Example:
st> [ fnord := 7 ] value
I was always under the impression that they went into the SystemDictionary at Smalltalk, but that's not true:
st> [ fnord := 7 ] value
st> Smalltalk at: #fnord
Object: SystemDictionary new: 512 "<0x2acfca382030>" error: Invalid argument #fnord: key not found
However, at least on GNU Smalltalk, the values seem to be persisted somewhere --- accessing fnord returns the right value:
st> [ fnord := 7 ] value
st> fnord
7
Update: I figured out how to disassemble blocks! It's really hard.
st> [ fnord := 7 ] block inspect
An instance of CompiledBlock
header: 32768
clean-ness flags: 0
number of arguments: 0
number of temporaries: 0
number of literals: 4
needed stack slots: 8
method: UndefinedObject>>executeStatements
literals: [
[1] {fnord}
[2] a BlockClosure
[3] #block
[4] #inspect
]
byte codes: [
[1] source code line number 1
[3] push 7
[5] store into Global Variable {fnord}
[7] pop stack top
push Global Variable {fnord}
[9] return stack top
]
[] in UndefinedObject>>executeStatements
So it definitely thinks it's writing to a global variable.
Undeclared variable bindings go into a global dictionary named Undeclared. That binding (a key->value pair) gets moved to Smalltalk once you properly declare it. This is how forward-references are resolved when loading code, for example. That is, when a variable is used before the code declaring it is loaded.
Related
I have a scenario where a class holds two instance variables that are mutually exclusive. That is only one can be instantiated at a time. To be precise, I have a Promise class (trying to add promises to Pharo) and it holds promiseError and promiseValue instance variables. I then want to implement the method "then: catch:".
This method should work as follows:
promiseObject := [10/0] promiseValue.
promiseObject then : [ : result | Transcript crShow : result ]
catch : [ : failure | Transcript crShow : failure ] .
I got an idea on how to implement methods that take a block as an argument from method that accepts a block and the block accepts an argument.
My attempt below will obviously not work but I have no idea on how to make it work.
then:aBlock catch: anotherBlock
|segment|
promiseValue ifNil: [ segment := promiseError ] ifNotNil: [ segment := promiseValue ].
promiseValue ifNil: [ segment := promiseValue ] ifNotNil: [ segment := promiseError ].
aBlock value:segment.
anotherBlock value: segment
This should work analogously to a try-catch block.
Have you tried something like this?
then: aBlock catch: anotherBlock
promiseError notNil ifTrue: [^anotherBlock value: promiseError].
^aBlock value: promiseValue
Note that the code does not rely on promiseValue being nil or not because nil could be a valid answer of the promise. However, if there is some promiseError, we know the promise failed, and succeeded otherwise.
Of course, here I'm assuming that this message will get sent once the promise has been successfully or unsuccessfully finished. If this is not the case, then the code should be waiting on the promise semaphore.
I am having trouble regarding Smalltalk. I am attempting to populate an array with the numbers that are read from the file, but it doesn't seem to work. I've tried numerous options and I was hoping someone would explain to me what I'm doing wrong.
Object subclass: #MyStack
instanceVariableNames:'anArray aStack'
classVariableNames:''
poolDictionaries:''
!
MyStack class comment: 'Creates a Stack Class.'
!
!
MyStack methodsFor: 'initialize Stack'
!
new "instance creation"
^ super new.
!
init "initialization"
anArray := Array new: 32.
aStack := 0.
! !
!MyStack methodsFor: 'methods for stacks' !
pop "Removes the top entry from the stack"
| item |
item := anArray at: aStack.
aStack := aStack - 1.
!
push: x "Pushes a new entry onto the stack"
aStack := aStack + 1.
anArray at:aStack put:x.
!
top "Returns the current top of the stack"
^anArray at: aStack.
!
empty "True if the stack is empty"
^aStack = 0.
!
full "True if the stack is full"
^aStack = 32.
!
printOn: aStream "Prints entire stack one entry per line, starting the top entry"
aStream show: 'Stack:'.
aStack to:1 by:-1 do:[:i |(anArray at:i) printOn:aStream. ].
aStream show: ''
! !
"----------------------------------------------------------------------------------"
Object subclass: #IOExample
instanceVariableNames: 'input output'
classVariableNames: ''
poolDictionaries: ''
!
IOExample class comment: '
basic I/O.
'
!
!
IOExample methodsFor: 'initialize'
!
new
^ super new.
!
init
[ input := FileSelectionBrowser open asFilename readStream. ]
on: Error
do: [ :exception |
Dialog warn: 'Unable to open file'.
exception retry.
].
[ output := FileSelectionBrowser open asFilename writeStream. ]
on: Error
do: [ :exception |
Dialog warn: 'Unable to open file'.
exception retry.
].
! !
!
IOExample methodsFor: 'copy input to output turning :: into :'
!
copy
| data lookAhead theStack myStack|
[ input atEnd ] whileFalse: [
data := input next.
(data isKindOf: Integer)
ifTrue: [
(input atEnd) ifFalse: [
"myStack push: data."
lookAhead = input peek.
(lookAhead asCharacter isDigit)
ifTrue: [
]
].
].
output show: myStack.
].
input close.
output close.
! !
Did you try to run this code? If you did, I'm surprised you didn't get a compilation warning due to #2 below.
There are a number of problems in #copy (besides the fact that I don't understand exactly what it's trying to do)...
First you seems to expect the data to be numbers: data isKindOf: Integer. But then later you treat it as a stream of Characters: lookAhead asCharacter isDigit. If the first condition is true to get you past that point, the second one never can be, as you would've matched [0-9], which aren't ASCII values for digits.
lookAhead = input peek. Here you're comparing uninitialized lookAhead (nil) with the peeked value, and then throwing away the result. I assume you meant lookAhead := input peek.
Then there is the empty inner condition ifTrue: [ ]. What are you trying to do there?
Then there's the odd protocol name, 'copy input to output turning :: into :'. What does that mean, and what does that have to do with copying numbers between streams?
Justin, let me try to help you with the class MyStack and defer to another answer any comments on your example.
I've divided your code into fragments and appended my comments.
Fragment A:
Object subclass: #MyStack
instanceVariableNames:'anArray aStack'
classVariableNames:''
poolDictionaries:''
Comments for A:
A Smalltalker would have used instance variable names without indeterminate articles a or an
Object subclass: #MyStack
instanceVariableNames:'array stack'
classVariableNames:''
poolDictionaries:''
Fragment B:
MyStack class comment: 'Creates a Stack Class.'
Comments for B:
This is weird. I would have expected this instead (with no class):
MyStack comment: 'Creates a Stack Class.'
Fragment C:
MyStack methodsFor: 'initialize Stack'
new "instance creation"
^ super new.
Comments for C:*
This code puts new on the instance side of the class, which makes no sense because you usually send new to the class rather than its instances. The correct form requires adding class:
MyStack class methodsFor: 'initialize Stack'
new
^super new.
You forgot to send the initialization method (however, see Fragment D below)
new
^super new init.
Fragment D:
init "initialization"
anArray := Array new: 32.
aStack := 0.
Comments for D:
In Smalltalk people use the selector initialize so it can send super first
initialize
super initialize.
array := Array new: 32.
stack := 0.
Note that this change would require also writing new as
new
^super new initialize.
However, if your dialect already sends the initialize method by default, you should remove the implementation of new from your class.
Fragment E:
pop "Removes the top entry from the stack"
| item |
item := anArray at: aStack.
aStack := aStack - 1.
Comments for E:
You forgot to answer the item just popped out
pop
| item |
item := array at: stack.
stack := stack - 1.
^item
Fragment F:
push: x "Pushes a new entry onto the stack"
aStack := aStack + 1.
anArray at:aStack put:x.
Comments for F:
This is ok. Note however that the stack will refuse to push any item beyond the limit of 32.
push: x
stack := stack + 1.
array at: stack put: x.
Fragment G:
top "Returns the current top of the stack"
^anArray at: aStack.
empty "True if the stack is empty"
^aStack = 0.
full "True if the stack is full"
^aStack = 32.
Comments for G:
These are ok too. However, a more appropraite name for empty would have been isEmpty because all collections understand this polymorphic message. Similarly, the recommended selector for full would be isFull:
top
^array at: aStack.
isEmpty
^stack = 0.
isFull
^stack = 32.
Note also that isFull repeats the magic constant 32, which you used in the initialization code. That's not a good idea because if you change your mind in the future and decide to change 32 with, say, 64 you will have to modify two methods an not just one. You can eliminate this duplication in this way
isFull
^stack = array size.
Fragment H:
printOn: aStream
"Prints entire stack one entry per line, starting the top entry"
aStream show: 'Stack:'.
aStack to:1 by:-1 do:[:i |(anArray at:i) printOn:aStream. ].
aStream show: ''
Comments for H:
The last line of this code is superfluous and I would get rid of it. However, you may want to separate every item from the next with a space
printOn: aStream
stream show: 'Stack:'.
stack to: 1 by: -1 do:[:i |
aStream space.
(array at: i) printOn: aStream].
I attempted to write a C-style for-loop in REBOL:
for [i: 0] [i < 10] [i: i + 1] [
print i
]
This syntax doesn't appear to be correct, though:
*** ERROR
** Script error: for does not allow block! for its 'word argument
** Where: try do either either either -apply-
** Near: try load/all join %/users/try-REBOL/data/ system/script/args...
Does REBOL have any built-in function that is similar to a C-style for loop, or will I need to implement this function myself?
The equivalent construct in a C-like language would look like this, but I'm not sure if it's possible to implement the same pattern in REBOL:
for(i = 0; i < 10; i++){
print(i);
}
Because of the rebol3 tag, I'll assume this question pertains to Rebol 3.
Proposed "CFOR" for Rebol 3
For Rebol 3, there is a proposal (which got quite a bit of support) for a "general loop" very much along the lines of a C-style for and therefore currently going under the name of cfor as well: see CureCode issue #884 for all the gory details.
This includes a much refined version of Ladislav's original implementation, the current (as of 2014-05-17) version I'll reproduce here (without the extensive inline comments discussing implementation aspects) for the sake of easy reference:
cfor: func [ ; Not this name
"General loop based on an initial state, test, and per-loop change."
init [block! object!] "Words & initial values as object spec (local)"
test [block!] "Continue if condition is true"
bump [block!] "Move to the next step in the loop"
body [block!] "Block to evaluate each time"
/local ret
] [
if block? init [init: make object! init]
test: bind/copy test init
body: bind/copy body init
bump: bind/copy bump init
while test [set/any 'ret do body do bump get/any 'ret]
]
General problems with user-level control structure implementations in Rebol 3
One important general remark for all user-level implementation of control constructs in Rebol 3: there is no analogue to Rebol 2's [throw] attribute in R3 yet (see CureCode issue #539), so such user-written ("mezzanine", in Rebol lingo) control or loop functions have problems, in general.
In particular, this CFOR would incorrectly capture return and exit. To illustrate, consider the following function:
foo: function [] [
print "before"
cfor [i: 1] [i < 10] [++ i] [
print i
if i > 2 [return true]
]
print "after"
return false
]
You'd (rightly) expect the return to actually return from foo. However, if you try the above, you'll find this expectation disappointed:
>> foo
before
1
2
3
after
== false
This remark of course applies to all the user-level implementation given as answers in this thread, until bug #539 is fixed.
There is an optimized Cfor by Ladislav Mecir
cfor: func [
{General loop}
[throw]
init [block!]
test [block!]
inc [block!]
body [block!]
] [
use set-words init reduce [
:do init
:while test head insert tail copy body inc
]
]
The other control structure that most people would use in this particular case is repeat
repeat i 10 [print i]
which results in:
>> repeat i 10 [print i]
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I generally do no use loop very often, but it can be used to a similar extent:
>> i: 1
>> loop 10 [print ++ i]
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Those are some useful control structures. Not sure if you were looking for cfor but you got that answer from others.
I have implemented a function that works in the same way as a C for loop.
cfor: func [init condition update action] [
do init
while condition [
do action
do update
]
]
Here's an example usage of this function:
cfor [i: 0] [i < 10] [i: i + 1] [
print i
]
For simple initial value, upper limit and step, following works:
for i 0 10 2
[print i]
This is very close to C for loop.
I usually program by functions in an "instinctive" manner, but my current problem can be easily solved by objects, so I go ahead with this method.
Doing so, I am trying to find a way to give an object a constructor method, the equivalent of init() in python, for example.
I looked in the http://www.rebol.com/docs/core-fr/fr-index.html documentation, but I couldn't find anything relevant.
There is no special constructor function in Rebol, but there is a possibility to write ad hoc init code if you need it on object's creation in the spec block. For example:
a: context [x: 123]
b: make a [
y: x + 1
x: 0
]
So, if you define your own "constructor" function by convention in the base object, you can call it the spec block on creation. If you want to make it automatic, you can wrap that in a function, like this:
a: context [
x: 123
init: func [n [integer!]][x: n]
]
new-a: func [n [integer!]][make a [init n]]
b: new-a 456
A more robust (but bit longer) version of new-a that would avoid the possible collision of passed arguments to init with object's own words would be:
new-a: func [n [integer!] /local obj][
also
obj: make a []
obj/init n
]
You could also write a more generic new function that would take a base object as first argument and automatically invoke a constructor-by-convention function after cloning the object, but supporting optional constructor arguments in a generic way is then more tricky.
Remember that the object model of Rebol is prototype-based (vs class-based in Python and most other OOP languages), so the "constructor" function gets duplicated for each new object created. You might want to avoid such cost if you are creating a huge number of objects.
To my knowledge, there is no formal method/convention for using object constructors such as init(). There is of course the built-in method of constructing derivative objects:
make prototype [name: "Foo" description: "Bar"]
; where type? prototype = object!
My best suggestion would be to define a function that inspects an object for a constructor method, then applies that method, here's one such function that I've proposed previously:
new: func [prototype [object!] args [block! none!]][
prototype: make prototype [
if in self 'new [
case [
function? :new [apply :new args]
block? :new [apply func [args] :new [args]]
]
]
]
]
The usage is quite straightforward: if a prototype object has a new value, then it will be applied in the construction of the derivative object:
thing: context [
name: description: none
new: [name: args/1 description: args/2]
]
derivative: new thing ["Foo" "Bar"]
note that this approach works in both Rebol 2 and 3.
Actually, by reading again the Rebol Core documentation (I just followed the good old advice: "Read The French Manual"), there is another way to implement a constructor, quite simple:
http://www.rebol.com/docs/core-fr/fr-rebolcore-10.html#section-8
Of course it is also in The English Manual:
http://www.rebol.com/docs/core23/rebolcore-10.html#section-7
=>
Another example of using the self variable is a function that clones
itself:
person: make object! [
name: days-old: none
new: func [name' birthday] [
make self [
name: name'
days-old: now/date - birthday
]
]
]
lulu: person/new "Lulu Ulu" 17-May-1980
print lulu/days-old
7366
I find this quite convenient, and this way, the constructor lies within the object. This fact makes the object more self-sufficient.
I just implemented that successfully for some geological stuff, and it works well:
>> source orientation
orientation: make object! [
matrix: []
north_reference: "Nm"
plane_quadrant_dip: ""
new: func [{Constructor, builds an orientation object! based on a measurement, as given by GeolPDA device, a rotation matrix represented by a suite of 9 values} m][
make self [
foreach [a b c] m [append/only matrix to-block reduce [a b c]]
a: self/matrix/1/1
b: self/matrix/1/2
c: self/matrix/1/3
d: self/matrix/2/1
e: self/matrix/2/2
f: self/matrix/2/3
g: self/matrix/3/1
h: self/matrix/3/2
i: self/matrix/3/3
plane_normal_vector: reduce [matrix/1/3
matrix/2/3
matrix/3/3
]
axis_vector: reduce [self/matrix/1/2
self/matrix/2/2
self/matrix/3/2
]
plane_downdip_azimuth: azimuth_vector plane_normal_vector
plane_direction: plane_downdip_azimuth - 90
if (plane_direction < 0) [plane_direction: plane_direction - 180]
plane_dip: arccosine (plane_normal_vector/3)
case [
((plane_downdip_azimuth > 315) or (plane_downdip_azimuth <= 45)) [plane_quadrant_dip: "N"]
((plane_downdip_azimuth > 45) and (plane_downdip_azimuth <= 135)) [plane_quadrant_dip: "E"]
((plane_downdip_azimuth > 135) and (plane_downdip_azimuth <= 225)) [plane_quadrant_dip: "S"]
((plane_downdip_azimuth > 225) and (plane_downdip_azimuth <= 315)) [plane_quadrant_dip: "W"]
]
line_azimuth: azimuth_vector axis_vector
line_plunge: 90 - (arccosine (axis_vector/3))
]
]
repr: func [][
print rejoin ["Matrix: " tab self/matrix
newline
"Plane: " tab
north_reference to-string to-integer self/plane_direction "/" to-string to-integer self/plane_dip "/" self/plane_quadrant_dip
newline
"Line: " tab
rejoin [north_reference to-string to-integer self/line_azimuth "/" to-string to-integer self/line_plunge]
]
]
trace_te: func [diagram [object!]][
len_queue_t: 0.3
tmp: reduce [
plane_normal_vector/1 / (square-root (((plane_normal_vector/1 ** 2) + (plane_normal_vector/2 ** 2))))
plane_normal_vector/2 / (square-root (((plane_normal_vector/1 ** 2) + (plane_normal_vector/2 ** 2))))
]
O: [0 0]
A: reduce [- tmp/2
tmp/1
]
B: reduce [tmp/2 0 - tmp/1]
C: reduce [tmp/1 * len_queue_t
tmp/2 * len_queue_t
]
L: reduce [- axis_vector/1 0 - axis_vector/2]
append diagram/plot [pen black]
diagram/trace_line A B
diagram/trace_line O C
diagram/trace_line O L
]
]
>> o: orientation/new [0.375471 -0.866153 -0.32985 0.669867 0.499563 -0.549286 0.640547 -0.0147148 0.767778]
>> o/repr
Matrix: 0.375471 -0.866153 -0.32985 0.669867 0.499563 -0.549286 0.640547 -0.0147148 0.767778
Plane: Nm120/39/S
Line: Nm299/0
Another advantage of this way is that variables defined by the "new" method directly belongs to the object "instance" (I ran into some trouble, with the other methods, having to mention self/ sometimes, having to initialize variables or not).
I'm trying to find out how OO works in REBOL. Prototypical indeed. Yesterday I came across this page, which inspired me to the classical OO model below, without duplication of functions:
;---- Generic function for class or instance method invocation ----;
invoke: func [
obj [object!]
fun [word!]
args [block!]
][
fun: bind fun obj/.class
;---- Class method names start with a dot and instance method names don't:
unless "." = first to-string fun [args: join args obj]
apply get fun args
]
;---- A class definition ----;
THIS-CLASS: context [
.class: self ; the class refers to itself
;---- Class method: create new instance ----;
.new: func [x' [integer!] /local obj] [
obj: context [x: x' .class: none] ; this is the object definition
obj/.class: self/.class ; the object will refer to the class
; it belongs to
return obj
]
;---- An instance method (last argument must be the instance itself) ----;
add: func [y obj] [
return obj/x + y
]
]
Then you can do this:
;---- First instance, created from its class ----;
this-object: THIS-CLASS/.new 1
print invoke this-object 'add [2]
;---- Second instance, created from from a prototype ----;
that-object: this-object/.class/.new 2
print invoke that-object 'add [4]
;---- Third instance, created from from a prototype in another way ----;
yonder-object: invoke that-object '.new [3]
print invoke yonder-object 'add [6]
;---- Fourth instance, created from from a prototype in a silly way ----;
silly-object: yonder-object/.class/.class/.class/.class/.new 4
print silly-object/.class/add 8 silly-object
print this-object/.class/add 8 silly-object
print THIS-CLASS/add 8 silly-object
(It works in REBOL 2, and prints 3, 6, 9, 12, 12, 12 successively.) Hardly any overhead. Probably it won't be difficult to find a dozen of other solutions. Exactly that is the real problem: there are too many ways to do it. (Maybe we'd better use LoyalScript.)
Tryng out some smalltalk + TDD + "good practices" I've run into a kinda ugly block:
How do I do an assertion in GNU Smalltalk?
I'm just looking for a simple ifFalse: [Die] kind of thing
This is the code for assert: from Squeak (which I recommend you use rather than GNU):
assert: aBlock
"Throw an assertion error if aBlock does not evaluates to true."
aBlock value
ifFalse: [AssertionFailure signal: 'Assertion failed']
as well as
self assert: [ ... some block ]
works for blocks & non-blocks, since sending #value to Object returns self.
It has been suggested above to add #assert: to Object, but rather I'd add #assert to BlockClosure (or whatever [] class is in GNU Smalltalk).
assert
this value ifFalse: [AssertionFailure signal: 'Assertion failed']
and thus use as in
[ value notNil ] assert.
[ value > 0 ] assert.
[ list isEmpty not ] assert.
etcetera.
It is simple. In your test methods you write:
self assert: 1 + 1 = 2
But first you need to create a test class as a subclass of TestCase (in Squeak), for example:
TestCase subclass: #MyTest
Here you write testing methods, which names must always start with 'test', for instance :
testBasicArithmetics
self assert: 1 + 1 = 2