The Rebol function set accepts an any-word! but repeat only accepts word!
Is there a particular reason that repeat could not also accept a lit-word! ?
repeat uses same syntax as foreach and similar functions. They all accept word! only. I guess there's no particular reason, it's just what people are used to.
lit-word! params can be a bit confusing. That is, when the param is a lit-word!, you're saying "don't evaluate it", so passing a word! means the func is already seeing it as a lit-word!.
R3 only supports word! args in foreach as well, which is more consistent. Things look much cleaner this way, and are the best model when you write your own control funcs and such.
Related
I mostly need this for logging where I need to pass in arbitrary arguments (ints floats, objects).
One solution is to write
let i:i32 = 1;
let f:f32 = 1.1;
log ("Message "+i.toString()+" "+f.toString())
This is very awkward and verbose to write.
You can also have multiple log functions, again awkward
log_i (msg:string, i:i32);
log_i2 (msg:string, i:i32, i2:i32);
log_f (msg:string, f:f32);
etc
Seems like you cannot have a generic array that holds i32, f32 and objects at the same time. So not even sure how to pass in varargs. Maybe I can box them but it is again awkward without auto-boxing.
What would be a good solution for this straightforward usecase?
Simply use Typescript style Template strings.
log (`Message ${i} and ${f}.`)
Assemblyscript will automatically generate the toString() and string concatenate statements.
Simple and concise
More expressive logs rather than put all arguments at the end.
No awkward function calls, varargs, etc.
Is there idiomatic way of applying and assigning object variable method call, but only if it's defined (both method and the result)?
Like using safe call operator .? and defined-or operator //, and with "DRY principle" – using the variable only once in the operation?
Like this (but using another variable feels like cheating):
my $nicevariable = "fobar";
# key step
(my $x := $nicevariable) = $x.?possibly-nonexistent-meth // $x;
say $nicevariable; # => possibly-nonexistent-meth (non-Nil) result or "foobar"
... And avoiding andthen, if possible.
Are you aware of the default trait on variables?
Not sure if it fits your use case, but $some-var.?unknown-method returns Nil, so:
my $nicevariable is default("fobar");
$nicevariable = $nicevariable.?possibly-nonexistent-meth;
say $nicevariable; # fobar
results in $nicevariable being reset to its default value;
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "using the variable only once in the operation". If Liz's answer qualifies, then it's probably the cleaner way to go.
If not, here's a different approach that avoids naming the variable twice:
my $nicevariable = "foobar";
$nicevariable.=&{.^lookup('possibly-nonexistent-meth')($_)}
This is a bit too cryptic for my tastes; here's what it does: If the method exists, then that's similar to¹ calling &method($nicevariable), which is the same as $nicevariable.method. If the method does not exist, then it's like calling Mu($nicevariable) – that is, coercing $nicevariable into Mu or a subtype of Mu. But since everything is already a subtype of Mu, that's a no-op and just returns $nicevariable.
[1]: Not quite, since &method would be a Sub, but basically.
EDIT:
Actually, that was over-complicating things. Here's a simpler version:
my $nicevariable = "foobar";
$nicevariable.=&{.?possibly-nonexistent-meth // $_}
Not sure why I didn't just have that to begin with…
Assuming the method returns something that is defined, you could do (if I'm understanding the question correctly):
my $x = "foobar";
$x = $_ with $y.?possibly-nonexistent-meth;
$x will remain unchanged if the method didn't exist (or it did exist and returned a type object).
As of this merge you can write:
try { let $foo .= bar }
This is a step short of what I think would have been an ideal solution, which is unfortunately a syntax error (due to a pervasive weakness in Raku's current grammar that I'm guessing is effectively unsolvable, much as I would love it to be solved):
{ let $foo .?= bar } # Malformed postfix call...
(Perhaps I'm imagining things, but I see a glimmer of hope that the above wrinkle (and many like it) will be smoothed over a few years from now. This would be after RakuAST lands for Raku .e, and the grammar gets a hoped for clean up in Raku .f or .g.)
Your question's title is:
Variable re-assign method result if not Nil
My solution does a variable re-assign method if not undefined, which is more general than just Nil.
Then again, your question's body asks for exactly that more general solution:
Is there idiomatic way of applying and assigning object variable method call, but only if it's defined (both method and the result)?
So is my solution an ideal one?
My solution is not idiomatic. But that might well be because of the bug I found, now solved with the merge linked at the start of my answer. I see no reason why it should not become idiomatic, once it's in shipping Rakudos.
The potentially big issue is that the try stores any exception thrown in $! rather than letting it blow up. Perhaps that's OK for a given use case; perhaps not.
Special thanks to you for asking your question, which prompted us to come up with various solutions, which led me to file an issue, which led vrurg to both analyse the problem I encountered and then fix it. :)
Forgive me if this is a kind of silly question, but I've been going through "Programming Elm" and one thing struck me as a little odd: in the text he shows an example of creating a record,
dog = { name = "Tucker", age = 11 }
and then right after that he shows a function that returns a record
haveBirthday d = { name = d.name, age = d.age + 1 }
To me, the syntax for both seems remarkably similar. How does the compiler know which is which? By the + on the right hand side of the function, that implies change, so it has to be a function? By the fact that there's an argument, d? Or is it that the difference between generating a record and a function is quite obvious, and it's just in this case that they seem so alike? Or is it that in some subtle way that I don't yet have the Zen to grasp, they are in fact the same thing? (That is, something like "everything is a function"?)
I've looked at https://elm-lang.org/docs/syntax#functions -- the docs are very user-friendly, but brief. Are there any other resources that give a more didactic view of the syntax (like this book does for Haskell)?
Thanks for any help along the way.
In an imperative language where "side-effects" are the norm, the term "function" is often used to describe what's more appropriately called a procedure or sub-routine. A set of instruction to be executed when called, and where order of execution and re-evaluation is essential because mutation and other side-effects can change anything from anywhere at any time.
In functional programming, however, the notion of a function is closer to the mathematical sense of the term, where its return value is computed entirely based on its arguments. This is especially true for a "pure" functional language like Elm, which normally does not allow "side-effects". That is, effects that interact with the "outside world" without going through the input arguments or return value. In a pure functional language it does not make sense to have a function that does not take any arguments, because it would always do the same thing, and computing the same value again and again is just wasteful. A function with no arguments is effectively just a value. And a function definition and value binding can therefore be distinguished solely based on whether or not it has any arguments.
But there are also many hybrid programming languages. Most functional languages are hybrids in fact, that allow side-effects but still stick close to the mathematical sense of a function. These languages also typically don't have functions without arguments, but use a special type called unit, or (), which has only one value, also called unit or (), which is used to denote a function that takes no significant input, or which returns nothing significant. Since unit has only one value, it carries no significant information.
Many functional languages don't even have functions that take multiple arguments either. In Elm and many other languages, a function takes exactly one argument. No more and no less, ever. You might have seen Elm code which appears to have multiple arguments, but that's all an illusion. Or syntax sugar as it's called in language theoretic lingo.
When you see a function definition like this:
add a b = a + b
that actual translates to this:
add = \a -> \b -> a + b
A function that takes an argument a, then returns another function which takes an argument b, which does the actual computation and returns the result. This is called currying.
Why do this? Because it makes it very convenient to partially apply functions. You can just leave out the last, or last few, arguments, then instead of an error you get a function back which you can fully apply later to get the result. This enables you to do some really handy things.
Let's look at an example. To fully apple add from above we'd just do:
add 2 3
The compiler actually parses this as (add 2) 3, so we've kind of done partial application already, but then immediately applied to another value. But what if we want to add 2 to a whole bunch of things and don't want write add 2 everywhere, because DRY and such? We write a function:
add2ToThings thing =
add 2 thing
(Ok, maybe a little bit contrived, but stay with me)
Partial application allows us to make this even shorter!
add2ToThings =
add 2
You see how that works? add 2 returns a function, and we just give that a name. There have been numerous books written about this marvellous idea in OOP, but they call it "dependency injection" and it's usually slightly more verbose when implemented with OOP techniques.
Anyway, say we have a list of "thing"s, we can get a new list with 2 added to everything by mapping over it like this:
List.map add2ToThings things
But we can do even better! Since add 2 is actually shorter than the name we gave it, we might as well just use it directly:
List.map (add 2) things
Ok, but then say we want to filter out every value that is exactly 5. We can actually partially apply infix operators too, but we have to surround the operator in parentheses to make it behave like an ordinary function:
List.filter ((/=) 5) (List.map (add 2) things)
This is starting to look a bit convoluted though, and reads backwards since we filter after we map. Fortunately we can use Elm's pipe operator |> to clean it up a bit:
things
|> List.map (add 2)
|> List.filter ((/=) 5)
The pipe operator was "discovered" because of partial application. Without that it couldn't have been implemented as an ordinary operator, but would have to be implemented as a special syntax rule in the parser. It's implementation is (essentially) just:
x |> f = f x
It takes an arbitrary argument on its left side and a function on its right side, then applies the function to the argument. And because of partial application we can conveniently get a function to pass in on the right side.
So in three lines of ordinary idiomatic Elm code we've used partial application four times. Without that, and currying, we'd have to write something like:
List.filter (\thing -> thing /= 5) (List.map (\thing -> add 2 thing) things)
Or we might want to write it with some variable bindings to make it more readable:
let
add2ToThings thing =
add 2 thing
thingsWith2Added =
List.map add2ToThings things
thingsWith2AddedAndWithout5 =
List.filter (\thing -> thing /= 5) thingWith2Added
in
thingsWith2AddedAndWithout5
And so that's why functional programming is awesome.
In Smalltalk (and specifically Pharo/Squeak) I want to know if it is OK to leave out the "[" and "]" for the argument to messages like at:ifAbsent: if you don't need a block, like this;
^ bookTitles at: bookID ifAbsent: ''.
and
^ books at: bookID ifAbsent: nil.
the code works because (in Pharo/Squeak) Object>>value just returns self. But I want to know how accepted this use is or if you should always type the [ and ] even when you don't care if the argument is evaluated quickly or more than once.
The signature:
at: key ifAbsent: aBlock
declares an intention of using a block as a 2nd parameter...
But Smalltalk is not a strongly typed language, so, what kind of objects can you pass there? any kind that understand the message #value, so, be careful about each particular meaning of #value in each case, but take advantages of polymorphism!
Not all Smalltalk dialects implement #value on Object out of the box, so your code might not run on other Smalltalk dialects, IF you hand in an object that does not understand #value.
It is okay to pass objects of whatever kind as long as you know that what #value does is what you expect,
Your code may look strange to people who come from other smalltalk dialects or are new to Smalltallk, because they learned that what you pass in here is a Block, but so does sending messages like #join: to a Collection of Strings...
In the end, I'd say don't worry if portability is not a major issue to you.
This is what Pharo’s Code Critics say about similar situations:
Non-blocks in special messages:
Checks for methods that don't use blocks in the special messages.
People new to Smalltalk might write code such as: "aBoolean ifTrue:
(self doSomething)" instead of the correct version: "aBoolean ifTrue:
[self doSomething]". Even if these pieces of code could be correct,
they cannot be optimized by the compiler.
This rule can be found in Optimization, so you could probably ignore it, but i think it is nicer anyway to use a block.
Update:
at:ifAbsent: is not triggered by this rule. And it is not optimized by the compiler. So optimization is no reason to use blocks in this case.
I would say that it is not a good idea to leave them out. The argument will be evaluated eagerly if you leave out the parens, and will be sent #value. So if "slef doSomething" has side-effects, that would be bad. It could also be bad if #value does something you don't expect e.g. the perhaps contrived
bookTitles at: bookID ifAbsent: 'Missing title' -> 'ISBN-000000'
If your code works and you are the only person to view the source, then its ok. If others are to view the source then I would say a empty block [] would have been more readable. But generally speaking if you really care about bugs its a good idea not to venture outside standard practices because there is no way to guarantee that you wont have any problem.
Simple question, from a readability standpoint, which method name do you prefer for a boolean method:
public boolean isUserExist(...)
or:
public boolean doesUserExist(...)
or:
public boolean userExists(...)
public boolean userExists(...)
Would be my prefered. As it makes your conditional checks far more like natural english:
if userExists ...
But I guess there is no hard and fast rule - just be consistent
I would say userExists, because 90% of the time my calling code will look like this:
if userExists(...) {
...
}
and it reads very literally in English.
if isUserExist and if doesUserExist seem redundant.
Beware of sacrificing clarity whilst chasing readability.
Although if (user.ExistsInDatabase(db)) reads nicer than if (user.CheckExistsInDatabase(db)), consider the case of a class with a builder pattern, (or any class which you can set state on):
user.WithName("Mike").ExistsInDatabase(db).ExistsInDatabase(db2).Build();
It's not clear if ExistsInDatabase is checking whether it does exist, or setting the fact that it does exist. You wouldn't write if (user.Age()) or if (user.Name()) without any comparison value, so why is if (user.Exists()) a good idea purely because that property/function is of boolean type and you can rename the function/property to read more like natural english? Is it so bad to follow the same pattern we use for other types other than booleans?
With other types, an if statement compares the return value of a function to a value in code, so the code looks something like:
if (user.GetAge() >= 18) ...
Which reads as "if user dot get age is greater than or equal to 18..." true - it's not "natural english", but I would argue that object.verb never resembled natural english and this is simply a basic facet of modern programming (for many mainstream languages). Programmers generally don't have a problem understanding the above statement, so is the following any worse?
if (user.CheckExists() == true)
Which is normally shortened to
if (user.CheckExists())
Followed by the fatal step
if (user.Exists())
Whilst it has been said that "code is read 10x more often than written", it is also very important that bugs are easy to spot. Suppose you had a function called Exists() which causes the object to exist, and returns true/false based on success. You could easily see the code if (user.Exists()) and not spot the bug - the bug would be very much more obvious if the code read if (user.SetExists()) for example.
Additionally, user.Exists() could easily contain complex or inefficient code, round tripping to a database to check something. user.CheckExists() makes it clear that the function does something.
See also all the responses here: Naming Conventions: What to name a method that returns a boolean?
As a final note - following "Tell Don't Ask", a lot of the functions that return true/false disappear anyway, and instead of asking an object for its state, you tell it to do something, which it can do in different ways based on its state.
The goal for readability should always be to write code the closest possible to natural language. So in this case, userExists seems the best choice. Using the prefix "is" may nonetheless be right in another situations, for example isProcessingComplete.
My simple rule to this question is this:
If the boolean method already HAS a verb, don't add one. Otherwise, consider it. Some examples:
$user->exists()
$user->loggedIn()
$user->isGuest() // "is" added
I would go with userExists() because 1) it makes sense in natural language, and 2) it follows the conventions of the APIs I have seen.
To see if it make sense in natural language, read it out loud. "If user exists" sounds more like a valid English phrase than "if is user exists" or "if does user exist". "If the user exists" would be better, but "the" is probably superfluous in a method name.
To see whether a file exists in Java SE 6, you would use File.exists(). This looks like it will be the same in version 7. C# uses the same convention, as do Python and Ruby. Hopefully, this is a diverse enough collection to call this a language-agnostic answer. Generally, I would side with naming methods in keeping with your language's API.
There are things to consider that I think were missed by several other answers here
It depends if this is a C++ class method or a C function. If this is a method then it will likely be called if (user.exists()) { ... } or if (user.isExisting()) { ... }
not if (user_exists(&user)) .
This is the reason behind coding standards that state bool methods should begin with a verb since they will read like a sentence when the object is in front of them.
Unfortunately lots of old C functions return 0 for success and non-zero for failure so it can be difficult to determine the style being used unless you follow the all bool functions begin with verbs or always compare to true like so if (true == user_exists(&user))
Why not rename the property then?
if (user.isPresent()) {
Purely subjective.
I prefer userExists(...) because then statements like this read better:
if ( userExists( ... ) )
or
while ( userExists( ... ) )
In this particular case, the first example is such horrible English that it makes me wince.
I'd probably go for number three because of how it sounds when reading it in if statements. "If user exists" sounds better than "If does user exists".
This is assuming it's going to be to used in if statement tests of course...
I like any of these:
userExists(...)
isUserNameTaken(...)
User.exists(...)
User.lookup(...) != null
Method names serves for readability, only the ones fit into your whole code would be the best which most of the case it begins with conditions thus subjectPredicate follows natural sentence structure.
Since I follow the convention to put verb before function name, I would do the same here too:
//method name
public boolean doesExists(...)
//this way you can also keep a variable to store the result
bool userExists = user.doesExists()
//and use it like a english phrase
if (userExists) {...}
//or you can use the method name directly also and it will make sense here too
if (user.doesExists()) {...}