I have a variable currently set globally, that I am using in two different require() functions. How can I have it passed from first require() to the other?
As far as I know: you don't. The only way to make them read the same data is by putting it somewhere so they both can read it. Because both require() functions are placed inside a normal JavaScript file, the only scope they share is the global scope.
The other possibility is by passing it to the callback function of the require(), but that means you have to write a "module" that returns your data (or use dojo/text plugin to read a file read-only).
It's not recommended to have two require() statements at all. If we're still talking about the same stopwatch (I've read your code a bit), you should put all event handlers in one require() block. Then you can put the data they both need inside that require() block and they will all be able to read it.
Some reasons why having multiple require() blocks is not beneficial:
Harder to read/maintain: If you have multiple require() blocks, it's confusing. Most people don't use it anyways (recommended or not).
More duplicates: If you're using common modules like dojo/query and dojo/dom, you will have to add them to your module list every time. I don't think it will download the file twice, but it's still more to write/maintain.
Scope issues: As you just noticed, you will have scoping issues like this when multiple require() blocks needs to access the same data. This means you have to put them in global scope (which is another bad practice), write a module with just plain data (not really useful) or you have to wrap both of them in a function, which you have to execute manually (confusing)
Seperation concerns: If you have a valid reason to seperate them, you should be seperating them into modules.
Related
I prefer working with files that are less than 1000 lines long, so am thinking of breaking up some Erlang modules into more bite-sized pieces.
Is there a way of doing this without expanding the public API of my library?
What I mean is, any time there is a module, any user can do module:func_exported_from_the_module. The only way to really have something be private that I know of is to not export it from any module (and even then holes can be poked).
So if there is technically no way to accomplish what I'm looking for, is there a convention?
For example, there are no private methods in Python classes, but the convention is to use a leading _ in _my_private_method to mark it as private.
I accept that the answer may be, "no, you must have 4K LOC files."
The closest thing to a convention is to use edoc tags, like #private and #hidden.
From the docs:
#hidden
Marks the function so that it will not appear in the
documentation (even if "private" documentation is generated). Useful
for debug/test functions, etc. The content can be used as a comment;
it is ignored by EDoc.
#private
Marks the function as private (i.e., not part of the public
interface), so that it will not appear in the normal documentation.
(If "private" documentation is generated, the function will be
included.) Only useful for exported functions, e.g. entry points for
spawn. (Non-exported functions are always "private".) The content can
be used as a comment; it is ignored by EDoc.
Please note that this answer started as a comment to #legoscia's answer
Different visibilities for different methods is not currently supported.
The current convention, if you want to call it that way, is to have one (or several) 'facade' my_lib.erl module(s) that export the public API of your library/application. Calling any internal module of the library is playing with fire and should be avoided (call them at your own risk).
There are some very nice features in the BEAM VM that rely on being able to call exported functions from any module, such as
Callbacks (funs/anonymous funs), MFA, erlang:apply/3: The calling code does not need to know anything about the library, just that it's something that needs to be called
Behaviours such as gen_server need the previous point to work
Hot reloading: You can upgrade the bytecode of any module without stopping the VM. The code server inside the VM maintains at most two versions of the bytecode for any module, redirecting external calls (those with the Module:) to the most recent version and the internal calls to the current version. That's why you may see some ?MODULE: calls in long-running servers, to be able to upgrade the code
You'd be able to argue that these points'd be available with more fine-grained BEAM-oriented visibility levels, true. But I don't think it would solve anything that's not solved with the facade modules, and it'd complicate other parts of the VM/code a great deal.
Bonus
Something similar applies to records and opaque types, records only exist at compile time, and opaque types only at dialyzer time. Nothing stops you from accessing their internals anywhere, but you'll only find problems if you go that way:
You insert a new field in the record, suddenly, all your {record_name,...} = break
You use a library that returns an opaque_adt(), you know that it's a list and use like so. The library is upgraded to include the size of the list, so now opaque_adt() is a tuple() and chaos ensues
Only those functions that are specified in the -export attribute are visible to other modules i.e "public" functions. All other functions are private. If you have specified -compile(export_all) only then all functions in module are visible outside. It is not recommended to use -compile(export_all).
I don't know of any existing convention for Erlang, but why not adopt the Python convention? Let's say that "library-private" functions are prefixed with an underscore. You'll need to quote function names with single quotes for that to work:
-module(bar).
-export(['_my_private_function'/0]).
'_my_private_function'() ->
foo.
Then you can call it as:
> bar:'_my_private_function'().
foo
To me, that communicates clearly that I shouldn't be calling that function unless I know what I'm doing. (and probably not even then)
I'd like to have a project-wide variable which I can change during looking at that project. In other words, I'd like to get it affected whenever opening a file. Yes, I know .dir-locals.el exist in Emacs world. But I think it would be reset to the value set in .dir-locals.el whenever opening a file under that project.
Could I get some hints from you, please?
For this kind of thing you might want to use a function instead of a variable (directly). Specifically, use a getter and setter function.
All of your project code can invoke the getter function to get the value (which can be cached in a variable). And all of your code can invoke the setter function to change the value (which, again, can be cached in a variable).
These functions can be visible globally to your project. The cache variable would be accessed only by the getter and setter functions.
But as for code everywhere in your project being informed when the value gets updated and do what's appropriate with the new value whenever that happens, see #Phil's comment about the use of a variable - the same considerations apply.
You can have a hook in the setter function (or advise it), so that it does something additional (e.g. informs interested/subscribed code) whenever it updates the value.
For a variable you can do something similar using, as #Phils said in a comment, using add-variable-watcher.
For a user-option variable you can do something similar using :set and :get functions in the defcustom. (But those take effect only if changes are made using appropriate Customize functions or the Customize UI.)
You can eval in the dir-locals.el So, if you have a variable my-var that you want to be able to change with setq you could do something like
((nil . ((eval . (or (boundp 'my-var) (setq my-var 'default))))))
There are warnings about using eval in a dir-local though, since any code could be run there.
I would like to share data between a plugin and my main function (this is, use it outside the call to the SCIPsolve function). For example, a branching rule sets a certain int variable to 1 and then, after the optimization is done I can go and check wether the variable was changes or not.
I thought I could accomplish this by using the plugin data (e.g. SCIP_BranchruleData) but it can't be accessed from outside the plugin's source file.
How can I do it?
I will appreciate any help.
Rodolfo
An easy solution is to add a getter function to the branchrule which you implement in branch_xyc.c and prototype in branch_xyz.h. Then your code needs to include the header file and you can access the fields in the branchdata.
See also the documentation of branch_allfullstrong.cpp where an external function is defined and you can see how to get the branchdata and branchrule when passing just a SCIP pointer.
I understand that the module! type provides a better structure for protected namespaces than object! or the 'use function. How are words bound within the module—I notice some errors related to unbound words:
REBOL [Type: 'module] set 'foo "Bar"
Also, how does Rebol distinguish between a word local to the module ('foo) and that of a system function ('set)?
Minor update, shortly after:
I see there's a switch that changes the method of binding:
REBOL [Type: 'module Options: [isolate]] set 'foo "Bar"
What does this do differently? What gotchas are there in using this method by default?
OK, this is going to be a little tricky.
In Rebol 3 there are no such things as system words, there are just words. Some words have been added to the runtime library lib, and set is one of those words, which happens to have a function assigned to it. Modules import words from lib, though what "import" means depends on the module options. That might be more tricky than you were expecting, so let me explain.
Regular Modules
For starters, I'll go over what importing means for "regular" modules, ones that don't have any options specified. Let's start with your first module:
REBOL [Type: 'module] set 'foo "Bar"
First of all, you have a wrong assumption here: The word foo is not local to the module, it's just the same as set. If you want to define foo as a local word you have to use the same method as you do with objects, use the word as a set-word at the top level, like this:
REBOL [Type: 'module] foo: "Bar"
The only difference between foo and set is that you hadn't exported or added the word foo to lib yet. When you reference words in a module that you haven't declared as local words, it has to get their values and/or bindings from somewhere. For regular modules, it binds the code to lib first, then overrides that by binding the code again to the module's local context. Any words defined in the local context will be bound to it. Any words not defined in the local context will retain their old bindings, in this case to lib. That is what "importing" means for regular modules.
In your first example, assuming that you haven't done so yourself, the word foo was not added to the runtime library ahead of time. That means that foo wasn't bound to lib, and since it wasn't declared as a local word it wasn't bound to the local context either. So as a result, foo wasn't bound to anything at all. In your code that was an error, but in other code it might not be.
Isolated Modules
There is an "isolate" option that changes the way that modules import stuff, making it an "isolated" module. Let's use your second example here:
REBOL [Type: 'module Options: [isolate]] set 'foo "Bar"
When an isolated module is made, every word in the module, even in nested code, is collected into the module's local context. In this case, it means that set and foo are local words. The initial values of those words are set to whatever values they have in lib at the time the module is created. That is, if the words are defined in lib at all. If the words don't have values in lib, they won't initially have values in the module either.
It is important to note that this import of values is a one-time thing. After that initial import, any changes to these words made outside the module don't affect the words in the module. That is why we say the module is "isolated". In the case of your code example, it means that someone could change lib/set and it wouldn't affect your code.
But there's another important module type you missed...
Scripts
In Rebol 3, scripts are another kind of module. Here's your code as a script:
REBOL [] set 'foo "Bar"
Or if you like, since script headers are optional in Rebol 3:
set 'foo "Bar"
Scripts also import their words from lib, and they import them into an isolated context, but with a twist: All scripts share the same isolated context, known as the "user" context. This means that when you change the value of a word in a script, the next script to use that word will see the change when it starts. So if after running the above script, you try to run this one:
print foo
Then it will print "Bar", rather than have foo be undefined, even though foo is still not defined in lib. You might find it interesting to know that if you are using Rebol 3 interactively, entering commands into the console and getting results, that every command line you enter is a separate script. So if your session looks like this:
>> x: 1
== 1
>> print x
1
The x: 1 and print x lines are separate scripts, the second taking advantage of the changes made to the user context by the first.
The user context is actually supposed to be task-local, but for the moment let's ignore that.
Why the difference?
Here is where we get back to the "system function" thing, and that Rebol doesn't have them. The set function is just like any other function. It might be implemented differently, but it's still a normal value assigned to a normal word. An application will have to manage a lot of these words, so that's why we have modules and the runtime library.
In an application there will be stuff that needs to change, and other stuff that needs to not change, and which stuff is which depends on the application. You will want to group your stuff, to keep things organized or for access control. There will be globally defined stuff, and locally defined stuff, and you will want to have an organized way to get the global stuff to the local places, and vice-versa, and resolve any conflicts when more than one thing wants to define stuff with the same name.
In Rebol 3, we use modules to group stuff, for convenience and access control. We use the runtime library lib as a place to collect the exports of the modules, and resolve conflicts, in order to control what gets imported to the local places like other modules and the user context(s). If you need to override some stuff, you do this by changing the runtime library, and if necessary propagating your changes out to the user context(s). You can even upgrade modules at runtime, and have the new version of the module override the words exported by the old version.
For regular modules, when things are overridden or upgraded, your module will benefit from such changes. Assuming those changes are a benefit, this can be a good thing. A regular module cooperates with other regular modules and scripts to make a shared environment to work in.
However, sometimes you need to stay separate from these kinds of changes. Perhaps you need a particular version of some function and don't want to be upgraded. Perhaps your module will be loaded in a less trustworthy environment and you don't want your code hacked. Perhaps you just need things to be more predictable. In cases like this, you may want to isolate your module from these kinds of external changes.
The downside to being isolated is that, if there are changes to the runtime library that you might want, you're not going to get them. If your module is somehow accessible (such as by having been imported with a name), someone might be able to propagate those changes to you, but if you're not accessible then you're out of luck. Hopefully you've thought to monitor lib for changes you want, or reference the stuff through lib directly.
Still, we've missed another important issue...
Exporting
The other part of managing the runtime library and all of these local contexts is exporting. You have to get your stuff out there somehow. And the most important factor is something that you wouldn't suspect: whether or not your module has a name.
Names are optional for Rebol 3's modules. At first this might seem like just a way to make it simpler to write modules (and in Carl's original proposal, that is exactly why). However, it turns out that there is a lot of stuff that you can do when you have a name that you can't when you don't, simply because of what a name is: a way to refer to something. If you don't have a name, you don't have a way to refer to something.
It might seem like a trivial thing, but here are some things that a name lets you do:
You can tell whether a module is loaded.
You can make sure a module is only loaded once.
You can tell whether an older version of a module was there earlier, and maybe upgrade it.
You can get access to a module that was loaded earlier.
When Carl decided to make names optional, he gave us a situation where it would be possible to make modules for which you couldn't do any of those things. Given that module exports were intended to be collected and organized in the runtime library, we had a situation where you could have effects on the library that you couldn't easily detect, and modules that got reloaded every time they were imported.
So for safety we decided to cut out the runtime library completely and just export words from these unnamed modules directly to the local (module or user) contexts that were importing them. This makes these modules effectively private, as if they are owned by the target contexts. We took a potentially awkward situation and made it a feature.
It was such a feature that we decided to support it explicitly with a private option. Making this an explicit option helps us deal with the last problem not having a name caused us: making private modules not have to reload over and over again. If you give a module a name, its exports can still be private, but it only needs one copy of what it's exporting.
However, named or not, private or not, that is 3 export types.
Regular Named Modules
Let's take this module:
REBOL [type: module name: foo] export bar: 1
Importing this adds a module to the loaded modules list, with the default version of 0.0.0, and exports one word bar to the runtime library. "Exporting" in this case means adding a word bar to the runtime library if it isn't there, and setting that word lib/bar to the value that the word foo/bar has after foo has finished executing (if it isn't set already).
It is worth noting that this automatic exporting happens only once, when the body of foo is finished executing. If you make a change to foo/bar after that, that doesn't affect lib/bar. If you want to change lib/bar too, you have to do it manually.
It is also worth noting that if lib/bar already exists before foo is imported, you won't have another word added. And if lib/bar is already set to a value (not unset), importing foo won't overwrite the existing value. First come, first served. If you want to override an existing value of lib/bar, you'll have to do so manually. This is how we use lib to manage overrides.
The main advantages that the runtime library gives us is that we can manage all of our exported words in one place, resolving conflicts and overrides. However, another advantage is that most modules and scripts don't actually have to say what they are importing. As long as the runtime library is filled in properly ahead of time with all the words you need, your script or module that you load later will be fine. This makes it easy to put a bunch of import statements and any overrides in your startup code which sets up everything the rest of your code will need. This is intended to make it easier to organize and write your application code.
Named Private Modules
In some cases, you don't want to export your stuff to the main runtime library. Stuff in lib gets imported into everything, so you should only export stuff to lib that you want to make generally available. Sometimes you want to make modules that only export stuff for the contexts that want it. Sometimes you have some related modules, a general facility and a utility module or so. If this is the case, you might want to make a private module.
Let's take this module:
REBOL [type: module name: foo options: [private]] export bar: 1
Importing this module doesn't affect lib. Instead, its exports are collected into a private runtime library that is local to the module or user context that is importing this module, along with those of any other private modules that the target is importing, then imported to the target from there. The private runtime library is used for the same conflict resolution that lib is used for. The main runtime library lib takes precedence over the private lib, so don't count on the private lib overriding global things.
This kind of thing is useful for making utility modules, advanced APIs, or other such tricks. It is also useful for making strong-modular code which requires explicit imports, if that is what you're into.
It's worth noting that if your module doesn't actually export anything, there is no difference between a named private module or a named public module, so it's basically treated as public. All that matters is that it has a name. Which brings us to...
Unnamed Modules
As explained above, if your module doesn't have a name then it pretty much has to be treated as private. More than private though, since you can't tell if it's loaded, you can't upgrade it or even keep from reloading it. But what if that's what you want?
In some cases, you really want your code run for effect. In these cases having your code rerun every time is what you want to do. Maybe it's a script that you're running with do but structuring as a module to avoid leaking words. Maybe you're making a mixin, some utility functions that have some local state that needs initializing. It could be just about anything.
I frequently make my %rebol.r file an unnamed module because I want to have more control over what it exports and how. Plus, since it's done for effect and doesn't need to be reloaded or upgraded there's no point in giving it a name.
No need for a code example, your earlier ones will act this way.
I hope this gives you enough of an overview of the design of R3's module system.
I need to serialize a function in Erlang, send it over to another note, deserialize and execute it there. The problem I am having is with files. If the function reads from a file which is not in the second node I am getting an error. Is there a way how I can differentiate between serializable and not serializable constructs in Erlang? Thus if a function makes use of a file or pid, then it fails to serialize?
Thanks
First of all, if you are sending anonymous functions, be extremely careful with that. Or, rather, just don't do it
There are a couple of cases when this function won't even be executed or will be executed in a completely wrong way.
Every function in Erlang, even an anonymous one, belongs to some module, in the one it's been constructed inside, to be precise. If this function has been built in REPL, it's bound to erl_eval module, which is even more dangerous (I'll explain further, why).
Say, you start two nodes, one of them has a module named 'foo', and one doesn't have such a module loaded (and cannot load it). If you construct a lambda inside the module 'foo', send it to the second node and try to call it, you'll fail with {error, undef}.
There can be another funny problem. Try to make two versions of module 'foo', implement a 'bar' function inside each of them and implement a lambda inside of which (but the lambdas will be different). You'll get yet another error when trying to call a sent lambda.
I think, there could possibly be other tricky parts of sending lambdas to different nodes, but trust me, that's already quite a lot.
Secondly, there are tons of way you can get a process or a port inside a lambda without knowing it in advance
Even though there is a way of catching closured variables from a lambda (if you take a look at a binarized lambda, all the external variables that are being used inside it are listed starting from the 2nd byte), they are not the only source of potential pids or ports.
Consider an easy example: you call a self() function inside your lambda. What will it return? Right, a pid. Okay, we can probably parse the binary and catch this function call, along with a dozen of other built-in functions. But what will you do when you are calling some external function? ets:lookup(sometable, somekey)? some_module:some_function_that_returns_god_knows_what()? You don't know what they are going to return.
Now, to what you can actually do here
When working with files, always send filenames, not descriptors. If you need file's position or something, send it as well. File descriptors shouldn't be known outside the process they've been opened.
As I mentioned, do everything to avoid lambdas to be sent to other nodes. It's hard to tell how to avoid that, since I don't know your exact task. Maybe, you can send a list of functions to execute, like:
[{module1, parse_query},
{module1, dispatch_parsed_query},
{module2, validate_response},
{module2, serialize_query}]
and pass arguments through this functions sequence (be sure all the modules exist everywhere). Maybe, you can actually stick to some module that is going to be frequently changed and deployed over the entire cluster. Maybe, you might want to switch to JS/Lua and use externally started ports (Riak is using spidermonkey to process JS-written lambdas for Map/Reduce requests). Finally, you can actually get module's object code, send it over to another node and load it there. Just keep in mind it's not safe too. You can break some running processes, lose some constructed lambdas, and so on.