Is it possible create an IMP where the number of parameters matches the selector for the instance method being resolved?
I could use an 'if' statement and a finite number of parameters (say between 0 and 10), but is it possible to have eg IMP_implementationWithBlock with va_args ?
You can't create a function at runtime in C; the number of parameters has to be known at compile time.
You can use a variadic function to pretend that you have a function with any number of arguments, (I've included this usage in a recent project) but this may not be portable and is probably Undefined Behavior.
If you need to move arguments between functions where the signatures and arguments are not known until runtime, you almost certainly want to look into libffi.
Mike Ash has a few really useful posts about it: http://www.mikeash.com/pyblog/?tag=libffi
that's where I got started and learned most of what I know about it.
Related
From the docs that say,
Returns the self-reference to the instance itself:
my $b; # defaults to Any
say $b.serial.^name; # OUTPUT: «Any»
my $breakfast = 'food';
$breakfast.serial.say; # OUTPUT: «food»
I do not have the foggiest what this routine does, please can someone explain?
On Supplys, it is an informational method that is supposed to indicate whether there will never be any concurrent emit on that Supply.
On HyperSeq and RaceSeq, it returns a serialized Seq, so you could consider it the opposite of the hyper and race method.
In general, it appears to return itself, which seems to make sense from the HyperSeq and RaceSeq point of view.
And yes, these should be documented properly, so please create a documentation issue. Thank you!
In the doc example it does nothing. That is, if you remove it you get the same results:
my $b; # defaults to Any
say $b.^name; # OUTPUT: «Any»
my $breakfast = 'food';
$breakfast.say; # OUTPUT: «food»
More generally, I think you'd best ignore the serial method other than to open a doc issue pointing to this SO if you'd like to improve the doc.
The serial method does not appear to be in the official language
A search of the roast repo for "serial" yields zero matches.
Within Rakudo source code the method name serial has been overloaded to have one of three meanings:
A boolean declaring whether a Supply sequence is always serial. Rakudo source examples: 1, 2. This looks to me like an internal method that doesn't need to be documented.
A coercion of parallel sequence (hyper or race) to a serial version of the same sequence. This looks to me like an internal method that doesn't need to be documented.
A "no op" that returns its invocant. I suspect it would be best if it were not documented, at least until such time as its raison d'etre is clear; its official status viz-a-viz the spec (roast) is clear; and/or there's an attempt to systematically document which operations have the is nodal set on them.
None of the above seems to warrant ordinary users' attention or documentation.
The Any class definition of a serial method seems pointless
The Any class serial method returns self, i.e. when called it is a no op.
I don't currently understand why there is an Any class definition.
One possible point for it would be that there are .serial calls made by internal code on instances of an unknown and generally unknowable class and there thus needs to be a default definition of serial in the Any class.
But a search of the rakudo repo for ".serial" suggests that calls are only made to supplies or hyper/race seqs.
That said, I note the is nodal trait on the proto serial declaration in Any that immediately precedes the multi method serial declaration. Perhaps that is the reason it's in Any.
See also Arbitrary drift of methods to Mu and Any.
The documentation you quoted seems pointless
The definition and example seem to reflect someone's sense of humor. I applaud use of humor but in this case I suspect the best improvement would be to just remove the page you linked.
A question for CMake experts out-there.
According to the CMake function documentation a function simply does not return anything. To change variable values one has to pass it to the function, and inside the function set the new value specifying the PARENT_SCOPE option.
Fine, this is a well-known feature of CMake.
My question here is not about the how, rather on why: why CMake functions do not return values? What is the idea behind?
For example, a function cannot be used inside a if expression, or called inside a set command.
If I remember correctly, it is the same with autotools, therefore I do not think it is like this just by chance.
Is there any expert that knows why?
You can find a partial answer by Ken Martin in a message from the CMake's mailing list:
With respect to the general question of functions returning values it
could be done but it is a bit of a big change. Functions and commands
look the same (and should act the same IMO) to the people using them.
So really we are talking about commands returning values. This is
mostly just a syntax issue. Right now we have
command(arg arg arg
)
to support return values we need something that could handle
command (arg command2(arg arg) arg arg
)
or in your case
if(assertdef(foo))
or in another case
set(foo get_property(
))
etc. This hits the parser and the argument processing in CMake but I
think it could be done. I guess I’m not sure if we should do it.
Open to opinions here.
Is it possible to create variables to be a specific type in Lua?
E.g. int x = 4
If this is not possible, is there at least some way to have a fake "type" shown before the variable so that anyone reading the code will know what type the variable is supposed to be?
E.g. function addInt(int x=4, int y=5), but x/y could still be any type of variable? I find it much easier to type the variable's type before it rather than putting a comment at above the function to let any readers know what type of variable it is supposed to be.
The sole reason I'm asking isn't to limit the variable to a specific data type, but simply to have the ability to put a data type before the variable, whether it does anything or not, to let the reader know what type of variable that it is supposed to be without getting an error.
You can do this using comments:
local x = 4 -- int
function addInt(x --[[int]],
y --[[int]] )
You can make the syntax a = int(5) from your other comment work using the following:
function int(a) return a end
function string(a) return a end
function dictionary(a) return a end
a = int(5)
b = string "hello, world!"
c = dictionary({foo = "hey"})
Still, this doesn't really offer any benefits over a comment.
The only way I can think of to do this, would be by creating a custom type in C.
Lua Integer type
No. But I understand your goal is to improve understanding when reading and writing functions calls.
Stating the expected data type of parameters adds only a little in terms of giving a specification for the function. Also, some function parameters are polymorphic, accepting a specific value, or a function or table from which to obtain the value for a context in which the function operates. See string.gsub, for example.
When reading a function call, the only thing known at the call site is the name of the variable or field whose value is being invoked as a function (sometimes read as the "name" of the function) and the expressions being passed as actual parameters. It is sometimes helpful to refactor parameter expressions into named local variables to add to the readability.
When writing a function call, the name of the function is key. The names of the formal parameters are also helpful. But still, names (like types) do not comprise much of a specification. The most help comes from embedded structured documentation used in conjunction with an IDE that infers the context of a name and performs content assistance and presentations of available documentation.
luadoc is one such a system of documentation. You can write luadoc for function you declare.
Eclipse Koneki LDT is one such an IDE. Due to the dynamic nature of Lua, it is a difficult problem so LDT is not always as helpful as one would like. (To be clear, LDT does not use luadoc; It evolved its own embedded documentation system.)
Out of interest, how are method names stored in memory in compiled Objective-C? The main reason of interest is understanding dynamic typing better.
Thanks in advance!
The source for the runtime is available, btw, if you really want to go deep.
In short; method names -- their selectors -- are stored as C strings in the mach-o of the binary. I.e. if you have a method -(void)foo:(int)a bar:(int)b;, there will be a selector foo:bar: string in the mach-o.
Type encoding information is also stored in a different segment of the mach-o file. That type information -- for which there is API in the runtime to retrieve it -- describes the type of the return value and arguments to the method.
Note that the type information is incomplete. Note also that using the type information to figure out how to generically encode/decode the arguments to and return value from a method is a downright pain.
I came across some sample code in VB.Net which I have some experience with and kinda having a duh moment figuring out the meaning of :=.
RefreshNavigationImages(bForward:=True, startIndex:=-1)
The sig for this method is RefreshNavigationImages(boolean, int). Is this a default value if null? Like "bIsSomething ?? false"?
Tried to bing/google but they just don't like searching for operators especially if it's only 2 chars.
They are named parameters. They let you specify values for arguments in function calls by name rather than order.
The := indicates the use of named parameters. Rather than relying on the order of the parameters in the method declaration, named parameters allow you to specify the correlation of parameters to values by specifying the name of the parameter.