C++/CLI equivalent of C#'s 'readonly' keyword - c++-cli

What's the C++/CLI equivalent of C#'s readonly keyword?
Specifically, how do you write a public or protected member of a C++/CLI class such that it is readonly when referenced from C#?

I just found out (thanks to Literal field versus constant variable in C++/CLI) that
C# const is literal in C++/CLI, and
C# readonly is initonly in C++/CLI

Related

Kotlin equivalent of class properties, constructors, empty parameter constructors, getters and setters

I am currently practicing in developing kotlin and as of now I seem to get confused with kotlin's class structure.
this is a code in java
//properties
private String var;
//constructor
public SampleClass(String var){
this.var = var;
}
public SampleClass(){
}
//getters and setters
public String getVar(){
return this.var;
}
public String setVar(String var){
this.var = var;
}
what's the kotlin equivalent of this ?
This is the equivalent Kotlin code for your Java code:
class SampleClass(var `var`: String? = null)
There are a few things to note:
Your Java snippet above omits the wrapping class SampleClass code
Your setVar() indicates that it returns a String, but it's actually void. I assume you intended for it to have a void return type.
Your property var is not ideal for Kotlin, because it's a reserved word. That's why we have to escape it with backticks. (It could also be kind of confusing in Java 10, since var is a reserved type name there now).
Here's why this one-liner is equivalent to the Java listing.
The constructor part - the part between the parentheses - can be used to accept constructor arguments, but by putting the Kotlin keyword var at the beginning, we tell Kotlin that we want this to also be a property. Kotlin will create a getter and setter for it.
The String? part makes this property of type nullable String.
Instead of creating two different constructors, we just give our var property argument a default value of null by using = null. When creating this class from Java, it'll still show up as two constructors.
If you're using IntelliJ or Android Studio, you can tell it to convert any Java class to Kotlin. Just open the class file, and go to the Code menu, and choose Convert Java file to Kotlin file. It won't necessarily generate very idiomatic code (e.g., it might create two constructors instead of using a default for the constructor argument), but it'll get you started.
For "what is Kotlin equivalent of some code in Java", there is an universal answer: copy the Java code and paste it into a Kotlin file in IDEA/Android Studio. Or convert the entire file.
On the web, you can use https://try.kotlinlang.org/#/Kotlin%20Koans/Introduction/Java%20to%20Kotlin%20conversion/Task.kt.

VB6 Member variable inheritance

I'm having trouble inheriting a (public) variable, let's say
Public Var As ClassThatIsIndependent
The declaration above generates no trouble for itself, however, if i inherit the class that holds it
Implements BaseClass
I get the error "object module needs to implement variable for interface". I've tried these options (both inside ChildClass)
Public Var As ClassThatIsIndependent
and
Public BaseClass_Var As ClassThatIsIndependent
But none of them solves the problem. Any alternative? I'm open to possible Set/Get solutions, however, i'd prefer to maintain Var as a public variable.
Per the Visual Basic 6.0 Programmer's Guide, Polymorphism, Implementing Properties section:
Suppose we give the Animal class an Age property, by adding a Public variable to the Declarations section:
Option Explicit
Public Age As Double
The Procedure drop downs in the code modules for the Tyrannosaur and Flea classes now contain property procedures for implementing the Age property,
…
Using a public variable to implement a property is strictly a convenience for the programmer. Behind the scenes, Visual Basic implements the property as a pair of property procedures.
You must implement both procedures. The property procedures are easily implemented by storing the value in a private data member, as shown here:
Private mdblAge As Double
Private Property Get Animal_Age() As Double
Animal_Age = mdblAge
End Property
Private Property Let Animal_Age(ByVal RHS As Double)
mdblAge = RHS
End Property
The private data member is an implementation detail, so you have to add it yourself.
That is, the "public interface" is exactly the same whether you use a Public variable or define them with Property Get/Let. And to implement a property in an interface, you can't use the Public variable approach and need to use the Property Get/Let syntax and handle the data storage for it in your own private variables.

Compiler doesn't see CompareTo method in IComparable(Of T) object

I'm trying to apply the answer to Implementing generic IComparer in VB to my project by implementing an IComparable interface for a class in VB.NET. The section for the GenericComparer in that answer compiles fine, but the IComparable interface on my specific object won't get past the compiler.
Public Class RowAndRanking
Implements IComparable(Of RowAndRanking)
Public html As String
Public rank As Double
Public Function CompareTo(other As RowAndRanking) As Integer
Return Math.Round(Me.rank - other.rank)
End Function
End Class
The compiler keeps insisting that "Class 'RowAndRanking' must implement 'Function CompareTo(other As RowAndRanking) As Integer' for interface 'System.IComparable(Of RowAndRanking)'.", but looking at my code, I can see that method signature. Furthermore, if I go to where I'm trying to run a Sort on a List of these objects, I can type:
Dim row as RowAndRanking = new RowAndRanking
row.CompareTo(...
And Visual Studio's code complete picks up the method signature.
I've tried cleaning and rebuilding the project, but the issue remains. I've tried changing it to use a non-generic comparer solution, but the compiler still doesn't see the CompareTo method. This should be simple, but the compiler just doesn't see the function. Has this happened to anyone else? Is there something else that I can try?
Unlike C#, VB requires that you explicitly mark implementing methods.
Add
Implements IComparable(Of RowAndRanking).CompareTo

C++ CLI error C2228

I'm working on a C++/Cli project, so I defined my struct like this.
ref struct token_t
{
public :
static TokenTypes_t TokenType; ///enum class
static String ^ TokenString; ///enum class
static Keyword_t KeywordID; ///enum class
static int IntVal;
static char CharVal;
static Operator_t OprID; ///enum class
};
I passed an instance of this struct as a function parameter, but when I tried to do something like : token.TokenString.pop_back(); it says :
Error 11 error C2228: left of '.pop_back' must have class/struct/union
Did you declare the struct statics somewhere? From your code it is not apparent if you did that or not. If you did not, then mere struct instantiation would NOT get you static member instantiation. You need to instantiate the static members somewhere. Something like
struct token_t::TokenString = "foo"; (correct the syntax if wrong)
First, a System::String (the String^ you declared) doesn't have a pop_back method. Look it up on MSDN for more info.
Second, you declared it static. You are trying to use it with an instance. That doesn't match. Most likely, you don't want any of that static stuff. Remove it.
You also need to access methods of a XXX^ type with the -> operator as if it were a normal pointer.
You need to use the arrow access operator. Other then that, you seem to use System.String as if it was std::string from the native C++ standard library...
OK, several things:
String^ is a reference type, you need to use -> rather than . when calling methods on it.
There is no method pop_back on the string class.
TokenString is declared static, therefore the proper way to access it is token_t::TokenString. If it's static, it's not associated with a particular instance of the type, only with the type itself.
You've got the type declared as ref struct. This is perfectly valid, but confusing. The ref wins out over the struct, so what you have is the same as ref class. If you want a struct (i.e., a value type, not a reference type), you should say value struct token_t. (value class will give you the same result as value struct, but that's again confusing.)
The proper members of the String class are SubString, and Length. Therefore, the line to remove the last character from the string would be this: token_t::TokenString = token_t::TokenString->SubString(0, token_t::TokenString->Length - 1);

Why does the C++/CLI compiler get confused so easily with symbols?

Here is my code:
using namespace System;
using namespace System::Collections;
using namespace System::Collections::Generic;
namespace Tests {
ref class MyCollection : public IEnumerable<int> <----HERE!
The C# compiler, for instance, will recognize that the only IEnumerable<T> it has in those namespaces is from System::Collections::Generic. Why can't the C++/CLI compiler do the same? Unlesss I type its full name or at least Generic::IEnumerable<int>, it won't recognize it and will fire a C2872 error: ambiguous symbol.
Am I missing something here?
Given your namespaces IEnumerable is ambiguous
MS define IEnumerable in both System::Collections and System::Collections::Generic which of the 2 do you want your code to use?