In AutoHotkey, you can leave out arguments in the middle of a built-in function call as so:
MsgBox, 4,, Blah
MouseGetPos,,, MouseWin
You can also create functions with optional parameters à la C++:
Foobar(baz, blah="something")
{
MsgBox baz=%baz%, blah=%blah%
}
However the docs say that when you create a function, you cannot have non-default parameters after a default parameter. Trying to do so will result in an interpreter error saying that the first non-default argument after a default argument requires a default.
Why? What’s wrong with calling it like so?
Foobar(baz, blah="something", blivet)
{
MsgBox baz=%baz%, blah=%blah%, blivet=%blivet%
}
Foobar("cat",,"dog")
Is there a way to create functions with optional parameters in the middle?
When you omit a parameter in a built-in command (not function), what you're really doing is passing an empty string. There are differences between these two cases:
Defining a function with an optional parameter followed by mandatory parameters.
Calling a command with an omitted optional parameter followed by optional parameters which have not been omitted.
With both MsgBox and MouseGetPos, all parameters are optional.
AutoHotkey 1.1 allows the following with user-defined functions:
Foobar(1,, 3)
Foobar(baz, blah="something", blivet="")
{
MsgBox baz=%baz%, blah=%blah%, blivet=%blivet%
}
This is only possible when the parameter's default value is known (i.e. not when calling a function dynamically).
Allowing the middle parameter to be omitted
If you do not want to change the order of the parameters or make two of the three optional, you can do a bit of "juggling":
Foobar("baz", "blivet")
Foobar("baz", "blah", "blivet")
Foobar(baz, p2, p3="omitted")
{
blah := p3="omitted" ? "default" : p2 ; optional
blivet := p3="omitted" ? p2 : p3 ; required
MsgBox baz=%baz%, blah=%blah%, blivet=%blivet%
}
This way, the function always requires at least two parameters, and you're effectively allowed to omit the parameter in the middle when calling the function. However, you need to reserve a (string or numeric) value to indicate the parameter has been omitted. This can be avoided with AutoHotkey 1.1 by using a variadic function:
Foobar("baz", "blivet")
Foobar("baz", "blah", "blivet")
Foobar(baz, p2, p3*)
{
blah := p3.MaxIndex() ? p2 : "default" ; optional
blivet := p3.MaxIndex() ? p3[1] : p2 ; required
MsgBox baz=%baz%, blah=%blah%, blivet=%blivet%
}
Alternatively, the function can be declared as Foobar(baz, p*) and you can base your conditionals on p.MaxIndex() (the number of additional parameters), but in that case, only the first parameter is mandatory.
Two options... (workarounds...)
1. Put all the parameters with default values on the right...
Foobar(baz, blivet, blah="something")
{
MsgBox baz=%baz%, blah=%blah%, blivet=%blivet%
}
Foobar("cat","dog")
2. Define an "empty" default value...
Foobar(baz, blah="something", blivet="")
{
MsgBox baz=%baz%, blah=%blah%, blivet=%blivet%
}
Foobar("cat",,"dog")
I can't say why this is like this, but for now, there is no other way... (unless you modify autohotkey :P )
I guess that built-in functions don't work the same way.
Related
Suppose I have the following code:
my constant #suits = <Clubs Hearts Spades Diamonds>;
my constant #values = 2..14;
class Card {
has $.suit;
has $.value;
# order is mnemonic of "$value of $suit", i.e. "3 of Clubs"
multi method new($value, $suit) {
return self.bless(:$suit, :$value);
}
}
It defines some suits and some values and what it means to be a card.
Now, to build a deck, I essentially need to take the cross product of the suits and the values and apply that to the constructor.
The naiive approach to do this, would of course be to just iterate with a loop:
my #deck = gather for #values X #suits -> ($v, $c) {
take Card.new($v, $c);
}
But this is Raku, we have a cross function that can take a function as an optional argument!, so of course I'm gonna do that!
my #deck = cross(#values, #suits, :with(Card.new));
# Unexpected named argument 'with' passed
# in block <unit> at .\example.raku line 36
... wait no.
What about this?
my #deck = cross(#values, #suits):with(Card.new);
# Unexpected named argument 'with' passed
# in block <unit> at .\example.raku line 36
Still nothing. Reference maybe?
my #deck = cross(#values, #suits):with(&Card.new);
# ===SORRY!=== Error while compiling D:\Code\Raku/.\example.raku
# Illegally post-declared type:
# Card used at line 36
I read somewhere I can turn a function into an infix operator with []
my #deck = cross(#values, #suits):with([Card.new]);
# Unexpected named argument 'with' passed
# in block <unit> at .\example.raku line 36
That also doesn't work.
If classes are supposed to just be modules, shouldn't I then be able to pass a function reference?
Also why is it saying 'with' is that's unexpected? If I'm intuiting this right, what it's actually complaining about is the type of the input, rather than the named argument.
The error message is indeed confusing.
The :with parameter expects a Callable. Card.new is not a Callable. If you write it as :with( { Card.new($^number, $^suit) } ), it appears to work.
Note that I did not use $^value, $^suit, because they order differently alphabetically, so would produce the values in the wrong order. See The ^ twigil for more information on that syntax.
The error is LTA, this makes it a little bit better.
To get back to your question: you can find the code object that corresponds to Card.new with ^find_method. However, that will not work, as Card.new actually expects 3 arguments: the invocant (aka self), $value and $suit. Whereas the cross function will only pass the value and the suit.
The title of your question is “How do I take a reference to new?”, but that is not really what you want to do.
Raku being Raku, you can actually get a reference to new.
my $ref = Card.^lookup('new');
You can't use it like you want to though.
$ref(2,'Clubs'); # ERROR
The problem is that methods take a class or instance as the first argument.
$ref(Card, 2,'Clubs');
You could use .assuming to add it in.
$ref .= assuming(Card);
$ref(2,'Clubs');
But that isn't really any better than creating a block lambda
$ref = { Card.new( |#_ ) }
$ref(2,'Clubs');
All of these work:
cross( #values, #suits ) :with({Card.new(|#_)}) # adverb outside
cross( #values, #suits, :with({Card.new(|#_)}) ) # inside at end
cross( :with({Card.new(|#_)}), #values, #suits ) # inside at beginning
#values X[&( {Card.new(|#_)} )] #suits # cross meta-op with fake infix op
do {
sub new-card ($value,$suit) { Card.new(:$value,:$suit) }
#values X[&new-card] #suits
}
do {
sub with ($value,$suit) { Card.new(:$value,:$suit) }
cross(#values,#suits):&with
}
Perl 6 has a cool feature which allows one to get any Pod declarator block that is attached to a subroutine (or class, role, etc.), using the WHY method:
#|(Some enlightening words about myfunc.)
sub myfunc (Int $i) { say "You provided an integer: $i"; };
#=(Some more words about myfunc.)
say &myfunc.WHY;
This displays:
Some enlightening words about myfunc.
Some more words about myfunc.
Unfortunately, when one has multiple candidates for a subroutine, one can't just invoke .WHY on the subroutine name:
#|(myfunc accepts an integer.)
multi myfunc (Int $i) { say "You provided an integer $i"; };
#|(myfunc accepts a string.)
multi myfunc (Str $s) { say "You provided a string $s"; };
say &myfunc.WHY;
The result:
No documentation available for type 'Sub'.
Perhaps it can be found at https://docs.perl6.org/type/Sub
Is there a way to get the Pod declarator block that is attached to a specific multi sub candidate? Is there a way to do so for all a subroutine's candidates?
You look up the multi with candidates or cando.
When initially posted I couldn't find a canned method for looking up a multi sub by signature but Christoph remedied that.
#| Initiate a specified spell normally
multi sub cast(Str $spell) {
say "casting spell $spell";
}
#= (do not use for class 7 spells)
#| Cast a heavy rock etc in irritation
multi sub cast(Str $heavy-item, Int $n) {
say "chucking $n heavy $heavy-item";
}
say "doc for cast spell";
say &cast.candidates[0].WHY;
say "doc for throwing rocks";
say &cast.candidates[1].WHY;
say "find doc for throwing things";
for &cast.candidates {
if .signature ~~ :( Str, Int ) {
say .WHY;
}
}
# more advanced
say &cast.cando(\(Str, Int))>>.WHY; # thanks to Christoph
&cast.candidates.first: { .signature ~~ :(Str, Int) } andthen .WHY.say;
OUTPUT:
doc for cast spell
Initiate a specified spell normally
(do not use for class 7 spells)
doc for throwing rocks
Cast a heavy rock etc in irritation
find doc for throwing things
Cast a heavy rock etc in irritation
... repeated for variants ...
Get all documentation via candidates:
&myfunc.candidates>>.WHY
Get documentation of narrowest matching candidate via cando:
&myfunc.cando(\(42)).first.WHY
This does not really answer your question, but tries to explain why using WHY on a multi does not work; it's mainly because it points to the proto of the multi
#|(my-multi-func accepts either an integer or a string)
proto my-multi-func (|) {*}
#|(myfunc accepts an integer.)
multi my-multi-func (Int $i) { say "You provided an integer $i"; };
#|(myfunc accepts a string.)
multi my-multi-func (Str $s) { say "You provided a string $s"; };
say "my-multi-func is a {&my-multi-func.perl} and does {&my-multi-func.WHY}";
I attach the {&my-multi-func.perl} here because that is what gave me the hint. If you don't define a proto, it returns
my-multi-func is a sub my-multi-func (;; Mu | is raw) { #`(Sub|59650976) ... }
, which is none of the defined multis, ergo the proto. Of course if you want to access those particular definitions of the candidates, #Christopher Bottoms answer is just perfect.
This is a little indirect, but ...
You can store each multi myfunc in a variable and call WHY on that variable, yet still call myfunc as before:
#!/bin/env perl6
#|(myfunc accepts an integer.)
my $func_int = multi myfunc (Int $i) { say "You provided an integer $i"; }
#=(More about Int version of myfunc)
#|(myfunc accepts a string.)
my $func_string = multi myfunc (Str $s) { say "You provided a string $s"; }
#=(More about Str version of myfunc)
myfunc(10); # myfunc works as normal
say $func_int.WHY; # show POD declarator block
say ''; # Blank line to separate output into two groups
myfunc("bar");
say $func_string.WHY;
Resulting in this output:
You provided an integer 10
myfunc accepts an integer.
More about Int version of myfunc
You provided a string bar
myfunc accepts a string.
More about Str version of myfunc
This is using Rakudo Star 2018.01 on CentOS 6.7.
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)
I'm looking for a way to find the type of a variable in Tcl. For example if I have the variable $a and I want to know whether it is an integer.
I have been using the following so far:
if {[string is boolean $a]} {
#do something
}
and this seems to work great for the following types:
alnum, alpha, ascii, boolean, control, digit, double, false, graph, integer, lower, print, punct, space, true, upper, wordchar, xdigit
However it is not capable to tell me if my variable might be an array, a list or a dictionary. Does anyone know of a way to tell if a variable is either of those three?
Tcl's variables don't have types (except for whether or not they're really an associative array of variables — i.e., using the $foo(bar) syntax — for which you use array exists) but Tcl's values do. Well, somewhat. Tcl can mutate values between different types as it sees fit and does not expose this information[*]; all you can really do is check whether a value conforms to a particular type.
Such conformance checks are done with string is (where you need the -strict option, for ugly historical reasons):
if {[string is integer -strict $foo]} {
puts "$foo is an integer!"
}
if {[string is list $foo]} { # Only [string is] where -strict has no effect
puts "$foo is a list! (length: [llength $foo])"
if {[llength $foo]&1 == 0} {
# All dictionaries conform to lists with even length
puts "$foo is a dictionary! (entries: [dict size $foo])"
}
}
Note that all values conform to the type of strings; Tcl's values are always serializable.
[EDIT from comments]: For JSON serialization, it's possible to use dirty hacks to produce a “correct” serialization (strictly, putting everything in a string would be correct from Tcl's perspective but that's not precisely helpful to other languages) with Tcl 8.6. The code to do this, originally posted on Rosetta Code is:
package require Tcl 8.6
proc tcl2json value {
# Guess the type of the value; deep *UNSUPPORTED* magic!
regexp {^value is a (.*?) with a refcount} \
[::tcl::unsupported::representation $value] -> type
switch $type {
string {
# Skip to the mapping code at the bottom
}
dict {
set result "{"
set pfx ""
dict for {k v} $value {
append result $pfx [tcl2json $k] ": " [tcl2json $v]
set pfx ", "
}
return [append result "}"]
}
list {
set result "\["
set pfx ""
foreach v $value {
append result $pfx [tcl2json $v]
set pfx ", "
}
return [append result "\]"]
}
int - double {
return [expr {$value}]
}
booleanString {
return [expr {$value ? "true" : "false"}]
}
default {
# Some other type; do some guessing...
if {$value eq "null"} {
# Tcl has *no* null value at all; empty strings are semantically
# different and absent variables aren't values. So cheat!
return $value
} elseif {[string is integer -strict $value]} {
return [expr {$value}]
} elseif {[string is double -strict $value]} {
return [expr {$value}]
} elseif {[string is boolean -strict $value]} {
return [expr {$value ? "true" : "false"}]
}
}
}
# For simplicity, all "bad" characters are mapped to \u... substitutions
set mapped [subst -novariables [regsub -all {[][\u0000-\u001f\\""]} \
$value {[format "\\\\u%04x" [scan {& } %c]]}]]
return "\"$mapped\""
}
Warning: The above code is not supported. It depends on dirty hacks. It's liable to break without warning. (But it does work. Porting to Tcl 8.5 would require a tiny C extension to read out the type annotations.)
[*] Strictly, it does provide an unsupported interface for discovering the current type annotation of a value in 8.6 — as part of ::tcl::unsupported::representation — but that information is in a deliberately human-readable form and subject to change without announcement. It's for debugging, not code. Also, Tcl uses rather a lot of different types internally (e.g., cached command and variable names) that you won't want to probe for under normal circumstances; things are rather complex under the hood…
The other answers all provide very useful information, but it's worth noting something that a lot of people don't seem to grok at first.
In Tcl, values don't have a type... they question is whether they can be used as a given type. You can think about it this way
string is integer $a
You're not asking
Is the value in $a an integer
What you are asking is
Can I use the value in $a as an integer
Its useful to consider the difference between the two questions when you're thinking along the lines of "is this an integer". Every integer is also a valid list (of one element)... so it can be used as either and both string is commands will return true (as will several others for an integer).
If you want to deal with JSON then I highly suggest you read the JSON page on the Tcl wiki: http://wiki.tcl.tk/json.
On that page I posted a simple function that compiles Tcl values to JSON string given a formatting descriptor. I also find the discussion on that page very informative.
For arrays you want array exists
for dicts you want dict exists
for a list I don't think there is a built in way prior to 8.5?, there is this from http://wiki.tcl.tk/440
proc isalist {string} {
return [expr {0 == [catch {llength $string}]}]
}
To determine if a variable is an array:
proc is_array {var} {
upvar 1 $var value
if {[catch {array names $value} errmsg]} { return 1 }
return 0
}
# How to use it
array set ar {}
set x {1 2 3}
puts "ar is array? [is_array ar]"; # ar is array? 1
puts "x is array? [is_array x]"; # x is array? 0
For the specific case of telling if a value is usable as a dictionary, tcllib's dicttool package has a dict is_dict <value> command that returns a true value if <value> can act as one.