In fortran 2003, is it possible to define a derived type which has a component of an abstract type? For example, as below, I want to define a type Sup having a component o_Abst of Abst type.
TYPE, ABSTRACT :: Abst
CONTAINS
PROCEDURE(some_proc), deferred, pass :: some_proc
..
END TYPE Abst
TYPE :: Sup
PRIVATE
CLASS(Abst) :: o_Abst
..
CONTAINS
PROCEDURE :: another_proc
END TYPE Sup
One problem I have already encountered is in writing a constructor for a Sup type object. I can not assign a value to the component o_Abst by intrinsic assignment with = (Intel compiler says, "In an intrinsic assignment statement, variable shall not be polymorphic."). Or can't I write a constructor for a Abst type object because a deferred type-bound procedure can not be properly overridden if an argument other than the passed object dummy argument is of abstract type, as far as I understand.
I would also be happy to hear about a work around that avoids the use of a type like Sup. If it is tempting to define a type with a component of an abstract type, what are alternative strategies in general?
A derived type may have an polymorphic component with abstract declared type. The component must have either the pointer attribute or the allocatable attribute.
Intrinsic assignment to a polymorphic object was not permitted in F2003 (it is permitted in F2008 if the object being assigned to has the allocatable attribute, but ifort 12.1 does not support that). In F2003 an ALLOCATE statement with a SOURCE specifier can be used to achieve more or less the same result.
You can construct objects that have a type that is a non-abstract extension of Abst (it does not make sense for the dynamic type of an object to be abstract, hence no structure constructor exists for Abst itself). There is no restriction on procedures that are bound to a type taking one or more arguments of abstract type.
Related
I've created 2 kotlin methods: one to check a type and another to cast an object. They look like:
fun Any?.isOfType(type: Class<*>): Boolean{
return type.isInstance(this)
// return `this is T` does NOT work.
}
and
fun <T> Any?.castToType(): T {
return this as T
// Works, albeit with a warning.
}
I've read some posts on generics and erasures, but I can't get over what seems to be a discrepancy.
Why is it that checking for the type of an object cannot be done with generics, but casting to a generic can?
The question is why:
fun <T> Any?.castToType() = this as T // compiles with warning
"hello".castToType<Int>()
"works" but this won't even compile:
fun <T> Any?.isOfType() = this is T // won't compile
"hello".isOfType<Int>()
Actually both don't really work. In both cases the type is erased at runtime. So why does one compile and the other doesn't?
this is T cannot work at runtime since the type of T is unknown and thus the compiler has to reject it.
this as T on the other hand might work:
"hello".castToType<Int>() // no runtime error but NOP
"hello".castToType<Int>().minus(1) // throws ClassCastException
2.0.castToType<Int>().minus(1) // no runtime error, returns 1
In some cases it works, in others it throws an exception. Now every unchecked cast can either succeed or lead to runtime exceptions (with or without generic types) so it makes sense to show a warning instead of a compile error.
Summary
unchecked casts with generic types are no different from unchecked casts without generic types, they are dangerous but a warning is sufficient
type checks with generic types on the other hand are impossible at runtime
Addendum
The official documentation explains type erasure and why is-checks with type arguments can't succeed at runtime:
At runtime, the instances of generic types do not hold any information about their actual type arguments. The type information is said to be erased. For example, the instances of Foo and Foo<Baz?> are erased to just Foo<*>.
Due to the type erasure, there is no general way to check whether an instance of a generic type was created with certain type arguments at runtime, and the compiler prohibits such is-checks such as ints is List or list is T (type parameter)
(https://kotlinlang.org/docs/generics.html#type-erasure)
In my own words: I can't check whether A is B if I don't know what B is. If B is a class I can check against an instance of that class (that's why type.isInstance(this) works) but if B is a generic type, the runtime has no information on it (it was erased by the compiler).
This isn't about casting vs checking; it's about using generics vs class objects.
The second example is generic; it uses T as a type parameter. Unfortunately, because generics are implemented using type erasure, this means that the type isn't available at runtime (because it has been erased, and replaced by the relevant upper bound — Any? in this case). This is why operations such as type checking or casting to a type parameter can be unsafe and give compilation warnings.
The first example, though, doesn't use a type parameter; instead, it uses a parameter which is called type, but is a Class object, representing a particular class. This is a value which is provided at runtime, just like any other method parameter, and so you can call methods such as cast() and isInstance() to handle some type issues at runtime. However, they're closely related to reflection, and have some of the same disadvantages, such as fragility, ugly code, and limited compile-time checks.
(Kotlin code often uses KClass objects instead of Java Class objects, but the principle is the same.)
It may be worth highlighting the difference between class and type, which are related but subtly different. For example, String is both a class and a type, while String? is another type derived from the same class. LinkedList is a class, but not a type (because it needs a type parameter); LinkedList<Int> is a type.
Types can of course be derived from interfaces as well as from classes, e.g. Runnable, or MutableList<Int>.
This is relevant to the question, because generics use type parameters, while Class objects represent classes.
I try to provoke a behaviour described in the ABAP Keyword Documentation 7.50 but fail. It's given with Alternative 2 of CALL METHOD - dynamic_meth:
CALL METHOD oref->(meth_name) ...
Effect
... oref can be any class reference variable ... that points to an object that contains the method ... specified in meth_name. This method is searched for first in the static type, then in the dynamic type of oref
I use the test code as given below. The static type of oref is CL1, the dynamic type CL2. Shouldn't then the dynamic CALL METHOD statement call the method M in CL1?
REPORT ZU_DEV_2658_DYNAMIC.
CLASS CL1 DEFINITION.
PUBLIC SECTION.
METHODS M.
ENDCLASS.
CLASS CL1 IMPLEMENTATION.
METHOD M.
write / 'original'.
ENDMETHOD.
ENDCLASS.
CLASS CL2 DEFINITION INHERITING FROM CL1.
PUBLIC SECTION.
METHODS M REDEFINITION.
ENDCLASS.
CLASS CL2 IMPLEMENTATION.
METHOD M.
write / 'redefinition'.
ENDMETHOD.
ENDCLASS.
START-OF-SELECTION.
DATA oref TYPE REF TO cl1. " static type is CL1
CREATE OBJECT oref TYPE cl2. " dynamic type is CL2
oref->m( ). " writes 'redefinition' - that's ok
CALL METHOD oref->('M'). " writes 'redefinition' - shouldn't that be 'original'?
Update:
I'd like to answer to the (first four) comments to my original question. Because of the lengthy code snippet, I answer by augmenting my post, not by comment.
It is true that the behaviour of the code snippet of the original question is standard OO behaviour. It's also true that for calls with static method name and class, types are resolved as given by the link. But then:
Why does the ABAP Keyword Documentation make the statement I've linked?
Calls with dynamic method names do search for the method name in the dynamic type, as demonstrated by the following code piece. That's certainly not standard OO behaviour.
My question was: Apparently, the search mechanism differs from the one described. Is the description wrong or else do I miss something?
REPORT ZU_DEV_2658_DYNAMIC4.
CLASS CL_A DEFINITION.
ENDCLASS.
CLASS CL_B DEFINITION INHERITING FROM CL_A.
PUBLIC SECTION.
METHODS M2 IMPORTING VALUE(caller) TYPE c OPTIONAL PREFERRED PARAMETER caller.
ENDCLASS.
CLASS CL_B IMPLEMENTATION.
METHOD M2.
write / caller && ' calls b m2'.
ENDMETHOD.
ENDCLASS.
START-OF-SELECTION.
DATA orefaa TYPE REF TO cl_a.
CREATE OBJECT orefaa TYPE cl_a. " static and dynamic type is CL_A
*orefaa->m2( 'orefa->m2( )' ). syntax error: method m2 is unknown'.
*CALL METHOD orefaa->('M2') EXPORTING caller = 'CALL METHOD orefa->("M2")'. results in exception: method m2 is unknown'.
DATA orefab TYPE REF TO cl_a. " static type is CL_A
CREATE OBJECT orefab TYPE cl_b. " dynamic type is CL_B
*orefab->m2( 'orefab->m2( )' ). results in syntax error: method m2 is unknown'.
CALL METHOD orefab->('M2') EXPORTING caller = 'CALL METHOD orefab->("M2")'. " succeeds
You are actually answering your own question there, aren't you?
In your first example, you perform a call method to the method m on a variable that's typed as cl1. The runtime looks up the class cl1, and finds the requested method m there. It then calls that method. However, your variable actually has the type cl2, a sub-class of cl1, that overrides that method m. So the call effectively reaches that redefinition of the method, not the super-class's original implementation. As you and the commenters sum it up: this is standard object-oriented behavior.
Note how in essence this has nothing to do at all with the static-vs-dynamic statement you quote from the documentation. The method m is statically present in cl1, so there is no dynamic lookup involved whatsoever. I assume you were looking for a way to probe the meaning of this statement, but this example doesn't address it.
However, your second example then precisely hits the nail on the head. Let me rewrite it again with different names to talk it through. Given an empty super class super_class:
CLASS super_class DEFINITION.
ENDCLASS.
and a sub-class sub_class that inherits it:
CLASS sub_class DEFINITION
INHERITING FROM super_class.
PUBLIC SECTION.
METHODS own_method.
ENDCLASS.
Now, as super_class is empty, sub_class does not take over any methods there. In contrast, we add a method own_method specifically to this class.
The following statement sequence then demonstrates exactly what's special with the dynamic calling:
DATA cut TYPE REF TO super_class.
cut = NEW sub_class( ).
CALL METHOD cut->('OWN_METHOD').
" runs sub_class->own_method
The runtime encounters the call method statement. It first inspects the static type of the variable cut, which is super_class. The requested method own_method is not present there. If this was all that happened, the call would now fail with a method-not-found exception. If we wrote a hard-coded cut->own_method( ), we wouldn't even get this far - the compiler would already reject this.
However, with call method the runtime continues. It determines the dynamic type of cut as being sub_class. Then it looks whether it finds an own_method there. And indeed, it does. The statement is accepted and the call is directed to own_method. This additional effort that's happening here is exactly what's described in the documentation as "This method is searched for first in the static type, then in the dynamic type of oref".
What we're seeing here is different from hard-coded method calls, but it is also not "illegal". In essence, the runtime here first casts the variable cut to its dynamic type sub_class, then looks up the available methods again. As if we were writing DATA(casted) = CAST super_class( cut ). casted->own_method( ). I cannot say why the runtime acts this way. It feels like the kind of relaxed behavior we usually find in ABAP when statements evolve throughout their lifetime and need to remain backwards-compatible.
There is one detail that needs additional addressing: the tiny word "then" in the documentation. Why is it important to say that it first looks in the static type, then in the dynamic type? In the example above, it could simply say "and/or" instead.
Why this detail may be important is described in my second answer to your question, which I posted some days ago. Let me wrap it up shortly again here, so this answer here is complete. Given an interface with a method some_method:
INTERFACE some_interface PUBLIC.
METHODS some_method RETURNING VALUE(result) TYPE string.
ENDINTERFACE.
and a class that implements it, but also adds another method of its own, with the exact same name some_method:
CLASS some_class DEFINITION PUBLIC.
PUBLIC SECTION.
INTERFACES some_interface.
METHODS some_method RETURNING VALUE(result) TYPE string.
ENDCLASS.
CLASS some_class IMPLEMENTATION.
METHOD some_interface~some_method.
result = `Executed the interface's method`.
ENDMETHOD.
METHOD some_method.
result = `Executed the class's method`.
ENDMETHOD.
ENDCLASS.
Which one of the two methods is now called by CALL METHOD cut->('some_method')? The order in the documentation describes it:
DATA cut TYPE REF TO some_interface.
cut = NEW some_class( ).
DATA result TYPE string.
CALL METHOD cut->('SOME_METHOD')
RECEIVING
result = result.
cl_abap_unit_assert=>assert_equals(
act = result
exp = `Executed the interface's method` ).
Upon encountering the call method statement, the runtime checks the static type of the variable cut first, which is some_interface. This type has a method some_method. The runtime thus will continue to call this method. This, again is standard object orientation. Especially note how this example calls the method some_method by giving the string some_method alone, although its fully qualified name is actually some_interface~some_method. This is consistent with the hard-coded variant cut->some_method( ).
If the runtime acted the other way around, inspecting the dynamic type first, and the static type afterwards, it would act differently and call the class's own method some_method instead.
There is no way to call the class's own some_method, by the way. Although the documentation suggests that the runtime would consider cut's dynamic type some_class in a second step, it also adds that "In the dynamic case too, only interface components can be accessed and it is not possible to use interface reference variable to access any type of component."
The only way to call the class's own method some_method, is by changing cut's type:
DATA cut TYPE REF TO some_class.
cut = NEW some_class( ).
DATA result TYPE string.
CALL METHOD cut->('SOME_METHOD')
RECEIVING
result = result.
cl_abap_unit_assert=>assert_equals(
act = result
exp = `Executed the class's method` ).
This is rather about interface implementations than class inheritance. What the ABAP language help means is this:
Suppose you have an interface that declares a method
INTERFACE some_interface PUBLIC.
METHODS some_method RETURNING VALUE(result) TYPE string.
ENDINTERFACE.
and a class that implements it, but alongside also declares a method with the same name, of its own
CLASS some_class DEFINITION PUBLIC.
PUBLIC SECTION.
INTERFACES some_interface.
METHODS some_method RETURNING VALUE(result) TYPE string.
ENDCLASS.
CLASS some_class IMPLEMENTATION.
METHOD some_interface~some_method.
result = `Executed the interface's method`.
ENDMETHOD.
METHOD some_method.
result = `Executed the class's method`.
ENDMETHOD.
ENDCLASS.
then a dynamic call on a reference variable typed with the interface will choose the interface method over the class's own method
METHOD prefers_interface_method.
DATA cut TYPE REF TO zfh_some_interface.
cut = NEW zfh_some_class( ).
DATA result TYPE string.
CALL METHOD cut->('SOME_METHOD')
RECEIVING
result = result.
cl_abap_unit_assert=>assert_equals(
act = result
exp = `Executed the interface's method` ).
ENDMETHOD.
This is actually the exact same behavior we are observing with regular calls to methods, i.e. if we provide the method's name in the code, not in a variable.
Only if the runtime cannot find a method with the given name in the static type will it start looking for a method with that name in the dynamic type. This is different from regular method calls, where the compiler will reject the missing some_interface~ and require us to add an alias for this to work.
By the way, as some people brought it up in the comments, the "static" here does not refer to CLASS-METHODS, as opposed to "instance" methods. "Static type" and "dynamic type" refer to different things, see the section Static Type and Dynmic Type in the help article Assignment Rules for Reference Variables.
I know it's possible to defer the definition of procedures from an abstract type to its derived types. Is it possible to include 'deferred' data in an abstract type, i.e., data whose type and value is only defined in derived classes?
The closest question I found on stackoverflow was here. It does not address my needs.
If clarification is needed, please ask. Many thanks.
There's no straightforward way to defer the definition of a data component of an (abstract) derived type as there is for procedure components, so no declaration such as
type(magic), deferred :: element
which can be overridden by a concrete declaration in an extended type. I think the easy (?) workaround would be to use class in the declaration. For ultimate flexibility you could use an unlimited polymorphic component, eg
type :: stype
class(*), allocatable :: element
end type style
What you can't then do is specify the type in a concrete extended type with a (re-)declaration something like
type, extends(stype) :: mstype
integer :: element
end type mstype
Instead, if you want to define an extended type which has an integer element you would create the type and write a constructor for it that ensures its element is allocated with type integer.
If your requirements are more modest the 2003 feature of parameterised derived types might satisfy you, but as far as I know only the Cray and IBM XL compilers implement that yet.
In the following piece of code, an abstract type with a private variables (name) and an access function to this variable, which is supposed to be defined by all derived types, is defined in a module:
module baseTypeModule
type, abstract :: baseType
private
character(len=maxLengthCompLabel) :: Name = "" ! Component name
contains
procedure, non_overridable :: getName ! Access functio to Name (read only)
end type baseType
contains
character(len=100) function getName(this)
implicit none
class(baseType), intent(in) :: this
getName = this % Name
end function getName
end module baseTypeModule
As there are many other variables and functions in each derived type, I would like to define each derived types in a different module.
Is there a way in Fortran to tell the compiler that I want that only derived types of baseType would be able to change the variable Name?
No. Accessibility of component names uses the same "by module" model as for other module entities. If the other derived types are in different modules, then they cannot access the Name component.
Bear in mind that derived types don't actually contain procedures - they contain bindings for procedures. Consequently a derived type can't really "do" anything. Also a single procedure could be bound to multiple types.
This question is merely out of interest and trying to understand something about memory management in object-oriented languages. It is not specific to one language, but I just want to understand as a general principle.
What I want to know is how the definition of an object reference is stored compared to the instance of that reference.
When you define and object in OO source code, e.g. in Java, without instantiating it:
String s;
How does this get stored? How does the memory usage of this definition differ from when the object is actually instantiated:
s = new String("abc");
? Is there a general principle that applies to all OO languages in terms of how memory is allocated or do different language implementers use different techniques for allocating memory?
Normaly when we declare a refrence like String s; it is created as a normal variable just like int , float but this type of variable hold the memory address ( it similar concept as pointers in C language) but when we use s = new String("abc");, it creates an object in heap and assign that address to the reference variable s.
In Java byte code, all Objects are stored as Objects. Explicit type-checking is added when needed. So for example this Java function
public Integer getValue(Object number){
int i = ((Number) number).toInt();
return new Integer(i);
}
is translated to a bytecode like this:
(accepts java.lang.Object, returns java.lang.Integer)
-read the first argument as an Object
-if the value is not a Number, raise an exception
-call the virtual method toInt(java.lang.Integer) of the value
and remember the int result
-use the value as an int argument
-instantiate a new java.lang.Integer
-call the constructor(int) of java.lang.Integer on the new number,
getting an Object back
[since the declared return value of Number.toInt is the same
as the return value of our function, no type checking is needed]
-return the value
So, types of unused variables get stripped out by the compiler. Types of public and protected fields are stored with its class.
The runtime type of an Object is stored with the object. In C++, it is a pointer to the Virtual Method Table. In Java, it is as a 16-bit index into the table of all loaded classes.
The Java class file stores an index of all dependent classes in a similar table. Only the class names are stored here. All field descriptions then point to this table.
So, when you write String s = new String("abc") (or even String s = "abc"), your class stores:
it is dependent on the class java.lang.String in the table of dependencies
"abc" in the table of String literals
your method loading a String literal by ID
(in the first case) your method calling a constructor of its first dependent class (String) with the first dependent class (String) as an argument.
the compiler can prove storing the new String in a String variable is safe, so it skips the type checking.
A class can be loaded as soon as it is referenced, or as late as its first use (in which case it is refered to by its depending class and ID within the class). I think the latter is always the case nowadays.
When a class is loaded:
-its class loader is asked to retreive the class by its name.
-(in the case of the system loader) the class loader looks
for the corresponding file in the program JAR, in the system library
and in all libraries referenced.
-the byte stream is then decoded into a structure in memory
-(in the case of early loading) all dependent classes are loaded recursively
if not already loaded
-it is stored in the class table
-(in the case of late loading) its static initialiser is run
(possibly loading more classes in the process).
In C++, none of the class loading takes place, as all user classes and most libraries are stored in the program as a mere virtual method table and the corresponding method. All of the system functions (not classes) can still be stored in a DLL (in case of Windows) or a similar file and loaded by the library at runtime. If a type checking is implied by an explicit type-cast, it is performed on the virtual method table. Also note that C++ did not have a type checking mechanism for a while.