I am currently writing a wrapper for a native C++ class in CLI/C++. I am on a little GamePacket class at the moment. Consider the following class:
public ref class GamePacket
{
public:
GamePacket();
~GamePacket();
generic<typename T>
where T : System::ValueType
void Write(T value)
{
this->bw->Write(value);
}
};
I want that I'm able to call the function as following in C#, using my Wrapper:
Packet.Write<Int32>(1234);
Packet.Write<byte>(1);
However, I can't compile my wrapper. Error:
Error 1 error C2664: 'void System::IO::BinaryWriter::Write(System::String ^)' : cannot convert argument 1 from 'T' to 'bool'
I don't understand this error, where does the System::String^ comes from. I'm seeing a lot of overloads of the Write() method, does CLI/C++ not call the correct one, and if so, how can I make it call the correct one?
Reference MSDN: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.io.binarywriter.write(v=vs.110).aspx
Templates and generics don't work the same.
With templates, the code gets recompiled for each set of parameters, and the results can be pretty different (different local variable types, different function overloads selected). Specialization makes this really powerful.
With generics, the code only gets compiled once, and the overload resolution is done without actually knowing the final parameters. So when you call Write(value), the only things the compiler knows is that
value can be converted to Object^, because everything can
value derives from ValueType, because your constraint tells it
Unfortunately, using just that information, the compiler can't find an overload of Write that can be used.
It seems like you expected it to use Write(bool) when T is bool, Write(int) when T is int, and so on. Templates would work like that. Generics don't.
Your options are:
a dozen different copies of your method, each of which has a fixed argument type that can be used to select the right overload of BinaryWrite::Write
find the overload yourself using reflection, make a delegate matching the right overload, and call it
use expression trees or the dynamic language runtime to find and make a delegate matching the right overload, and then you call it
Related
I don't or can't modify the Java source code. The goal to configure just the Kotlin compiler to know what is nullable and what isn't.
You can specify the type manually if you know something will never be null. For example, if you have the following Java code:
public static Foo test() {
return null;
}
and you call it in Kotlin like this:
val result = Foo.test()
then result will have a type of Foo! by default – which means it can be either Foo or Foo?.. the compiler doesn't have enough information to determine that.
However, you can force the type manually:
val result: Foo = Foo.test()
// use "result" as a non-nullable type
Of course, if at runtime that is not true, you'll get a NullPointerException.
For reference, please check the documentation.
I don't know of a way to configure the compiler for this, but IntelliJ IDEA has a feature that allows you to add annotations to code via an XML file called external annotations.
You can add the Jetbrains #Nullable and #NotNull annotations to library code, but when I've tried it, it only results in compiler warnings rather than errors when you use incorrect nullability in your code. These same annotations generate compiler errors when used directly in the source code. I don't know why there is a difference in behavior.
You can use extension functions for this. If you have a method String foo() in the class Test, you can define the extension function
fun Test.safeFoo(): String = this.foo()!!
The advantage is that the code is pretty obious.
The disadvantage of this approach is that you need to write a lot of boiler plate code. You also have to define the extension function in a place where all your modules or projects can see it. Also, writing that much code just to avoid !! feels like overkill.
It should also be possible to write a Kotlin compiler extension which generates them for you but the extension would need to know which methods never return null.
this is the Interface:
Namespace IBasBS100
Public Interface IBasBSMoedas <DispId(0)> <Obsolete("This method is obsolete. Use Actualiza(BasBE100.BasBEMoeda objMoeda, ref string strAvisos) instead.", False)>
Sub Actualiza(objMoeda As BasBEMoeda, Optional strAvisos As String = "")
<DispId(18)>
Sub Actualiza(objMoeda As BasBEMoeda, ByRef strAvisos As String)
<DispId(2)>
when i try to call the function that is not depracated it gives me the ambiguous error message:
Dim avisos As String
Dim bsmoedas As IBasBSMoedas = MotorPRI.Base.Moedas
bsmoedas.Actualiza(m, avisos)
I think its calling the depracated method.
Is there any way that i could explicitly call the non depracated method "Actualiza(objMoeda As BasBEMoeda, ByRef strAvisos As String)"?
PS: I can not change the interface, it's an external Library
I can only assume that the interface code was written in C# because that VB code won't compile. In VB, you don't explicitly state when passing an argument by reference, so the there's no way to differentiate between those two methods when calling one in VB code. In C#, you specify the ref or out keyword when passing an argument by reference, so there is no ambiguity in which overload you are calling, so it's allowed.
In short, you cannot call that interface method in VB. You can implement the interface in a class in VB and use a different name for one of the methods but you'd still have to call it through the class, not the interface. If you want to be able to use that interface then you're going to have to do it in C# code. Perhaps write a library in C# for the code that uses that interface and then consume that in your VB app.
I guess the other alternative to do it in VB would be to do so via Reflection. Far from ideal but I don't see another way.
Primavera v10 funtions and VisualBasic aren't compatible with each other. Some may work, most won't. I would recommend changing to C# since this is the "supported" language of primavera.
How can i make an arraylist of functions, and call each function easily? I have already tried making an ArrayList<Function<Unit>>, but when i tried to do this:
functionList.forEach { it }
and this:
for(i in 0 until functionList.size) functionList[i]
When i tried doing this: it() and this: functionList[i](), but it wouldn't even compile in intellij. How can i do this in kotlin? Also, does the "Unit" in ArrayList<Function<Unit>> mean return value or parameters?
Just like this:
val funs:List<() -> Unit> = listOf({}, { println("fun")})
funs.forEach { it() }
The compiler can successfully infer the type of funs here which is List<() -> Unit>. Note that () -> Unit is a function type in Kotlin which represents a function that does not take any argument and returns Unit.
I think there are two problems with the use of the Function interface here.
The first problem is that it doesn't mean what you might think. As I understand it, it's a very general interface, implemented by all functions, however many parameters they take (or none). So it doesn't have any invoke() method. That's what the compiler is complaining about.
Function has several sub-interfaces, one for each 'arity' (i.e. one for each number of parameters): Function0 for functions that take no parameters, Function1 for functions taking one parameter, and so on. These have the appropriate invoke() methods. So you could probably fix this by replacing Function by Function0.
But that leads me on to the second problem, which is that the Function interfaces aren't supposed to be used this way. I think they're mainly for Java compatibility and/or for internal use by the compiler.
It's usually much better to use the Kotlin syntax for function types: (P1, P2...) -> R. This is much easier to read, and avoids these sorts of problems.
So the real answer is probably to replace Function<Unit> by () -> Unit.
Also, in case it's not clear, Kotlin doesn't have a void type. Instead, it has a type called Unit, which has exactly one value. This might seem strange, but makes better sense in the type system, as it lets the compiler distinguish functions that return without an explicit value, from those which don't return. (The latter might always throw an exception or exit the process. They can be defined to return Nothing -- a type with no values at all.)
Dart Editor version 1.2.0.release (STABLE). Dart SDK version 1.2.0.
This source code produces runtime exception.
void main() {
test(new Base());
}
void test(Child child) {
}
class Base {
}
class Child extends Base {
}
I assumed that the analyzer generates something like this.
The argument type 'Base' cannot be assigned to the parameter type 'Child'
But I can only detect this error at runtime when occurred this exception (post factum).
Unhandled exception:
type 'Base' is not a subtype of type 'Child' of 'child'.
The analyzer is following the language specification here.
It only warns if a the static type of the argument expression is not assignable to the type of function the parameter.
In Dart, expressions of one type is assignable to variables of another type if either type is a subtype of the other.
That is not a safe type check. It does not find all possible errors. On the other hand, it also does not disallow some correct uses like:
Base foo = new Child();
void action(Child c) { ... }
action(foo); // Perfectly correct code at runtime.
Other languages have safe assignment checks, but they also prevent some correct programs. You then have to add (unsafe/runtime checked) cast operators to tell the compiler that you know the program is safe. It's a trade-off where Dart has chosen to be permissive and avoid most casts.
Let's try to be polite and answer the question without any prejudice.
I think I understand what you expected and here my angle on what the error means:
You are invoking the method with the argument of type Base
The method is expecting an argument of type Child
The Child is not equal to the Base, neither is a subtype of it (as a fact it is the Child that is a subtype of the Base)
It is working as expected as it makes only sense to provide object of the expected type (or it's subtypes - specialisations).
Update:
After reading again your question I realised that you are pointing out that editor is not finding the type problem. I assume this is due to the point that Dart programs are dynamic and hence certain checks are not done before the runtime.
Hope it helps ;-)
There is a "NameAndType" structure in the constants pool in .class file.
It is used for dynamic binding.
All methods that class can "export" described as "signature + return type".
Like
"getVector()Ljava/util/Vector;"
That breakes my code when return type of the method in some .jar is changed, even if new type is narrower.
i.e:
I have the following code:
List l = some.getList();
External .jar contains:
public List getList()
Than external jar changes method signature to
public ArrayList getList().
And my code dies in run-time with NoSuchMethodException, because it can't find
getList()Ljava/util/List;
So, I have to recompile my code.
I do not have to change it. Just recompile absolutely the same code!
That also gives ability to have two methods with one signature, but different return types! Compiler would not accept it, but it is possible to do it via direct opcoding.
My questions is why?
Why they did it?
I have only one idea: to prevent sophisticated type checking in the runtime.
You need to look up to the hierarchy and check if there is a parent with List interface.
It takes time, and only compiler has it. JVM does not.
Am I right?
thanks.
One reason may be because method overloading (as opposed to overriding) is determined at compile time. Consider the following methods:
public void doSomething(List util) {}
public void doSomething(ArrayList util) {}
And consider code:
doSomething(getList());
If Java allowed the return type to change and did not throw an exception, the method called would still be doSomething(List) until you recompiled - then it would be doSomething(ArrayList). Which would mean that working code would change behavior just for having recompiled it.