-by-value-result. Using either of these methods the returned value is only assigned to the passed variable at the point the function returns.
Another parameter passing method is call-by-reference, which is similar to call-by-value-result except that each and every assignment to the parameter within the function is immediately made to passed variable. This means changes to the passed variable may be visible before the function returns.
Swift by design does not specify whether its inout uses call-by-value-result or call-by-reference. So rather than specify the exact semantics in the answer "effectively" is used.
In JavaScript, and other Object oriented languages, you can instantiate a new instance of a class, and use a method of the class instance in the same line. For example:
class customClass {
method(){
return "hello"
}
}
var s = (new customClass).method() // s = "hello"
If I try the same in VBA:
s = (new customClass).method()
I get a Compile error: Expected: end of statement, while highlighting the . after customClass).
If you like you can do the following:
Dim c as new customClass: s=c.method()
however in this case, in my opinion, it is not clear that s is being set at all making code more difficult to manage.
Is there an alternative method which makes the line clearer to understand, while still being quick and easy to write?
Sure you can.
With New Collection: .Add 42: Debug.Print .Count: End With
I'd probably want to chew the head off whoever put that in production code, but sure you can.
Doesn't mean you should.
Note that for some reason you don't get IntelliSense for With block variable references in such inline With blocks.
May or may not have something to do with VBA code shouldn't be written like this.
If the method you want to invoke doesn't alter global or instance state, consider specifying a VB_PredeclaredId module attribute on your class instead (export the module, edit its header in Notepad, re-import the module).
That way this code becomes legal, and looks much more VBA-idiomatic:
SomeCustomClass.SomeMethod
The mechanics are identical to those involved when people do UserForm1.Show off the default instance, without creating a New object.
You can pass a new instance of a class to the CallByName Function and have it access the method for you.
Dim s As String: s = CallByName(New customClass, "method", VbMethod)
Currently I have thought of 2 methods of solving the problem.
The first method I came up with is a bit hacky, but it does the trick:
s = Array(new someClass)(0).method()
However in general this method is quite confusing and difficult to read... So instead I figured you could just use a helper function instead:
function proxy(a as variant) as variant
if isObject(a) then
set proxy = a
else
proxy = a
end if
end function
sub textProxy()
s = proxy(new someClass).method()
debug.print s
end sub
It is a shame however that you lose the intelisense in both of these examples... But I guess that's more of a problem with the VBE than the methods themselves.
As I know Java is pass-by-value from this post. I am from Java background I wonder what Kotlin is using for passing values in between. Like in Extensions or Methods etc.
Every time I hear about the "pass-by-value" vs "pass-by-reference" Java debate I always think the same. The answer I give: "Java passes a copy (pass-by-value) of the reference (pass-by-reference)". So everyone is happy. I would say Kotlin does the same as it is JVM based language.
UPDATE
OK, so it's been a while since this answer and I think some clarification should be included. As #robert-liberatore is mentioning in the comments, the behaviour I'm describing is true for objects. Whenever your methods expect any object, you can assume that the JVM internally will make a copy of the reference to the object and pass it to your method. That's why having code like
void doSomething(List<Integer> x) {
x = new ArrayList<Integer>()
}
List<Integer> x = Arrays.asList(1, 2, 3);
doSomething(x);
x.length() == 3
behaves like it does. You're copying the reference to the list, so "reassigning it" will take no effect in the real object. But since you're referring to the same object, modifying its inner content will affect the outer object.
This is something you may miss when defining your attributes as final in order to achieve immutability. You won't be able to reassign them, but there's nothing preventing you from changing its content
Of course, this is true for objects where you have a reference. In case of primitives, which are not a reference to an object containing something but "something" themselves, the thing is different. Java will still make a copy of the whole value (as it does with the whole reference) and pass it to the method. But primitives are just values, you can't "modify its inner values". So any change inside a method will not have effect in the outer values
Now, talking about Kotlin
In Kotlin you "don't have" primitive values. But you "do have" primitive classes. Internally, the compiler will try to use JVM primitive values where needed but you can assume that you always work with the boxed version of the JVM primitives. Because of that, when possible the compiler will just make a copy of the primitive value and, in other scenarios, it will copy the reference to the object. Or with code
fun aJvmPrimitiveWillBeUsedHere(x: Int): Int = x * 2
fun aJvmObjectWillBeUsedHere(x: Int?): Int = if (x != null) x * 2 else 1
I'd say that Kotlin scenario is a bit safer than Java because it forces its arguments to be final. So you can modify its inner content but not reassign it
fun doSomething(x: MutableList<Int>) {
x.add(2) // this works, you can modify the inner state
x = mutableListOf(1, 2) // this doesn't work, you can't reassign an argument
}
It uses the same principles like Java. It is always pass-by-value, you can imagine that a copy is passed. For primitive types, e.g. Int this is obvious, the value of such an argument will be passed into a function and the outer variable will not be modified. Please note that parameters in Kotlin cannot be reassigned since they act like vals:
fun takeInt(a: Int) {
a = 5
}
This code will not compile because a cannot be reassigned.
For objects it's a bit more difficult but it's also call-by-value. If you call a function with an object, a copy of its reference is passed into that function:
data class SomeObj(var x: Int = 0)
fun takeObject(o: SomeObj) {
o.x = 1
}
fun main(args: Array<String>) {
val obj = SomeObj()
takeObject(obj)
println("obj after call: $obj") // SomeObj(x=1)
}
You can use a reference passed into a function to change the actual object.
The semantics is identical to Java.
In Java, when you have an instance of an object, and you pass it to a method, that method can change the state of that object, and when the method is done, the changes would have been applied to the object at the call site.
The same applies in Kotlin.
For primitives value is passed, and for non-primitives a reference to the object is passed. I'll explain with an example:
The code:
fun main() {
var a = 5
var b = a
a = 6
println("b = $b")
}
prints: b = 5
Kotlin passes the value of a to b, because a is a primitive. So changing a afterwards won't impact b.
The code:
fun main() {
var a = Dog(5)
var b = a
a.value = 6
println("b = ${b.value}")
}
class Dog (var value: Int)
prints b = 6, because this time a is not a primitive and so the reference to the object (Dog) was passed to b and not its value. Therefore changing a would affect all objects that point to it.
In Java primitive types like int, float, double, boolean are passed to a method by value, if you modify them inside the receiver method they doesn't change into the calling method. But if the property/variable type isn't a primitive, like arrays of primitives or other classes when they are changed inside the method that receive them as parameter they also change in the caller method.
But with Kotlin nothing seems to be primitive, so I think all is passed by reference.
This might be a little bit confusing.
The correct answer, IMHO, is that everything passes by reference, but no assignment is possible so it will be similar to passing by value in C++.
Note that function parameters are constant, i.e., they cannot be assigned.
Remember that in Kotlin there are no primitive types. Everything is an object.
When you write:
var x: Int = 3
x += 10
You actually create an object of type Int, assign it the value 3, and get a reference, or pointer, named x.
When you write
x += 10
You reassign a new Int object, with the value 13, to x. The older object becomes a garbage (and garbage-collected).
Of course, the compiler optimizes it, and creates no objects in the heap in this particular case, but conceptually it is as explained.
So what is the meaning of passing by reference function parameters?
Since no assignment is possible for function parameters, the main advantage of passing by reference in C++ does not exist in Kotlin.
If the object (passed to the function) has a method which changes its internal state, it will affect the original object.
No such method exists for Int, String, etc. They are immutable objects.
No copy is ever generated when passing objects to functions.
Bear in mind, am quite new to Kotlin. In my opinion, primitives are passed-by-value, but objects are passed-by-reference.
A primitive passed to a class works by default, but if you pass an object from a list, for example, and that object changes, the class object changes too. Because, in fact, it is the same object.
Additionally, if objects gets removed from the list, the class object IS STILL A REFERENCE. So it can still change due to references in other places.
Example below explaines. You can run it here.
fun main() {
val listObjects = mutableListOf(ClassB(), ClassB(), ClassB())
val listPrimitives = mutableListOf(111, 222, 333)
val test = ClassA()
test.ownedObject = listObjects[0]
test.ownedPrimitive = listPrimitives[0]
println("ownedObject: " + test.ownedObject.isEnabled +", ownedPrimitive: " +
test.ownedPrimitive)
listObjects[0].isEnabled = true
println("ownedObject: " + test.ownedObject.isEnabled +", ownedPrimitive: " +
test.ownedPrimitive)
listPrimitives[0] = 999
println("ownedObject: " + test.ownedObject.isEnabled +", ownedPrimitive: " +
test.ownedPrimitive)
}
class ClassA {
var ownedObject: ClassB = ClassB()
var ownedPrimitive: Int = 0
}
class ClassB {
var isEnabled = false
}
Since Kotlin is a new language for JVM, like Java it is pass-by-value. The confusing part is with object, at first it looks like that it is passed-by-reference but the actuality is that the reference/pointer itself is pass-by-value (a copy of a reference is passed to a method) hence when a method receives a reference to an object, the method can manipulate the original object.
I have unmanaged object of WtfClass.
class WtfClass { };
And I also have managed class which uses pointer to this object.
ref class MyClass //works fine if you remove "ref"
{
public:
void MyMethod();
void WtfMethod(void * pVoid);
WtfClass *pWtfStruct;
};
void MyClass::MyMethod()
{
/*WtfClass* pWtfStruct; //if you uncomment this it will compile even with ref*/
WtfMethod((int*)(&pWtfStruct)); //(!!!invalid type conversion here)
}
void MyClass::WtfMethod(void *pVoid)
{}
I can't cast WtfClass* pointer from field, but can easily cast the same pointer defined within MyMethod(). If make MyClass unmanaged it works in any case.
It's better to look at screenshots:
https://ibin.co/2iOcN1ooaC7A.png [using ref-bad.png]
https://ibin.co/2iOcYtP84H0e.png [using ref-good.png]
ibin.co/2iOcjCCc2gQe.png [without ref.png] (sorry not enough reputation to paste more than 2 links)
Of course I can have workaround like this, but I'd like to understand why this happening:
void MyClass::MyMethod()
{
WtfClass* pWorkAround = pWtfStruct; //not required in this case
WtfMethod((void*)(&pWorkAround));
}
OK, so to summarize, without the duplicate field & local variable names:
ref class MyClass
{
WtfClass* fieldWtfPtr;
void foo()
{
WtfClass* localvarWtfPtr;
WtfMethod((int*)(&fieldWtfPtr)); // Error
WtfMethod((int*)(&localvarWtfPtr)); // Works
}
};
Side question: &fieldWtfPtr is of type WtfClass**, a double pointer. Did you mean to cast that to a int**, also a double pointer? Or perhaps did you want to take fieldWtfPtr as a WtfClass* single pointer and cast that to a int* single pointer?
Here's why you're getting the error: MyClass is a managed object. The garbage compiler is allowed to move it around at any point, without telling you. So, it's location in memory can change at any point. So when you try to take the address of a class field, it's not valid because the address of that field can change at any point!
Why the other things make it work:
Local variables are stored on the stack, and the stack doesn't get moved around by the garbage collector, so it is valid to take the address of a local variable.
If you remove the ref, then MyClass is no longer a managed object, so the garbage collector won't move it around, so now the addresses of its fields won't change willy-nilly.
For this case, the easiest fix would be to make use of a local temporary variable.
void foo()
{
WtfClass* localCopyWtfPtr = this->fieldWtfPtr;
WtfMethod((int*)(&localCopyWtfPtr)); // Works
// If WtfMethod changed the data, write it back.
this->fieldWtfPtr = localCopyWtfPtr;
}
When I tried to recreate this, the compiler generated the following error:
error C2440: 'type cast' : cannot convert from 'cli::interior_ptr<CWtfClass*>' to 'LPVOID *'
I think what is going on here is some magic that allows managed classes to have unmanaged members. The MSDN documentation for cli::interior_ptr describes what's going on - basically this is used to allow for the managed object to change its memory address in the managed heap, which would cause problems when native pointers come in to play.
The reason that assigning the member to a variable first works is most likely because it has an implicit conversion to the template parameter, but since it is a managed type the compiler won't allow you to get the address of the variable (since the garbage collector can move it around in memory as needed).
The workaround in your question is probably the best way to fix this compiler error.
David answered why this happens and suggested a workaround for your case.
I'll just post a different solution here: You can pin your managed object to tell the GC not to move it around. The most lightweight way to do that is through pin_ptr (the GC won't even know you pinned something unless it stumbles upon your code in the middle of a collection). As long as it stays in scope, the managed object will be pinned and won't move. It's best if you avoid pinning for too long, but this lets you get a pointer to a chunk of managed memory which is guaranteed not to move - it's helpful when you want to avoid copying things around.
Here's how to do it:
pin_ptr<WtfClass*> pin(&pWtfStruct);
WtfMethod(pin);
pin acts just like a WtfClass**.
Regarding side question of David Yaw.
I faced with this problem while used some WINAPI functions.
IAudioEndpointVolume* pWtfVolume = NULL;
pDevice->Activate(__uuidof(IAudioEndpointVolume), CLSCTX_ALL, NULL, (void**)&pWtfVolume);
pWtfVolume->SetMute(BST_CHECKED, pGuidMyContext);
And it's working only if I pass &pWtfVolume. Ironically you can pass argument without "&", just pFieldVolume and compiler will say OKAY, but interface IAudioEndpointVolume will not work.
Look at this:
ref class MyClass
{
WtfClass* fieldWtfPtr;
void foo()
{
WtfClass* localvarWtfPtr;
WtfMethod((int*)(&fieldWtfPtr)); // Error
WtfMethod((int*)(&localvarWtfPtr)); // Works
WtfMethod((int*)(fieldWtfPtr)); // Compiles!!!
}
};
After recently picking up a bit of C# after a long time of F#, I came to realise that 'object constructors' are a nice way of tricking oneself into believing they are dealing with a functional object.
Consider:
let x = new Something()
x.Key <- 1
x.Value <- 2
This feels very unclean because of the very obvious mutation of values. Especially if we keep our objects write once, it feels very unnecessary In C#, it is possible to initialise the object like this:
var x = new Something() { Key = 1, Value = 2 };
This looks nicer and actually it felt like I was using a record (almost), obviously its just sugar but its nice sugar.
Q. Assuming we have no control over `Something' (pretend its from some C# library), is it possible, in F# to use this shorthand initialisation, if not, why?
Yes, you can do that. It would look something like this:
let x = new Something(Key = 1, Value = 2)
The syntax is detailed in Constructors (F#) under the section "Assigning Values to Properties at Initialization".
Yes, F# support use cases similar to C# object initializers but F# approach is somewhat more generic.
F# specification 14.4 Method Application Resolution says:
(after method is successfully resolved) Build the resulting elaborated expression by following these steps:
For each NamedActualArgs whose target is a settable property or field, assign the value into the
property.
meaning that you can do things that C# doesn't allow
type Something() =
member val Key = 0 with get,set
member val Value = "" with get,set
static member Create() = Something()
let a = Something(Key = 1, Value = "1") // create instance with constructor, set properties afterwards
let b = Something.Create(Key = 1, Value = "1") // create instance using factory method, set properties afterwards