I want to build a class in Raku. Here's what I have so far:
unit class Vimwiki::File;
has Str:D $.path is required where *.IO.e;
method size {
return $.file.IO.s;
}
I'd like to get rid of the size method by simply making my class inherit the methods from IO::Path but I'm at a bit of a loss for how to accomplish this. Trying is IO::Path throws errors when I try to create a new object:
$vwf = Vimwiki::File.new(path => 't/test_file.md');
Must specify a non-empty string as a path
in block <unit> at t/01-basic.rakutest line 24
Must specify a non-empty string as a path
I always try a person's code when looking at someone's SO. Yours didn't work. (No declaration of $vwf.) That instantly alerts me that someone hasn't applied Minimal Reproducible Example principles.
So I did and less than 60 seconds later:
IO::Path.new
Yields the same error.
Why?
The doc for IO::Path.new shows its signature:
multi method new(Str:D $path, ...
So, IO::Path's new method expects a positional argument that's a Str. You (and my MRE) haven't passed a positional argument that's a Str. Thus the error message.
Of course, you've declared your own attribute $path, and have passed a named argument to set it, and that's unfortunately confused you because of the coincidence with the name path, but that's the fun of programming.
What next, take #1
Having a path attribute that duplicates IO::Path's strikes me as likely to lead to unnecessary complexity and/or bugs. So I think I'd nix that.
If all you're trying to do is wrap an additional check around the filename, then you could just write:
unit class Vimwiki::File is IO::Path;
method new ($path, |) { $path.IO.e ?? (callsame) !! die 'nope' }
callsame redispatches the ongoing routine call (the new method call), with the exact same arguments, to the next best fitting candidate(s) that would have been chosen if your new one containing the callsame hadn't been called. In this case, the next candidate(s) will be the existing new method(s) of IO::Path.
That seems fine to get started. Then you can add other attributes and methods as you see fit...
What next, take #2
...except for the IO::Path bug you filed, which means you can't initialize attributes in the normal way because IO::Path breaks the standard object construction protocol! :(
Liz shows one way to workaround this bug.
In an earlier version of this answer, I had not only showed but recommended another approach, namely delegation via handles instead of ordinary inheritance. I have since concluded that that was over-complicating things, and so removed it from this answer. And then I read your issue!
So I guess the delegation approach might still be appropriate as a workaround for a bug. So if later readers want to see it in action, follow #sdondley's link to their code. But I'm leaving it out of this (hopefully final! famous last words...) version of this answer in the hope that by the time you (later reader) read this, you just need to do something really simple like take #1.
I've a simple class like this:
Public Class CalculationParameter{
public Long TariffId{get;set;}
}
In a workflow activity, I've an Assign like this:
(From tariffDetail In db.Context.TariffDetails
Where tariffDetial.TariffId = calculationParameter.TariffId).FirstOrDefault()
Dto is passed to Activity as an Input Argument.
It raise following error and I'm wondering how to assign Id. Any Idea?
LINQ to Entities does not recognize the method 'Int64
GetValue[Int64](System.Activities.LocationReference)' method, and this
method cannot be translated into a store expression.
How can I assign the calculationParameter.TariffId to tariffDetial.TariffId?!
UPDATE:
Screen shot attached shows that how I'm trying to assign calculationParameter.TariffId to tariffDetail.TariffId (car.Id = Dto.Id) and the query result should assign to CurrentTrafficDetail object.
Here's your problem. I don't know if there is a solution to it.
As you said in a (now deleted, unfortunately necessitating that I answer) comment, the exception you're getting is
LINQ to Entities does not recognize the method Int64 GetValue[Int64](System.Activities.LocationReference) method, and this method cannot be translated into a store expression.
in your Linq query, calculationParameter is a Variable defined on the workflow. That Variable is actually an instance that extends the type System.Activities.LocationReference and NOT CalculationParameter.
Normally, when the workflow executes, the LocationReference holds all the information it needs to find the value which is assigned to it. That value isn't retrieved until the last possible moment. At runtime, the process of retrieval (getting the executing context, getting the value, converting it to the expected type) is managed by the workflow.
However, when you introduce Linq into the mix, we have the issue you are experiencing. As you may or may not know, your expression gets compiled into the extension method version of the same.
(From tariffDetail In db.Context.TariffDetails
Where tariffDetial.TariffId = calculationParameter.TariffId)
.FirstOrDefault()
is compiled to
db.Context.TariffDetails
.Where(x => x.TariffId = calculationParameter.TariffId)
.FirstOrDefault();
When this executes, L2E doesn't actually execute this code. It gets interpreted and converted into a SQL query which is executed against the database.
As the interpreter isn't omniscient, there are a well defined set of limitations on what methods you can use in a L2S query.
Unfortunately for you, getting the current value of a LocationReference is not one of them.
TL:DR You cannot do this.
As for workarounds, the only thing I think you can do is create a series of extension methods on your data context type or add methods to your CalculationParameter class that you can call from within the Expression Editor. You can create your Linq to Entities queries within these methods, as all types will already have been dereferenced by the workflow runtime, which means you won't have to worry about the L2E interpreter choking on LocationReferences.
*Edit: A workaround can be found here (thanks to Slauma who mentioned this in a comment on the question)
In my language I can use a class variable in my method when the definition appears below the method. It can also call methods below my method and etc. There are no 'headers'. Take this C# example.
class A
{
public void callMethods() { print(); B b; b.notYetSeen();
public void print() { Console.Write("v = {0}", v); }
int v=9;
}
class B
{
public void notYetSeen() { Console.Write("notYetSeen()\n"); }
}
How should I compile that? what i was thinking is:
pass1: convert everything to an AST
pass2: go through all classes and build a list of define classes/variable/etc
pass3: go through code and check if there's any errors such as undefined variable, wrong use etc and create my output
But it seems like for this to work I have to do pass 1 and 2 for ALL files before doing pass3. Also it feels like a lot of work to do until I find a syntax error (other than the obvious that can be done at parse time such as forgetting to close a brace or writing 0xLETTERS instead of a hex value). My gut says there is some other way.
Note: I am using bison/flex to generate my compiler.
My understanding of languages that handle forward references is that they typically just use the first pass to build a list of valid names. Something along the lines of just putting an entry in a table (without filling out the definition) so you have something to point to later when you do your real pass to generate the definitions.
If you try to actually build full definitions as you go, you would end up having to rescan repatedly, each time saving any references to undefined things until the next pass. Even that would fail if there are circular references.
I would go through on pass one and collect all of your class/method/field names and types, ignoring the method bodies. Then in pass two check the method bodies only.
I don't know that there can be any other way than traversing all the files in the source.
I think that you can get it down to two passes - on the first pass, build the AST and whenever you find a variable name, add it to a list that contains that blocks' symbols (it would probably be useful to add that list to the corresponding scope in the tree). Step two is to linearly traverse the tree and make sure that each symbol used references a symbol in that scope or a scope above it.
My description is oversimplified but the basic answer is -- lookahead requires at least two passes.
The usual approach is to save B as "unknown". It's probably some kind of type (because of the place where you encountered it). So you can just reserve the memory (a pointer) for it even though you have no idea what it really is.
For the method call, you can't do much. In a dynamic language, you'd just save the name of the method somewhere and check whether it exists at runtime. In a static language, you can save it in under "unknown methods" somewhere in your compiler along with the unknown type B. Since method calls eventually translate to a memory address, you can again reserve the memory.
Then, when you encounter B and the method, you can clear up your unknowns. Since you know a bit about them, you can say whether they behave like they should or if the first usage is now a syntax error.
So you don't have to read all files twice but it surely makes things more simple.
Alternatively, you can generate these header files as you encounter the sources and save them somewhere where you can find them again. This way, you can speed up the compilation (since you won't have to consider unchanged files in the next compilation run).
Lastly, if you write a new language, you shouldn't use bison and flex anymore. There are much better tools by now. ANTLR, for example, can produce a parser that can recover after an error, so you can still parse the whole file. Or check this Wikipedia article for more options.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 4 years ago.
Improve this question
I've heard some voices saying that checking for a returned null value from methods is bad design. I would like to hear some reasons for this.
pseudocode:
variable x = object.method()
if (x is null) do something
The rationale behind not returning null is that you do not have to check for it and hence your code does not need to follow a different path based on the return value. You might want to check out the Null Object Pattern which provides more information on this.
For example, if I were to define a method in Java that returned a Collection I would typically prefer to return an empty collection (i.e. Collections.emptyList()) rather than null as it means my client code is cleaner; e.g.
Collection<? extends Item> c = getItems(); // Will never return null.
for (Item item : c) { // Will not enter the loop if c is empty.
// Process item.
}
... which is cleaner than:
Collection<? extends Item> c = getItems(); // Could potentially return null.
// Two possible code paths now so harder to test.
if (c != null) {
for (Item item : c) {
// Process item.
}
}
Here's the reason.
In Clean Code by Robert Martin he writes that returning null is bad design when you can instead return, say, empty array. Since expected result is an array, why not? It'll enable you to iterate over result without any extra conditions. If it's an integer, maybe 0 will suffice, if it's a hash, empty hash. etc.
The premise is to not force calling code to immediately handle issues. Calling code may not want to concern itself with them. That's also why in many cases exceptions is better than nil.
Good uses of returning null:
If null is a valid functional result, for example: FindFirstObjectThatNeedsProcessing() can return null if not found and the caller should check accordingly.
Bad uses: Trying to replace or hide exceptional situations such as:
catch(...) and return null
API dependency initialization failed
Out of disk space
Invalid input parameters (programming error, inputs must be sanitized by the caller)
etc
In those cases throwing an exception is more adequate since:
A null return value provides no meaningful error info
The immediate caller most likely cannot handle the error condition
There is no guarantee that the caller is checking for null results
However, Exceptions should not be used to handle normal program operation conditions such as:
Invalid username/password (or any user-provided inputs)
Breaking loops or as non-local gotos
Yes, returning NULL is a terrible design, in object-oriented world. In a nutshell, NULL usage leads to:
ad-hoc error handling (instead of exceptions)
ambiguous semantic
slow instead of fast failing
computer thinking instead of object thinking
mutable and incomplete objects
Check this blog post for a detailed explanation: http://www.yegor256.com/2014/05/13/why-null-is-bad.html. More in my book Elegant Objects, Section 4.1.
Who says this is bad design?
Checking for nulls is a common practice, even encouraged, otherwise you run the risk of NullReferenceExceptions everywhere. Its better to handle the error gracefully than throw exceptions when you don't need to.
Based on what you've said so far, I think there's not enough information.
Returning null from a CreateWidget()method seems bad.
Returning null from a FindFooInBar() method seems fine.
Its inventor says it is a billion dollar mistake!
It depends on the language you're using. If you're in a language like C# where the idiomatic way of indicating the lack of a value is to return null, then returning null is a good design if you don't have a value. Alternatively, in languages such as Haskell which idiomatically use the Maybe monad for this case, then returning null would be a bad design (if it were even possible).
If you read all the answers it becomes clear the answer to this question depends on the kind of method.
Firstly, when something exceptional happens (IOproblem etc), logically exceptions are thrown. When exactly something is exceptional is probably something for a different topic..
Whenever a method is expected to possibly have no results there are two categories:
If it is possible to return a neutral value, do so.
Empty enumrables, strings etc are good examples
If such a neutral value does not exist, null should be returned.
As mentioned, the method is assumed to possibly have no result, so it is not exceptional, hence should not throw an exception. A neutral value is not possible (for example: 0 is not especially a neutral result, depending on the program)
Untill we have an official way to denote that a function can or cannot return null, I try to have a naming convention to denote so.
Just like you have the TrySomething() convention for methods that are expected to fail, I often name my methods SafeSomething() when the method returns a neutral result instead of null.
I'm not fully ok with the name yet, but couldn't come up with anything better. So I'm running with that for now.
I have a convention in this area that served me well
For single item queries:
Create... returns a new instance, or throws
Get... returns an expected existing instance, or throws
GetOrCreate... returns an existing instance, or new instance if none exists, or throws
Find... returns an existing instance, if it exists, or null
For collection queries:
Get... always returns a collection, which is empty if no matching[1] items are found
[1] given some criteria, explicit or implicit, given in the function name or as parameters.
Exceptions are for exceptional circumstances.
If your function is intended to find an attribute associated with a given object, and that object does has no such attribute, it may be appropriate to return null. If the object does not exist, throwing an exception may be more appropriate. If the function is meant to return a list of attributes, and there are none to return, returning an empty list makes sense - you're returning all zero attributes.
It's not necessarily a bad design - as with so many design decisions, it depends.
If the result of the method is something that would not have a good result in normal use, returning null is fine:
object x = GetObjectFromCache(); // return null if it's not in the cache
If there really should always be a non-null result, then it might be better to throw an exception:
try {
Controller c = GetController(); // the controller object is central to
// the application. If we don't get one,
// we're fubar
// it's likely that it's OK to not have the try/catch since you won't
// be able to really handle the problem here
}
catch /* ... */ {
}
It's fine to return null if doing so is meaningful in some way:
public String getEmployeeName(int id){ ..}
In a case like this it's meaningful to return null if the id doesn't correspond to an existing entity, as it allows you to distinguish the case where no match was found from a legitimate error.
People may think this is bad because it can be abused as a "special" return value that indicates an error condition, which is not so good, a bit like returning error codes from a function but confusing because the user has to check the return for null, instead of catching the appropriate exceptions, e.g.
public Integer getId(...){
try{ ... ; return id; }
catch(Exception e){ return null;}
}
For certain scenarios, you want to notice a failure as soon as it happens.
Checking against NULL and not asserting (for programmer errors) or throwing (for user or caller errors) in the failure case can mean that later crashes are harder to track down, because the original odd case wasn't found.
Moreover, ignoring errors can lead to security exploits. Perhaps the null-ness came from the fact that a buffer was overwritten or the like. Now, you are not crashing, which means the exploiter has a chance to execute in your code.
What alternatives do you see to returning null?
I see two cases:
findAnItem( id ). What should this do if the item is not found
In this case we could: Return Null or throw a (checked) exception (or maybe create an item and return it)
listItemsMatching (criteria) what should this return if nothing is found?
In this case we could return Null, return an empty list or throw an Exception.
I believe that return null may be less good than the alternatives becasue it requires the client to remember to check for null, programmers forget and code
x = find();
x.getField(); // bang null pointer exception
In Java, throwing a checked exception, RecordNotFoundException, allows the compiler to remind the client to deal with case.
I find that searches returning empty lists can be quite convenient - just populate the display with all the contents of the list, oh it's empty, the code "just works".
Make them call another method after the fact to figure out if the previous call was null. ;-) Hey, it was good enough for JDBC
Well, it sure depends of the purpose of the method ... Sometimes, a better choice would be to throw an exception. It all depends from case to case.
Sometimes, returning NULL is the right thing to do, but specifically when you're dealing with sequences of different sorts (arrays, lists, strings, what-have-you) it is probably better to return a zero-length sequence, as it leads to shorter and hopefully more understandable code, while not taking much more writing on API implementer's part.
The base idea behind this thread is to program defensively. That is, code against the unexpected.
There is an array of different replies:
Adamski suggests looking at Null Object Pattern, with that reply being up voted for that suggestion.
Michael Valenty also suggests a naming convention to tell the developer what may be expected.
ZeroConcept suggests a proper use of Exception, if that is the reason for the NULL.
And others.
If we make the "rule" that we always want to do defensive programming then we can see that these suggestions are valid.
But we have 2 development scenarios.
Classes "authored" by a developer: The Author
Classes "consumed" by another(maybe) developer: the Developer
Regardless of whether a class returns NULL for methods with a return value or not,
the Developer will need to test if the object is valid.
If the developer cannot do this, then that Class/method is not deterministic.
That is, if the "method call" to get the object does not do what it "advertises" (eg getEmployee) it has broken the contract.
As an author of a class, I always want to be as kind and defensive ( and deterministic) when creating a method.
So given that either NULL or the NULL OBJECT (eg if(employee as NullEmployee.ISVALID)) needs to be checked
and that may need to happen with a collection of Employees, then the null object approach is the better approach.
But I also like Michael Valenty's suggestion of naming the method that MUST return null eg getEmployeeOrNull.
An Author who throws an exception is removing the choice for the developer to test the object's validity,
which is very bad on a collection of objects, and forces the developer into exception handling
when branching their consuming code.
As a developer consuming the class, I hope the author gives me the ability to avoid or program for the null situation
that their class/methods may be faced with.
So as a developer I would program defensively against NULL from a method.
If the author has given me a contract that always returns a object (NULL OBJECT always does)
and that object has a method/property by which to test the validity of the object,
then I would use that method/property to continue using the object, else the object is not valid
and I cannot use it.
Bottom line is that the Author of the Class/Methods must provide mechanisms
that a Developer can use in their defensive programming. That is, a clearer intention of the method.
The Developer should always use defensive programming to test the validity of the objects returned
from another class/method.
regards
GregJF
Other options to this, are:
returning some value that indicates success or not (or type of an error), but if you just need boolean value that will indicate success / fail, returning null for failure, and an object for success wouldn't be less correct, then returning true/false and getting the object through parameter.
Other approach would to to use exception to indicates failures, but here - there are actually many more voices, that say this is a BAD practice (as using exceptions may be convenient but has many disadvantages).
So I personally don't see anything bad in returning null as indication that something went wrong, and checking it later (to actually know if you have succeeded or not). Also, blindly thinking that your method will not return NULL, and then base your code on it, may lead to other, sometimes hard to find, errors (although in most cases it will just crash your system :), as you will reference to 0x00000000 sooner or later).
Unintended null functions can arise during the development of a complex programs, and like dead code, such occurrences indicate serious flaws in program structures.
A null function or method is often used as the default behavior of a revectorable function or overrideable method in an object framework.
Null_function #wikipedia
If the code is something like:
command = get_something_to_do()
if command: # if not Null
command.execute()
If you have a dummy object whose execute() method does nothing, and you return that instead of Null in the appropriate cases, you don't have to check for the Null case and can instead just do:
get_something_to_do().execute()
So, here the issue is not between checking for NULL vs. an exception, but is instead between the caller having to handle special non-cases differently (in whatever way) or not.
For my use case I needed to return a Map from method and then looking for a specific key. But if I return an empty Map, then it will lead to NullPointerException and then it wont be much different returning null instead of an empty Map.
But from Java8 onward we could use Optional. The above is the very reason Optional concept was introduced.
G'day,
Returning NULL when you are unable to create a new object is standard practise for many APIs.
Why the hell it's bad design I have no idea.
Edit: This is true of languages where you don't have exceptions such as C where it has been the convention for many years.
HTH
'Avahappy,
Consider the following line of code:
private void DoThis() {
int i = 5;
var repo = new ReportsRepository<RptCriteriaHint>();
// This does NOT work
var query1 = repo.Find(x => x.CriteriaTypeID == i).ToList<RptCriteriaHint>();
// This DOES work
var query1 = repo.Find(x => x.CriteriaTypeID == 5).ToList<RptCriteriaHint>();
}
So when I hardwire an actual number into the lambda function, it works fine. When I use a captured variable into the expression it comes back with the following error:
No mapping exists from object type
ReportBuilder.Reporter+<>c__DisplayClass0
to a known managed provider native
type.
Why? How can I fix it?
Technically, the correct way to fix this is for the framework that is accepting the expression tree from your lambda to evaluate the i reference; in other words, it's a LINQ framework limitation for some specific framework. What it is currently trying to do is interpret the i as a member access on some type known to it (the provider) from the database. Because of the way lambda variable capture works, the i local variable is actually a field on a hidden class, the one with the funny name, that the provider doesn't recognize.
So, it's a framework problem.
If you really must get by, you could construct the expression manually, like this:
ParameterExpression x = Expression.Parameter(typeof(RptCriteriaHint), "x");
var query = repo.Find(
Expression.Lambda<Func<RptCriteriaHint,bool>>(
Expression.Equal(
Expression.MakeMemberAccess(
x,
typeof(RptCriteriaHint).GetProperty("CriteriaTypeID")),
Expression.Constant(i)),
x)).ToList();
... but that's just masochism.
Your comment on this entry prompts me to explain further.
Lambdas are convertible into one of two types: a delegate with the correct signature, or an Expression<TDelegate> of the correct signature. LINQ to external databases (as opposed to any kind of in-memory query) works using the second kind of conversion.
The compiler converts lambda expressions into expression trees, roughly speaking, by:
The syntax tree is parsed by the compiler - this happens for all code.
The syntax tree is rewritten after taking into account variable capture. Capturing variables is just like in a normal delegate or lambda - so display classes get created, and captured locals get moved into them (this is the same behaviour as variable capture in C# 2.0 anonymous delegates).
The new syntax tree is converted into a series of calls to the Expression class so that, at runtime, an object tree is created that faithfully represents the parsed text.
LINQ to external data sources is supposed to take this expression tree and interpret it for its semantic content, and interpret symbolic expressions inside the tree as either referring to things specific to its context (e.g. columns in the DB), or immediate values to convert. Usually, System.Reflection is used to look for framework-specific attributes to guide this conversion.
However, it looks like SubSonic is not properly treating symbolic references that it cannot find domain-specific correspondences for; rather than evaluating the symbolic references, it's just punting. Thus, it's a SubSonic problem.