Private members in CoffeeScript? - oop

Does somebody know how to make private, non-static members in CoffeeScript? Currently I'm doing this, which just uses a public variable starting with an underscore to clarify that it shouldn't be used outside of the class:
class Thing extends EventEmitter
constructor: (#_name) ->
getName: -> #_name
Putting the variable in the class makes it a static member, but how can I make it non-static? Is it even possible without getting "fancy"?

classes are just functions so they create scopes. everything defined inside this scope won't be visible from the outside.
class Foo
# this will be our private method. it is invisible
# outside of the current scope
foo = -> "foo"
# this will be our public method.
# note that it is defined with ':' and not '='
# '=' creates a *local* variable
# : adds a property to the class prototype
bar: -> foo()
c = new Foo
# this will return "foo"
c.bar()
# this will crash
c.foo
coffeescript compiles this into the following:
(function() {
var Foo, c;
Foo = (function() {
var foo;
function Foo() {}
foo = function() {
return "foo";
};
Foo.prototype.bar = function() {
return foo();
};
return Foo;
})();
c = new Foo;
c.bar();
c.foo();
}).call(this);

Is it even possible without getting "fancy"?
Sad to say, you'd have to be fancy.
class Thing extends EventEmitter
constructor: (name) ->
#getName = -> name
Remember, "It's just JavaScript."

I'd like to show something even fancier
class Thing extends EventEmitter
constructor: ( nm) ->
_name = nm
Object.defineProperty #, 'name',
get: ->
_name
set: (val) ->
_name = val
enumerable: true
configurable: true
Now you can do
t = new Thing( 'Dropin')
# members can be accessed like properties with the protection from getter/setter functions!
t.name = 'Dragout'
console.log t.name
# no way to access the private member
console.log t._name

There is one problem with Vitaly's answer and that is you cannot define variables that you want to be unique to the scope, if you made a private name that way and then changed it, the name value would change for every single instance of the class, so there is one way we can solve that problem
# create a function that will pretend to be our class
MyClass = ->
# this has created a new scope
# define our private varibles
names = ['joe', 'jerry']
# the names array will be different for every single instance of the class
# so that solves our problem
# define our REAL class
class InnerMyClass
# test function
getNames: ->
return names;
# return new instance of our class
new InnerMyClass
It's not impossible to access the the names array from outside unless you use getNames
Test this out
test = new MyClass;
tempNames = test.getNames()
tempNames # is ['joe', 'jerry']
# add a new value
tempNames.push 'john'
# now get the names again
newNames = test.getNames();
# the value of newNames is now
['joe', 'jerry', 'john']
# now to check a new instance has a new clean names array
newInstance = new MyClass
newInstance.getNames() # === ['joe', 'jerry']
# test should not be affected
test.getNames() # === ['joe', 'jerry', 'john']
Compiled Javascript
var MyClass;
MyClass = function() {
var names;
names = ['joe', 'jerry'];
MyClass = (function() {
MyClass.name = 'MyClass';
function MyClass() {}
MyClass.prototype.getNames = function() {
return names;
};
return MyClass;
})();
return new MyClass;
};

Here is a solution that draws on several of the other answers here plus https://stackoverflow.com/a/7579956/1484513. It stores the private instance (non-static) variables in a private class (static) array and uses an object ID to know which element of that array contains the data belonging to each instance.
# Add IDs to classes.
(->
i = 1
Object.defineProperty Object.prototype, "__id", { writable:true }
Object.defineProperty Object.prototype, "_id", { get: -> #__id ?= i++ }
)()
class MyClass
# Private attribute storage.
__ = []
# Private class (static) variables.
_a = null
_b = null
# Public instance attributes.
c: null
# Private functions.
_getA = -> a
# Public methods.
getB: -> _b
getD: -> __[#._id].d
constructor: (a,b,#c,d) ->
_a = a
_b = b
# Private instance attributes.
__[#._id] = {d:d}
# Test
test1 = new MyClass 's', 't', 'u', 'v'
console.log 'test1', test1.getB(), test1.c, test1.getD() # test1 t u v
test2 = new MyClass 'W', 'X', 'Y', 'Z'
console.log 'test2', test2.getB(), test2.c, test2.getD() # test2 X Y Z
console.log 'test1', test1.getB(), test1.c, test1.getD() # test1 X u v
console.log test1.a # undefined
console.log test1._a # undefined
# Test sub-classes.
class AnotherClass extends MyClass
test1 = new AnotherClass 's', 't', 'u', 'v'
console.log 'test1', test1.getB(), test1.c, test1.getD() # test1 t u v
test2 = new AnotherClass 'W', 'X', 'Y', 'Z'
console.log 'test2', test2.getB(), test2.c, test2.getD() # test2 X Y Z
console.log 'test1', test1.getB(), test1.c, test1.getD() # test1 X u v
console.log test1.a # undefined
console.log test1._a # undefined
console.log test1.getA() # fatal error

Here's the best article I found about setting public static members, private static members, public and private members, and some other related stuff. It covers much details and js vs. coffee comparison. And for the historical reasons here's the best code example from it:
# CoffeeScript
class Square
# private static variable
counter = 0
# private static method
countInstance = ->
counter++; return
# public static method
#instanceCount = ->
counter
constructor: (side) ->
countInstance()
# side is already a private variable,
# we define a private variable `self` to avoid evil `this`
self = this
# private method
logChange = ->
console.log "Side is set to #{side}"
# public methods
self.setSide = (v) ->
side = v
logChange()
self.area = ->
side * side
s1 = new Square(2)
console.log s1.area() # output 4
s2 = new Square(3)
console.log s2.area() # output 9
s2.setSide 4 # output Side is set to 4
console.log s2.area() # output 16
console.log Square.instanceCount() # output 2

Here is how you can declare private, non-static members in Coffeescript
For full reference, you can take a look at https://github.com/vhmh2005/jsClass
class Class
# private members
# note: '=' is used to define private members
# naming convention for private members is _camelCase
_privateProperty = 0
_privateMethod = (value) ->
_privateProperty = value
return
# example of _privateProperty set up in class constructor
constructor: (privateProperty, #publicProperty) ->
_privateProperty = privateProperty

"class" in coffee scripts leads to an prototype based result. So even if you use a private variable it is shared between instances. You can do this:
EventEmitter = ->
privateName = ""
setName: (name) -> privateName = name
getName: -> privateName
.. leads to
emitter1 = new EventEmitter()
emitter1.setName 'Name1'
emitter2 = new EventEmitter()
emitter2.setName 'Name2'
console.log emitter1.getName() # 'Name1'
console.log emitter2.getName() # 'Name2'
But be careful to put the private members before the public functions, because coffee script returns the public functions as object. Look at the compiled Javascript:
EventEmitter = function() {
var privateName = "";
return {
setName: function(name) {
return privateName = name;
},
getName: function() {
return privateName;
}
};
};

Since coffee script compiles down to JavaScript the only way you can have private variables is through closures.
class Animal
foo = 2 # declare it inside the class so all prototypes share it through closure
constructor: (value) ->
foo = value
test: (meters) ->
alert foo
e = new Animal(5);
e.test() # 5
This will compile down through the following JavaScript:
var Animal, e;
Animal = (function() {
var foo; // closured by test and the constructor
foo = 2;
function Animal(value) {
foo = value;
}
Animal.prototype.test = function(meters) {
return alert(foo);
};
return Animal;
})();
e = new Animal(5);
e.test(); // 5
Of course this has all the same limitations as all the other private variables you can have through the use of closures, for example, newly added methods don't have access to them since they were not defined in the same scope.

You can't do it easily with CoffeeScript classes, because they use the Javascript constructor pattern for creating classes.
However, you could say something like this:
callMe = (f) -> f()
extend = (a, b) -> a[m] = b[m] for m of b; a
class superclass
constructor: (#extra) ->
method: (x) -> alert "hello world! #{x}#{#extra}"
subclass = (args...) -> extend (new superclass args...), callMe ->
privateVar = 1
getter: -> privateVar
setter: (newVal) -> privateVar = newVal
method2: (x) -> #method "#{x} foo and "
instance = subclass 'bar'
instance.setter 123
instance2 = subclass 'baz'
instance2.setter 432
instance.method2 "#{instance.getter()} <-> #{instance2.getter()} ! also, "
alert "but: #{instance.privateVar} <-> #{instance2.privateVar}"
But you lose the greatness of CoffeeScript classes, because you can't inherit from a class created that way by any other way than by using extend() again. instanceof will stop working, and objecs created this way consume a little bit more memory. Also, you mustn't use the new and super keywords anymore.
The point is, that the closures must be created every time a class is instantiated. The member closures in pure CoffeeScript classes are created only once - that is, when the class runtime "type" is constructed.

If you want only separate private memebers from public, just wrap it in $ variable
$:
requirements:
{}
body: null
definitions: null
and use #$.requirements

Related

Creating of a new object of a different class gets overriden every time it's created

I'm still fairly new to OOP but I can't figure out what I'm doing wrong here.
-- TestModule
testClass = {}
local thingClassModule = require(script["ThingModule"])
function testClass:new()
setmetatable({}, self)
self.__index = self
self.Thing = thingClassModule:new(10, 15)
self.Thing2 = thingClassModule:new(30, 70)
end
return testClass
the thing class module:
-- ThingModule
thing = {}
function thing:new(a, b)
local obj = {}
setmetatable(obj, self)
self.__index = self
self.A = a or 0
self.B = b or 0
return obj
end
return thing
The issue is that Thing gets overriden by Thing2.
I believe your problem is not assigning self to the metatable of the object instead it's being assigned to the module instead, therefore it's overwriting the data instead of creating a new object.
Here's a working example of what you're trying to achieve:
-- Thing Class
local Thing = {}
Thing.__index = Thing
function Thing.new(a, b)
local self = {}
setmetatable(self, Thing)
self.A = a
self.B = b
return self
end
return Thing
local Thing = require(script.Parent.Thing)
local TestClass = {}
TestClass.__index = TestClass
function TestClass.new()
local self = {}
setmetatable(self, TestClass)
self.Thing = Thing.new(10, 15)
self.Thing2 = Thing.new(30, 70)
return self
end
return TestClass
You can learn more about Object-oriented through this great article:
https://devforum.roblox.com/t/all-about-object-oriented-programming/8585
In a method, self is whatever comes before the colon in the method call. In thing.new, you create a new table called obj, but you then assign A and B within self, which is the thing table (or thingClassModule; they're both the same table). In testClass.new, you set the metatable of a new table, but you don't store it to a variable. You then go on to modify self, which is testClass.

My logic of performSelectorOnMainThread:withObject:waitUntilDone:

This code here is js-ctypes. The code is crashing and I think it's to my misunderstanding of reading about doing stuff on the main thread from other threads.
My end goal is to set a window always on top from a secondary thread, so I have to run performSelectorOnMainThread:withObject:waitUntilDone:
What I am doing is:
Create a class named setWinAlwaysOnTop_class with objc_allocateClassPair
Write my methods in javascript and convert to C (currently i wrote them to just log to console but after I get it working ill update to do NSWindow stuff)
Register unique selector name for my method with sel_registerName
Use class_addMethod to add my C methods from step 2 to class from step 1
objc_registerClassPair on the class from step 1
Allocation my class with alloc
Create instance of class with init
Do performSelectorOnMainThread:withObject:waitUntilDone: on my instance of class created in step 7 with first argument being the unique selector name from step 3, setting 2nd arg withObject to nil, and final arg waitUntilDone to YES
Is this logic correct? And my crash is not due to my logic? Code is below:
var NSObject = ostypes.HELPER.class('NSObject');
if (!OSStuff.setWinAlwaysOnTop_class) {
throw new Error('setWinAlwaysOnTop_class was not previously cleaned up!!')
}
var needsRegistration = true;
OSStuff.setWinAlwaysOnTop_class = ostypes.API('objc_allocateClassPair')(NSObject, 'setWinAlwaysOnTop_class', 0);
if (OSStuff.setWinAlwaysOnTop_class.isNull()) {
console.info('setWinAlwaysOnTop_class:', class_NoitOnScrnSvrDelgt.toString());
throw new Error('setWinAlwaysOnTop_class is null, so objc_allocateClassPair failed');
}
OSStuff.setWinAlwaysOnTop_jsMethods = {}; // holds key of aArrHwndPtrStr and value is js method
var IMP_for_mainThreadSelector = ctypes.FunctionType(ctypes.default_abi, ctypes.void_t, []);
OSStuff.setWinAlwaysOnTop_jsMethods[aArrHwndPtrStr[0]] = function() {
console.log('setWinAlwaysOnTop_jsMethods ' + 0 + ' called');
};
OSStuff.setWinAlwaysOnTop_cMethods = {};
OSStuff.setWinAlwaysOnTop_cMethods[aArrHwndPtrStr[0]] = IMP_for_mainThreadSelector.ptr(OSStuff.setWinAlwaysOnTop_jsMethods[aArrHwndPtrStr[0]]);
OSStuff.setWinAlwaysOnTop_methodSelectors = {};
OSStuff.setWinAlwaysOnTop_methodSelectors[aArrHwndPtrStr[0]] = ostypes.API('sel_registerName')(aArrHwndPtrStr[0]);
var rez_class_addMethod = ostypes.API('class_addMethod')(OSStuff.setWinAlwaysOnTop_class, OSStuff.setWinAlwaysOnTop_methodSelectors[aArrHwndPtrStr[0]], OSStuff.setWinAlwaysOnTop_cMethods[aArrHwndPtrStr[0]], 'v');
if (needsRegistration) {
ostypes.API('objc_registerClassPair')(OSStuff.setWinAlwaysOnTop_class);
OSStuff.setWinAlwaysOnTop_allocation = ostypes.API('objc_msgSend')(OSStuff.setWinAlwaysOnTop_class, ostypes.HELPER.sel('alloc'));
OSStuff.setWinAlwaysOnTop_instance = ostypes.API('objc_msgSend')(OSStuff.setWinAlwaysOnTop_allocation, ostypes.HELPER.sel('init'));
}
var rez_perform = ostypes.API('objc_msgSend')(OSStuff.setWinAlwaysOnTop_instance, ostypes.HELPER.sel('performSelectorOnMainThread:withObject:waitUntilDone:'), ostypes.HELPER.sel(aArrHwndPtrStr[0]), ostypes.CONST.NIL, ostypes.CONST.YES);
console.error('perform done!!');

Function returns nil when called inside constructor

I just started programming in lua and I created sort of oop structure following this tutorial: http://tylerneylon.com/a/learn-lua/
Problem is, when I created function that returns object or table of objects and call it inside constructor, it returns nil.
Here is my code for first object:
require "ObjectB"
ObjectA = {}
function ObjectA:new(num)
newInstance = {}
newInstance.var = self:foo(num)
self.__index = self
return setmetatable(newInstance, self)
end
function ObjectA:foo(num)
return ObjectB:new(num)
end
, and for second object:
ObjectB = {}
function ObjectB:new(num)
newInstance = {}
newInstance.num = num
self.__index = self
return setmetatable(newInstance, self)
end
When I do this:
myObject = ObjectA:new(5)
print(myObject.var.num)
, I get error: "Error: main.lua:14: attempt to index field 'var' (a nil value)".
But when I do this:
myObject = ObjectA:new(5)
myObject.var = ObjectA:foo(5) //setting var by calling foo outside of constructor
print(myObject.var.num)
, everything seems to work fine and print result is really 5. Can anyone tell me what is reason for this strange behaviour or what am I doing wrong here?
Variables are global by default, so the two variables newInstance in ObjectA:new and ObjectB:new are the same global variables, you assign it a new value, the previous value is gone.
Instead, use local variables like this:
function ObjectA:new(num)
local newInstance = {}
--the rest
end
and
function ObjectB:new(num)
local newInstance = {}
--the rest
end

Access Instance-property in Coffeescript within nested

so I am using express within a node-app. As my app is getting bigger I want to put my routes into extra files. I seem to be able to get hold of the bugDB if I just get rid of the intermediate get object. But I can't access the bugDB in the inner object. Any suggestions? Maybe there is even a more nice code pattern for how to accomplish this more elegantly.
I would appreachate your help. Thanks in advance. (As I am not a native speaker I couldn't find others with a similar problem, if you know how to phrase the question better, please show me the way :) )
BUGROUTER.COFFEE
class BugsRouter
constructor: (#bugDB)-> // instance-variable with databaselink
return
get:{
allBugs: (req, res)=>
console.log "db", #bugDB // this gives me undefined
// is "this" in the get context?
#bugDB.allDocs {include_docs: true}, (err, response)->
res.json 200, response
}
module.exports = BugsRouter
SERVER.COFFEE
BugsRouter = require "./routes/BUGROUTER"
bugsRouter = new BugsRouter(bugDB)
console.log bugsRouter.bugDB # this is working
app.get "/bugs/all", bugsRouter.get.allBugs
Sub-objects don't work like that. When you say this:
class C
p:
f: ->
Then p is just a plain object that happens to be a property on C's prototype, it will have no special idea of what # should be inside f. And if you try to use a fat-arrow instead:
class C
p:
f: =>
then you're accidentally creating a namespaced class function called f so # will be C when f is called. In either case, saying:
c = new C
c.p.f()
is the same as:
c = new C
p = c.p
p.f()
so f will be called in the context of p rather than c.
You can get around this if you don't mind manually binding the functions inside get when your constructor is called:
constructor: (#bugDB) ->
#get = { }
for name, func of #constructor::get
#get[name] = func.bind(#)
This assumes that you have Function.bind available. If you don't then you can use any of the other binding techniques (_.bind, $.proxy, ...). The #get = { } trick is needed to ensure that you don't accidentally modify the prototype's version of #get; if you're certain that you'll only be creating one instance of your BugsRouter then you could use this instead:
constructor: (#bugDB) ->
for name, func of #get
#get[name] = func.bind(#)
to bind the functions inside the prototype's version of get rather than the instance's local copy.
You can watch this simplified demo to see what's going on with # in various cases, keep an eye on the #flag values to see the accidental prototype modification caused by not using #get = { } and #constructor::get:
class C1
get:
f: -> console.log('C1', #)
class C2
get:
f: => console.log('C2', #)
class C3
constructor: ->
#flag = Math.random()
for name, func of #get
#get[name] = func.bind(#)
get:
f: -> console.log('C3', #)
class C4
constructor: ->
#flag = Math.random()
#get = { }
for name, func of #constructor::get
#get[name] = func.bind(#)
get:
f: -> console.log('C4', #)
for klass in [C1, C2, C3, C3, C4, C4]
o = new klass
o.get.f()
Live version of the above: http://jsfiddle.net/ambiguous/8XR7Z/
Hmm, seems like I found a better solution after all:
class Test
constructor: ->
#testVariable = "Have a nice"
return
Object.defineProperties #prototype,
get:
enumerable :true
get:->
{
day: => #testVariable + " day"
week: => #testVariable + " day"
}
console.log (new Test()).get.day()
This allows me to call (new Test()).get.day() the way I wanted.
Live version at: JSFiddle

F# dynamic operator giving access both to function and function name

Given a number of functions test1, test2, ... belonging to a module:
module Checks =
let test1 x = ...
let test2 x = ...
...
how can the (?) operator be used to give access to both the function name and the function itself? The result should look like:
let name, func = Checks?test1
assert(name = "test1")
assert(func(x) = Checks.test1(x)) //whatever x is (test1 is known to be pure)
You cannot use the ? operator to access functions in a module, because the construct Checks?test1 is not syntactically correct (this would be translated to (?) Checks "test" and you cannot use module names as values).
However, it should be possible to do this for members of a type using an instance of the object (e.g. obj?test). Alternatively you could write a "fake" object instance (that knows the name of the module). The implementation of ? would then look for the module and search static members in the module.
The simplest implementation (of the first case) would look like this:
let (?) obj s =
let memb = obj.GetType().GetMethod(s)
// Return name and a function that runs the method
s, (fun args -> memb.Invoke(obj, args))
// Type that contains tests as members
type Check() =
member x.test1 () = 32
// We need to create instance in order to use '?'
let ch = Check()
let s,f = ch?test1
// Function 'f' takes array of objects as an argument and
// returns object, so the call is not as elegant as it could be
let n = ((f [| |]) :?> int)
You could also add some wrapping to make the function 'f' a little bit nicer, but I hope this demonstrates the idea. Unfortunately, this cannot work for modules.
Here's some sample code that shows off some of this. I use D as the 'dynamic' access of the Checks module plus function name.
module Checks =
let test1(x) = printfn "test1 %d" x
let test2(x,y) = printfn "test2 %s %d" x y
type MyDynamic() = class end
let D = new MyDynamic()
let (?) (md:MyDynamic) fname : (string * ('a -> 'r)) =
let a = md.GetType().Assembly
let t = a.GetType("Program+Checks")
let m = t.GetMethod(fname)
let f arg =
let at = arg.GetType()
let fsharpArgs =
if at.IsGenericType && at.GetGenericTypeDefinition().FullName.StartsWith("System.Tuple`") then
Microsoft.FSharp.Reflection.FSharpValue.GetTupleFields(arg)
else
[| box arg |]
unbox(m.Invoke(null, fsharpArgs))
fname, f
let Main() =
let x = 42
let s = "foo"
let name, func = D?test1
assert(name = "test1")
assert(func(x) = Checks.test1(x))
let name, func = D?test2
assert(name = "test2")
assert(func(s,x) = Checks.test2(s,x))
System.Console.ReadKey()
Main()