I am using a C library in my Objective C project. The C library offers the following function
void processData(...);
which can be used with 1, 2 or 3 parameters, where the first parameter is mandatory and can have different types int, double, long, float and the other two arguments are optional and have int and long values and can be in whatever order.
Examples of use of this function are:
int myInt = 2;
double myDouble = 1.23;
int dataQuality = 1;
long dataTimestamp= GET_NOW();
processData(myInt);
processData(myInt, dataQuality);
processData(myDouble, dataQuality, dataTimestamp);
processData(myDouble, dataTimestamp);
I need to make an Objetive C wrapper that uses DataType class to call processDatawith the correct parameters. The Data class has getters that allows to get the data type (first argument), its value and whether the second and third arguments have value and their value.
The problem is how to make this expansion? I think it must be done at compile time, and I think the only mechanism available in C to do so is macros. But I have never used them. The implementation should be something like this (the following is pseudocode, where the arguments list is evaluated at runtime, something that I guess should be replaced by macros in order to evaluate the arguments at compile time):
-(void) objetiveCProcessData: (Data) d {
argumentList = {}
switch (d.getDataType()) {
case INT_TYPE:
append(argumentList, d.getValueAsInt()); // <-- appends a value with type `int`
break;
case DOUBLE_TYPE:
append(argumentList, d.getValueAsDouble()); // <-- appends a value with type `double`
break;
...
}
if (d.hasQuality()) {
append(argumentList, d.getQuality());
}
if (d.hasTimeStamp()) {
append(argumentList, d.getTimestamp());
}
// Call to the C function with correct number and type of arguments
processData(argumentList);
}
Related
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
The Perl 6 Web site on functions says
Coercion types can help you to have a specific type inside a routine, but accept wider input. When the routine is called, the argument is automatically converted to the narrower type.
sub double(Int(Cool) $x) {
2 * $x
}
say double '21'; # 42
say double Any; # Type check failed in binding $x; expected 'Cool' but got 'Any'
Here the Int is the target type to which the argument will be coerced, and Cool is the type that the routine accepts as input.
But what is the point for the sub? Isn't $x just an Int? Why would you restrict the caller to implement Cool for the argument?
I'm doubly confused by the example because Int already is Cool. So I did an example where the types don't share a hierarchy:
class Foo { method foomethod { say 'foomethod' } }
class Bar {}
class Quux is Foo {
# class Quux { # compile error
method Bar { Bar.new }
}
sub foo(Bar(Foo) $c) {
say $c.WHAT; # (Bar)
# $c.foomethod # fails if uncommented: Method 'foomethod' not found for invocant of class 'Bar'
}
foo(Quux.new)
Here the invocant of foo is restricted to provide a Foo that can be converted to a Bar but foo cannot even call a method of Foo on $c because its type is Bar. So why would foo care that the to-be-coerced type is a Foo in the first place?
Could someone shed some light on this? Links to appropriate documentation and parts of the spec are appreciated as well. I couldn't find anything useful there.
Update Having reviewed this answer today I've concluded I had completely misunderstood what #musiKk was getting at. This was revealed most clearly in #darch's question and #musiKk's response:
#darch: Or is your question why one might prefer Int(Cool) over Int(Any)? If that's the case, that would be the question to ask.
#musiKk: That is exactly my question. :)
Reviewing the many other answers I see none have addressed it the way I now think it warrants addressing.
I might be wrong of course so what I've decided to do is leave the original question as is, in particular leaving the title as is, and leave this answer as it was, and instead write a new answer addressing #darch's reformulation.
Specify parameter type, with no coercion: Int $x
We could declare:
sub double (Int $x) { ... } # Accept only Int. (No coercion.)
Then this would work:
double(42);
But unfortunately typing 42 in response to this:
double(prompt('')); # `prompt` returns the string the user types
causes the double call to fail with Type check failed in binding $x; expected Int but got Str ("42") because 42, while looking like a number, is technically a string of type Str, and we've asked for no coercion.
Specify parameter type, with blanket coercion: Int() $x
We can introduce blanket coercion of Any value in the sub's signature:
sub double (Int(Any) $x) { ... } # Take Any value. Coerce to an Int.
Or:
sub double (Int() $x) { ... } # Same -- `Int()` coerces from Any.
Now, if you type 42 when prompted by the double(prompt('')); statement, the run-time type-check failure no longer applies and instead the run-time attempts to coerce the string to an Int. If the user types a well-formed number the code just works. If they type 123abc the coercion will fail at run-time with a nice error message:
Cannot convert string to number: trailing characters after number in '123⏏abc'
One problem with blanket coercion of Any value is that code like this:
class City { ... } # City has no Int coercion
my City $city;
double($city);
fails at run-time with the message: "Method 'Int' not found for invocant of class 'City'".
Specify parameter type, with coercion from Cool values: Int(Cool) $x
We can choose a point of balance between no coercion and blanket coercion of Any value.
The best class to coerce from is often the Cool class, because Cool values are guaranteed to either coerce nicely to other basic types or generate a nice error message:
# Accept argument of type Cool or a subclass and coerce to Int:
sub double (Int(Cool) $x) { ... }
With this definition, the following:
double(42);
double(prompt(''));
works as nicely as it can, and:
double($city);
fails with "Type check failed in binding $x; expected Cool but got City (City)" which is arguably a little better diagnostically for the programmer than "Method 'Int' not found for invocant of class 'City'".
why would foo care that the to-be-coerced type is a Foo in the first place?
Hopefully it's now obvious that the only reason it's worth limiting the coerce-from-type to Foo is because that's a type expected to successfully coerce to a Bar value (or, perhaps, fail with a friendly message).
Could someone shed some light on this? Links to appropriate documentation and parts of the spec are appreciated as well. I couldn't find anything useful there.
The document you originally quoted is pretty much all there is for enduser doc. Hopefully it makes sense now and you're all set. If not please comment and we'll go from there.
What this does is accept a value that is a subtype of Cool, and tries to transform it into an Int. At that point it is an Int no matter what it was before.
So
sub double ( Int(Cool) $n ) { $n * 2 }
can really be thought of as ( I think this is how it was actually implemented in Rakudo )
# Int is a subtype of Cool otherwise it would be Any or Mu
proto sub double ( Cool $n ) {*}
# this has the interior parts that you write
multi sub double ( Int $n ) { $n * 2 }
# this is what the compiler writes for you
multi sub double ( Cool $n ) {
# calls the other multi since it is now an Int
samewith Int($n);
}
So this accepts any of Int, Str, Rat, FatRat, Num, Array, Hash, etc. and tries to convert it into an Int before calling &infix:<*> with it, and 2.
say double ' 5 '; # 25
say double 2.5; # 4
say double [0,0,0]; # 6
say double { a => 0, b => 0 }; # 4
You might restrict it to a Cool instead of Any as all Cool values are essentially required to provide a coercion to Int.
( :( Int(Any) $ ) can be shortened to just :( Int() $ ) )
The reason you might do this is that you need it to be an Int inside the sub because you are calling other code that does different things with different types.
sub example ( Int(Cool) $n ) returns Int {
other-multi( $n ) * $n;
}
multi sub other-multi ( Int $ ) { 10 }
multi sub other-multi ( Any $ ) { 1 }
say example 5; # 50
say example 4.5; # 40
In this particular case you could have written it as one of these
sub example ( Cool $n ) returns Int {
other-multi( Int($n) ) * Int($n);
}
sub example ( Cool $n ) returns Int {
my $temp = Int($n);
other-multi( $temp ) * $temp;
}
sub example ( Cool $n is copy ) returns Int {
$n = Int($n);
other-multi( $n ) * $n;
}
None of them are as clear as the one that uses the signature to coerce it for you.
Normally for such a simple function you can use one of these and it will probably do what you want.
my &double = * * 2; # WhateverCode
my &double = * × 2; # ditto
my &double = { $_ * 2 }; # bare block
my &double = { $^n * 2 }; # block with positional placeholder
my &double = -> $n { $n * 2 }; # pointy block
my &double = sub ( $n ) { $n * 2 } # anon sub
my &double = anon sub double ( $n ) { $n * 2 } # anon sub with name
my &double = &infix:<*>.assuming(*,2); # curried
my &double = &infix:<*>.assuming(2);
sub double ( $n ) { $n * 2 } # same as :( Any $n )
Am I missing something? I'm not a Perl 6 expert, but it appears the syntax allows one to specify independently both what input types are permissible and how the input will be presented to the function.
Restricting the allowable input is useful because it means the code will result in an error, rather than a silent (useless) type conversion when the function is called with a nonsensical parameter.
I don't think an example where the two types are not in a hierarchical relationship makes sense.
Per comments on the original question, a better version of #musiKk's question "What is the point of coercions like Int(Cool)?" turned out to be:
Why might one prefer Int(Cool) over Int(Any)?
A corollary, which I'll also address in this answer, is:
Why might one prefer Int(Any) over Int(Cool)?
First, a list of various related options:
sub _Int_strong (Int $) {} # Argument must be Int
sub _Int_cool (Int(Cool) $) {} # Argument must be Cool; Int invoked
sub _Int_weak (Int(Any) $) {} # Argument must be Any; Int invoked
sub _Int_weak2 (Int() $) {} # same
sub _Any (Any $) {} # Argument must be Any
sub _Any2 ( $) {} # same
sub _Mu (Mu $) {} # Weakest typing - just memory safe (Mu)
_Int_strong val; # Fails to bind if val is not an Int
_Int_cool val; # Fails to bind if val is not Cool. Int invoked.
_Int_weak val; # Fails to bind if val is not Any. Int invoked.
_Any val; # Fails to bind if val is Mu
_Mu val; # Will always bind. If val is a native value, boxes it.
Why might one prefer Int(Cool) over Int(Any)?
Because Int(Cool) is slightly stronger typing. The argument must be of type Cool rather than the broader Any and:
Static analysis will reject binding code written to pass an argument that isn't Cool to a routine whose corresponding parameter has the type constraint Int(Cool). If static analysis shows there is no other routine candidate able to accept the call then the compiler will reject it at compile time. This is one of the meanings of "strong typing" explained in the last section of this answer.
If a value is Cool then it is guaranteed to have a well behaved .Int conversion method. So it will not yield a Method not found error at run-time and can be relied on to provide a good error message if it fails to produce a converted to integer value.
Why might one prefer Int(Any) over Int(Cool)?
Because Int(Any) is slightly weaker typing in that the argument can be of any regular type and P6 will just try and make it work:
.Int will be called on an argument that's passed to a routine whose corresponding parameter has the type constraint Int(...) no matter what the ... is. Provided the passed argument has an .Int method the call and subsequent conversion has a chance of succeeding.
If the .Int fails then the error message will be whatever the .Int method produces. If the argument is actually Cool then the .Int method will produce a good error message if it fails to convert to an Int. Otherwise the .Int method is presumably not a built in one and the result will be pot luck.
Why Foo(Bar) in the first place?
And what's all this about weak and strong typing?
An Int(...) constraint on a function parameter is going to result in either:
A failure to type check; or
An.Int conversion of the corresponding argument that forces it to its integer value -- or fails, leaving the corresponding parameter containing a Failure.
Using Wikipedia definitions as they were at the time of writing this answer (2019) this type checking and attempted conversion will be:
strong typing in the sense that a type constraint like Int(...) is "use of programming language types in order to both capture invariants of the code, and ensure its correctness, and definitely exclude certain classes of programming errors";
Currently weak typing in Rakudo in the sense that Rakudo does not check the ... in Int(...) at compile time even though in theory it could. That is, sub double (Int $x) {}; double Date; yields a compile time error (Calling double(Date) will never work) whereas sub double (Int(Cool) $x) {}; double Date; yields a run time error (Type check failed in binding).
type conversion;
weak typing in the sense that it's implicit type conversion in the sense that the compiler will handle the .Int coercion as part of carrying out the call;
explicit type conversion in the sense that the Int(...) constraint is explicitly directing the compiler to do the conversion as part of binding a call;
checked explicit type conversion -- P6 only does type safe conversions/coercions.
I believe the answer is as simple as you may not want to restrict the argument to Int even though you will be treating it as Int within the sub. say for some reason you want to be able to multiply an Array by a Hash, but fail if the args can't be treated as Int (i.e. is not Cool).
my #a = 1,2,3;
my %h = 'a' => 1, 'b' => 2;
say #a.Int; # 3 (List types coerced to the equivalent of .elems when treated as Int)
say %h.Int; # 2
sub m1(Int $x, Int $y) {return $x * $y}
say m1(3,2); # 6
say m1(#a,%h); # does not match
sub m2(Int(Cool) $x, Int(Cool) $y) {return $x * $y}
say m2('3',2); # 6
say m2(#a,%h); # 6
say m2('foo',2); # does not match
of course, you could also do this without the signature because the math operation will coerce the type automatically:
sub m3($x,$y) {return $x * $y}
say m3(#a,%h); # 6
however, this defers your type check to the inside of the sub, which kind of defeats the purpose of a signature and prevents you from making the sub a multi
All subtypes of Cool will be (as Cool requires them to) coerced to an Int. So if an operator or routine internal to your sub only works with Int arguments, you don't have to add an extra statement/expression converting to an Int nor does that operator/routine's code need to account for other subtypes of Cool. It enforces that the argument will be an Int inside of your sub wherever you use it.
Your example is backwards:
class Foo { method foomethod { say 'foomethod' } }
class Bar {}
class Quux is Bar {
method Foo { Foo.new }
}
sub foo(Foo(Bar) $c) {
#= converts $c of type Bar to type Foo
#= returns result of foomethod
say $c.WHAT; #-> (Foo)
$c.foomethod #-> foomethod
}
foo(Quux.new)
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.
I want make a function to include in my code to calculate percentages.
In Php, it's :
function percent(a,b){
return a/b*100;
}
In Objective C, I don't know. I tried:
-(void)percent(a,b){
return a/b*100;
}
But there are 2 errors. Could you me explain how to make it work?
Thank you for you help
A method is defined in a slightly different syntax than you're used to:
- (float)percentWithA:(float)a dividedByB:(float)b
{
return a / b * 100;
}
The parameters are "strewn" throughout the method call. For instance, this method's name would be percentWithA:dividedByB:. You don't need to be as explicit as this call, however. For example, you could do this:
- (float)percent:(float)a :(float)b { /* ... */ }
But it doesn't provide much context.
The more correct way to do this will be:
- (float)precentageByDevidingFloat:(float)a byFloat:(float)b {
float returnValue = 0;
if (b != 0)
returnValue = a / b * 100;
return returnValue;
}
This way you use a more correct naming convention , you actually return a float and your safe in case some one gave you the value 0 in B.
(which should be covered by documentation)
You could also do it like this, with a C function:
// in your .h
float percent(float a, float b);
// in your .m or .c
float percent(float a, float b)
{
return a / b * 100.0f;
}
Or, if you are into macros:
// remember to always enclose macros in parentheses
#define percent(a, b) (a / b * 100.0f)
And you would call it like this:
percent(50, 20);
Objective-C uses a strange convention of having parameter names as part of a method name and therefore parameter declarations are embedded in a method name.
-(float)percentOf:(float)a over:(float)b
{
return (a/b) * 100.0;
}
The first type in parentheses defines the return type, the parameters come after colons and also have their type in parentheses.
I have a C array in Objective C defined as follows:
id keysArray;
Then in an if block, i would like to redefine the array based on a condition:
if (somethingIsTrue){
id keysArray[4][3];
}
else {
id keysArray[6][1];
}
Then outside of the if block, when i access the array, i get errors saying the keysArray does not exist.
Thanks.
That's because when you leave the scope of the if, all local variables defined within that scope are destroyed. If you want to do this, you will have to use dynamic allocation. I don't know the Objective C way of doing things, but in regular C you shall use malloc.
In C, once created, arrays cannot change size. For that you need pointers and malloc() and friends.
In C99 there's a new functionality called "variable length array" (VLA) which allows you to use arrays with lengths defined at run time (but fixed for the duration of the object)
while (1) {
/* C99 only */
int rows = 1 + rand() % 10; /* 1 to 10 */
int cols = 1 + rand() % 10; /* 1 to 10 */
{
int array[rows][cols];
/* use array, different sizes every time through the loop */
}
}