In VB.NET, which is better to use: function overloading or default parameters?
if the parameters are optional (i.e. the overloads are a subset of the parameters that the full procedure signature accepts) then default or optional parameters would make more sense.
If the overload is allowing a different type for the parameter or is a semantically different parameter that will be interpreted differently by the routine then overloads would make more sense.
Is the code going to be used by other languages? If so, that swings the balance towards overloads while still bearing Hamish's answer in mind. In particular, C# doesn't support optional parameters - yet...
Admittedly this wouldn't actually prevent someone using your code from C#, it just might be a pain for them.
If there are a lot of parameters and they logically represent something, you might want to consider encapsulating them together, in the same way that Process works with ProcessStartInfo. That's particularly nice from C# due to object initializers.
If this is for construction, you might also consider the builder pattern as a variant of this. For instance, in Protocol Buffers I can do something like:
Person jon = new Person.Builder { Name="Jon", Age=32,
Spouse="Holly", Kids=3 }.Build();
which ends up being very readable while still creating a person in one go (in one expression, and without having to mutate the person itself - indeed the message type is immutable; it's only the builder which isn't).
FYI
If you want to add a parameter to a function or method that is called from other assemblies, then:
You can overload by making an additional function with the extra parameter.
Or you can add an optional parameter, BUT: You have to recompile all of the assemblies that call this function, even if they don't need to use the new optional parameter! This is not usually what people expect (expecially those used to how VB6 works). Basically, you can't slip in a new optional parameter to a function and expect it to be totally backwards compatible. Also, as I understand it, if you change what the default value is, you need to rebuild all calling assemblies for the change to work.
Related
I see some usages of Extension functions in Kotlin I don't personally think that makes sense, but it seems that there are some guidelines that "apparently" support it (a matter of interpretation).
Specifically: defining an extension function outside a class (but in the same file):
data class AddressDTO(val state: State,
val zipCode: String,
val city: String,
val streetAddress: String
)
fun AddressDTO.asXyzFormat() = "${streetAddress}\n${city}\n${state.name} $zipCode"
Where the asXyzFormat() is widely used, and cannot be defined as private/internal (but also for the cases it may be).
In my common sense, if you own the code (AddressDTO) and the usage is not local to some class / module (hence behing private/internal) - there is no reason to define an extension function - just define it as a member function of that class.
Edge case: if you want to avoid serialization of the function starting with get - annotate the class to get the desired behavior (e.g. #JsonIgnore on the function). This IMHO still doesn't justify an extension function.
The counter-response I got to this is that the approach of having an extension function of this fashion is supported by the Official Kotlin Coding Conventions. Specifically:
Use extension functions liberally. Every time you have a function that works primarily on an object, consider making it an extension function accepting that object as a receiver.
Source
And:
In particular, when defining extension functions for a class which are relevant for all clients of this class, put them in the same file where the class itself is defined. When defining extension functions that make sense only for a specific client, put them next to the code of that client. Do not create files just to hold "all extensions of Foo".
Source
I'll appreciate any commonly accepted source/reference explaining why it makes more sense to move the function to be a member of the class and/or pragmatic arguments support this separation.
That quote about using extension functions liberally, I'm pretty sure means use them liberally as opposed to top level non-extension functions (not as opposed to making it a member function). It's saying that if a top-level function conceptually works on a target object, prefer the extension function form.
I've searched before for the answer to why you might choose to make a function an extension function instead of a member function when working on a class you own the source code for, and have never found a canonical answer from JetBrains. Here are some reasons I think you might, but some are highly subject to opinion.
Sometimes you want a function that operates on a class with a specific generic type. Think of List<Int>.sum(), which is only available to a subset of Lists, but not a subtype of List.
Interfaces can be thought of as contracts. Functions that do something to an interface may make more sense conceptually since they are not part of the contract. I think this is the rationale for most of the standard library extension functions for Iterable and Sequence. A similar rationale might apply to a data class, if you think of a data class almost like a passive struct.
Extension functions afford the possibility of allowing users to pseudo-override them, but forcing them to do it in an independent way. Suppose your asXyzFormat() were an open member function. In some other module, you receive AddressDTO instances and want to get the XYZ format of them, exactly in the format you expect. But the AddressDTO you receive might have overridden asXyzFormat() and provide you something unexpected, so now you can't trust the function. If you use an extension function, than you allow users to replace asXyzFormat() in their own packages with something applicable to that space, but you can always trust the function asXyzFormat() in the source package.
Similarly for interfaces, a member function with default implementation invites users to override it. As the author of the interface, you may want a reliable function you can use on that interface with expected behavior. Although the end-user can hide your extension in their own module by overloading it, that will have no effect on your own uses of the function.
For what it's worth, I think it would be very rare to choose to make an extension function for a class (not an interface) when you own the source code for it. And I can't think of any examples of that in the standard library. Which leads me to believe that the Coding Conventions document is using the word "class" in a liberal sense that includes interfaces.
Here's a reverse argument…
One of the main reasons for adding extension functions to the language is being able to add functionality to classes from the standard library, and from third-party libraries and other dependencies where you don't control the code and can't add member functions (AKA methods). I suspect it's mainly those cases that that section of the coding conventions is talking about.
In Java, the only option in this cases is utility methods: static methods, usually in a utility class gathering together lots of such methods, each taking the relevant object as its first parameter:
public static String[] splitOnChar(String str, char separator)
public static boolean isAllDigits(String str)
…and so on, interminably.
The main problem there is that such methods are hard to find (no help from the IDE unless you already know about all the various utility classes). Also, calling them is long-winded (though it improved a bit once static imports were available).
Kotlin's extension methods are implemented exactly the same way down at the bytecode level, but their syntax is much simpler and exactly like member functions: they're written the same way (with this &c), calling them looks just like calling a member function, and your IDE will suggest them.
(Of course, they have drawbacks, too: no dynamic dispatch, no inheritance or overriding, scoping/import issues, name clashes, references to them are awkward, accessing them from Java or reflection is awkward, and so on.)
So: if the main purpose of extension functions is to substitute for member functions when member functions aren't possible, why would you use them when member functions are possible?!
(To be fair, there are a few reasons why you might want them. For example, you can make the receiver nullable, which isn't possible with member functions. But in most cases, they're greatly outweighed by the benefits of a proper member function.)
This means that the vast majority of extension functions are likely to be written for classes that you don't control the source code for, and so you don't have the option of putting them next to the class.
The ABAP documentation lists three kinds of modularization structures:
Methods. Problem: methods don't accept parameters.
Function modules. Problem: FMs belong to function groups and can be called from other programs. Apparently they are meant to be reused across the system.
Forms. Problem: are marked as "obsolete".
Is there a newer structure that replaces the obsolete FORM structure, that is:
Local to our program.
Accepts parameters.
Doesn't require ABAP Objects syntax ?
Methods. Problem: methods don't accept parameters.
I am not sure how you came to that conclusion, because methods support parameters very well. The only limitation compared to FORMs is that they don't support TABLES parameters to take a TABLE WITH HEADER LINE. But they support CHANGING parameters with internal tables, which covers any case where you don't actually need the header-line. And in the rare case that you are indeed forced to deal with a TABLE WITH HEADER LINE and the method actually needs the header-line (I pity you), you can pass the header-line as a separate parameter.
You declare a method with parameters like this:
CLASS lcl_main DEFINITION.
METHODS foo
IMPORTING iv_bar TYPE i
EXPORTING es_last_message TYPE bapiret2
CHANGING ct_all_messages TYPE bapiret2_t.
ENDCLASS.
And you call it either like that:
main->foo( IMPORTING iv_bar = 1
EXPORTING es_last_message = t_messages
CHANGING ct_all_messages = t_messages[] ).
or with the more classic syntax like that:
CALL METHOD main->foo
IMPORTING iv_bar = 1
EXPORTING es_last_message = t_messages
CHANGING ct_all_messages = t_messages[].
Function modules. Problem: FMs belong to function groups and can be called from other programs. Apparently they are meant to be reused across the system.
Yes, function modules are supposed to be global while FORM's are supposed to be local (supposed to: You can actually call a FORM in another program with PERFORM formname IN PROGRAM programname).
But classes can be local or global, depending on how you created them. A global class can be used by any program in the system. So function groups can be substituted by global classes in most cases.
The one use-case where function modules can not be substituted by methods of classes is for RFC-enabled function modules. RFC is the Remote Function Call protocol which allows external systems to execute a function module in another system via network. However, if you do need some other system to communicate with your SAP system, then you might want to consider to use webservices instead, which can be implemented with pure ABAP-OO. And they also offer much better interoperability with non-SAP systems because they don't require a proprietary protocol.
Is there a newer structure that replaces the obsolete FORM structure, that [...] Doesn't require ABAP Objects syntax ?
Here is where you got a problem. ABAP Objects syntax is the way we are supposed to program ABAP now. There is currently a pretty hard push to forget all the non-OO ways to write ABAP and fully embrace the ABAP-OO styles of writing code. With every new release, more classic syntax which can be substituted by ABAP-OO syntax gets declared obsolete.
However, so far SAP follows the philosophy of 100% backward compatibility. While they might try their best to compel people to not use certain obsolete language constructs (including adding scary-sounding warnings to the syntax check), they very rarely actually remove any language features. They hardly can, because they themselves got tons of legacy code which uses them and which would be far too expensive and risky to rewrite. The only case I can think of when they actually removed language features was when they introduced Unicode which made certain direct assignments between now incompatible types syntactically illegal.
You are having some wrong information there. Don't know what system version are you in, but this info could help you out:
Methods: They actually accept parameters (should be crazy if they wouldn't). In fact, they accept IMPORTING, EXPORTING, CHANGING and RETURNING parameters.
Forms: Indeed they are obsolete, but in my opinion there is no risk in using then, almost every standard component relies in programs made out of FORMS. FORMS are a core concept in ABAP programming. They are the "function" or "def" of many other languages. They accept USING, CHANGING and TABLES parameters.
Suppose I have a function (in Kotlin over Java):
fun <E> myFun() = ...
where E is a general type I know nothing about. Can I determine within this function whether there exists an extension function E.extFun()? And if so, how?
I very much doubt this is possible.
Note that extension functions are resolved statically, at compile time.
And that they're dependent on the extension function being in scope, usually via a relevant import. In particular, it's possible to have more than one extension function with the same name for the same class, as long as they're defined in different places; the one that's in scope will get called.
Within your function, you won't have access to any of that context. So even if you use reflection (which is the usual, and much-abused, ‘get out of jail free card’ for this sort of issue), you still won't be able to find the relevant extension function(s). (Not unless you have prior knowledge of where they might be defined — but in that case, you can probably use that knowledge to come up with a better approach.)
So while I can't say for certain, it seems highly unlikely.
Why do you want to determine this? What are you trying to achieve by it?
Where in the VB6/VBA project references do Array(), LBound(), and UBound() come from..? When I'm typing in code, they don't appear in the Autocomplete list (ctrl+space), they don't get autocompleted, and they must be typed out completely before the text editor recognizes them. And only when a left-parenthesis is typed will ToolTipText pop up with the command syntax. Also, they do not appear anywhere in Object Explorer.
There's probably a basic concept in play here that I'm not aware of. And it makes me wonder, what other commands/statements/keywords are hidden in the same way..? Is there a list somewhere..? I googled for info but didn't find anything, probably because I don't know what I'm looking for and using the wrong search terms.
I ask these questions because I have the habit of prefixing many VB6 built-in functions like this: VBA.Left(), VBA.Len, VBA.Instr(), and so on. But I can't figure out what reference prefeix to use with Array(), LBound(), and UBound(), or perhaps they're so basic to VB6 that they don't have one.
I do this prefixing because years ago I was working on a large project, and there were functions I was trying to use with the same name in different reference libraries. I was a newbie and it took me a while to figure out, and it was causing tremendous problems since the functions were just NOT working the way I thought they were supposed to. It was then that I developed the prefixing habit after I figured it out. It's just easier that way, and always ensures the expected functions are being used.
The reason that they don't appear as IntelliSense options (and also why they don't appear in the Object Browser) is that they aren't declared in the VBE7.dll typelib for some reason that's beyond me. The Array function is implemented in the .dll as rtcArray. The utility of knowing that is dubious, in that its sole argument is a ParamArray, which means that if you called it directly from VBE7.dll you would need to create an array to have it feed you back the same array... This partially explains why it isn't on the typelib - a COM call would need to do the same thing, and the marshaling would basically be doing the same thing as what you'd expect the function to return.
LBound and UBound don't even appear as functions in the export table, so my guess is that they are handled more like "keywords" than first class functions internally. This makes some sense, in that it's fairly trivial to check the bounds of a SAFEARRAY if you have a pointer to the automation struct (you just index into the rgsabound array at the end of it and read the cElements and lLbound from it. Again a guess, but I'd assume that this allows for flexibility in letting LBound and UBound function with both fixed length and variable length arrays. In the fixed case, the array is basically managed as a block of memory with an indexer (more like a VT_CARRAY than a VT_SAFEARRAY). I'd imagine that handling this internally was easier or more convenient than providing first-class functions.
You won't find Debug in the Object Browser either, nor its methods Assert and Print.
You won't find Statements that are used like methods, like Open, Close, Get and Put, which is why you don't get any Intellisense when you use those statements, and the syntax must be memorized.
You will find Load and Unload as members of VBA.Global, but it's not clear what they belong to otherwise, and their arguments are late-bound Objects. The VBA documentation states that Load and Unload are Statements, even though the Object Browser shows them as Methods.
Keep in mind that you can move the order of references and it will make a difference. Try moving VBA to the top or near the top of your list of references. I believe that if something else also defines a BASIC keyword, it steals it, in a sense. I once had Right disappear and because I was not aware of the order of references, had to change all references of Right to VBA.Right. It's possibly the same with the ubound, lbound, or array.
I'm using NUnit to verify some code and have a problem reporting helpful information. My tests go something along the following lines:
Assert::IsTrue(myClassInstance.SomeMethodToTest(), "Test failed: {0}", myClassInstance.LastError);
The problem is that the LastError property is evaluated before the method is tested so the last error is blank.
Is there any way to delay the evaluation of the last error to give the function some more meaningful output?
Well, that's a big bummer, but you are invoking Undefined Behavior here. NUnit was originally designed for Java, ported pretty well to C# and VB.NET. Languages that promise strict left-to-right function argument evaluation order in their language spec. So that Assert.IsTrue() method has well defined behavior in those languages.
But not in C++/CLI, it takes advantage of the UB rule in C++. No doubt inspired by the [ParamArray] for the 3rd argument, it first polishes off that one before evaluating the other arguments. You get right-to-left order. Shooting off the hip, I'd say that this has something to do with varargs emulation.
Not so sure what to recommend, sailing around UB is forever tricky. You can technically provide your own overloads of Assert::IsTrue() with one or more Object^ arguments. The compiler will pick those instead of the [ParamArray] overload. Or avoid the [ParamArray] overload completely and use String::Format() to generate the message argument instead. You'll now get left-to-right. That's still UB however, it looks okay but I can't promise this will work with every possible set of argument expressions.
Ouch, sorry.