In cppcx, I used to have this:
auto button = safe_cast<ContentControl ^>(obj);
if (auto text = dynamic_cast<Platform::String^>(button->Content)) {
return text->Data();
}
When I try to do this to convert this code to cppwinrt:
auto button = obj.as<winrt::ContentControl>();
if (auto text = button.Content().try_as<winrt::hstring>()) {
return text.c_str();
}
I get the following error:
Error (active) E0312 no suitable user-defined conversion from "winrt::impl::com_refwinrt::hstring" to "wchar_t*" exists
I was hoping I would get a winrt::hstring as a result of the try_as and I can get the .c_str() from it, but I am getting a winrt::impl::com_refwinrt::hstring instead. What am I missing?
It looks like you want to unbox a scalar value behind an IInspectable interface (see Boxing and unboxing scalar values to IInspectable with C++/WinRT). For unboxing you'll want to use the unbox_value function template:
auto button = obj.as<winrt::ContentControl>();
if (auto text = unbox_value<winrt::hstring>(button.Content())) {
return text.c_str();
}
Although it's questionable, whether you really want to return a pointer that points into the middle of some data owned elsewhere. It's probably best to just return an hstring by value. String handling in C++/WinRT has more information on the topic.
Related
I was wondering why this is valid go code:
func FindUserInfo(id string) (Info, bool) {
it, present := all[id]
return it, present
}
but this isn't
func FindUserInfo(id string) (Info, bool) {
return all[id]
}
is there a way to avoid the temporary variables?
To elaborate on my comment, the Effective Go mentions that the multi-value assignment from accessing a map key is called the "comma ok" pattern.
Sometimes you need to distinguish a missing entry from a zero value. Is there an entry for "UTC" or is that the empty string because it's not in the map at all? You can discriminate with a form of multiple assignment.
var seconds int
var ok bool
seconds, ok = timeZone[tz]
For obvious reasons this is called the “comma ok” idiom. In this example, if tz is present, seconds will be set appropriately and ok will be true; if not, seconds will be set to zero and ok will be false.
Playground demonstrating this
We can see that this differs from calling a regular function where the compiler would tell you that something is wrong:
package main
import "fmt"
func multiValueReturn() (int, int) {
return 0, 0
}
func main() {
fmt.Println(multiValueReturn)
asgn1, _ := multiValueReturn()
asgn2 := multiValueReturn()
}
On the playground this will output
# command-line-arguments
/tmp/sandbox592492597/main.go:14: multiple-value multiValueReturn() in single-value context
This gives us a hint that it may be something the compiler is doing. Searching the source code for "commaOk" gives us a few places to look, including types.unpack
At the time of writing this it this the method's godoc reads:
// unpack takes a getter get and a number of operands n. If n == 1, unpack
// calls the incoming getter for the first operand. If that operand is
// invalid, unpack returns (nil, 0, false). Otherwise, if that operand is a
// function call, or a comma-ok expression and allowCommaOk is set, the result
// is a new getter and operand count providing access to the function results,
// or comma-ok values, respectively. The third result value reports if it
// is indeed the comma-ok case. In all other cases, the incoming getter and
// operand count are returned unchanged, and the third result value is false.
//
// In other words, if there's exactly one operand that - after type-checking
// by calling get - stands for multiple operands, the resulting getter provides
// access to those operands instead.
//
// If the returned getter is called at most once for a given operand index i
// (including i == 0), that operand is guaranteed to cause only one call of
// the incoming getter with that i.
//
The key bits of this being that this method appears to determine whether or not something is actually a "comma ok" case.
Digging into that method tells us that it will check to see if the mode of the operands is indexing a map or if the mode is set to commaok (where this is defined does give us many hints on when it's used, but searching the source for assignments to commaok we can see it's used when getting a value from a channel and type assertions). Remember the bolded bit for later!
if x0.mode == mapindex || x0.mode == commaok {
// comma-ok value
if allowCommaOk {
a := [2]Type{x0.typ, Typ[UntypedBool]}
return func(x *operand, i int) {
x.mode = value
x.expr = x0.expr
x.typ = a[i]
}, 2, true
}
x0.mode = value
}
allowCommaOk is a parameter to the function. Checking out where unpack is called in that file we can see that all callers pass false as an argument. Searching the rest of the repository leads us to assignments.go in the Checker.initVars() method.
l := len(lhs)
get, r, commaOk := unpack(func(x *operand, i int) { check.expr(x, rhs[i]) }, len(rhs), l == 2 && !returnPos.IsValid())
Since it seems that we can only use the "comma ok" pattern to get two return values when doing a multi-value assignment this seems like the right place to look! In the above code the length of the left hand side is checked, and when unpack is called the allowCommaOk parameter is the result of l == 2 && !returnPos.IsValid(). The !returnPos.IsValid() is somewhat confusing here as that would mean that the position has no file or line information associated with it, but we'll just ignore that.
Further down in that method we've got:
var x operand
if commaOk {
var a [2]Type
for i := range a {
get(&x, i)
a[i] = check.initVar(lhs[i], &x, returnPos.IsValid())
}
check.recordCommaOkTypes(rhs[0], a)
return
}
So what does all of this tell us?
Since the unpack method takes an allowCommaOk parameter that's hardcoded to false everywhere except in assignment.go's Checker.initVars() method, we can probably assume that you will only ever get two values when doing an assignment and have two variables on the left-hand side.
The unpack method will determine whether or not you actually do get an ok value in return by checking if you are indexing a slice, grabbing a value from a channel, or doing a type assertion
Since you can only get the ok value when doing an assignment it looks like in your specific case you will always need to use variables
You may save a couple of key strokes by using named returns:
func FindUserInfo(id string) (i Info, ok bool) {
i, ok = all[id]
return
}
But apart from that, I don't think what you want is possible.
Simply put: the reason why your second example isn't valid Go code is because the language specification says so. ;)
Indexing a map only yields a secondary value in an assignment to two variables. Return statement is not an assignment.
An index expression on a map a of type map[K]V used in an assignment or initialization of the special form
v, ok = a[x]
v, ok := a[x]
var v, ok = a[x]
yields an additional untyped boolean value. The value of ok is true if the key x is present in the map, and false otherwise.
Furthermore, indexing a map is not a "single call to a multi-valued function", which is one of the three ways to return values from a function (the second one, the other two not being relevant here):
There are three ways to return values from a function with a result type:
The return value or values may be explicitly listed in the "return" statement. Each expression must be single-valued and assignable to the corresponding element of the function's result type.
The expression list in the "return" statement may be a single call to a multi-valued function. The effect is as if each value returned from that function were assigned to a temporary variable with the type of the respective value, followed by a "return" statement listing these variables, at which point the rules of the previous case apply.
The expression list may be empty if the function's result type specifies names for its result parameters. The result parameters act as ordinary local variables and the function may assign values to them as necessary. The "return" statement returns the values of these variables.
As for your actual question: the only way to avoid temporary variables would be using non-temporary variables, but usually that would be quite unwise - and probably not much of an optimization even when safe.
So, why doesn't the language specification allow this kind of special use of map indexing (or type assertion or channel receive, both of which can also utilize the "comma ok" idiom) in return statements? That's a good question. My guess: to keep the language specification simple.
I'm no Go expert but I believe you are getting compile time error when you are trying to return the array i.e. return all[id]. The reason could be because the functions return type is specially mentioned as (Info, bool) and when you are doing return all[id] it can't map the return type of all[id] to (Info, bool).
However the solution mentioned above, the variables being returned i and ok are the same that are mentioned in the return type of the function (i Info, ok bool) and hence the compiler knows what it's returning as opposed to just doing (i Info, ok bool).
By default, maps in golang return a single value when accessing a key
https://blog.golang.org/go-maps-in-action
Hence, return all[id] won't compile for a function that expects 2 return values.
I'm working with lua-alchemy, and I'm setting a global variable in my AS3 code in this way:
_lua.setGlobal("map", _map);
With _map being a object with the following function in it:
public function get x():int
{
return 10;
}
if then I try to do something like this in Lua
local a = map.x + 1
I get the following error:
Lua script failed: luaDoString:21: attempt to perform arithmetic on field 'x' (a table value)
Does anyone knows why it does that, and how I could fix it?
EDIT :
When I print type(map.id), it prints table... Shouldn't it print number?
I found my error. According to this page, I have to use as3.tolua(map.x) to convert it to the right type.
At the beginning of a method I want to check if the method is called with these exact parameters before, and if so, return the result that was returned back then.
At first, with one parameter, I used a Dictionary, but now I need to check 3 parameters (a String, an Object and a boolean).
I tried making a custom Object like so:
var cacheKey:Object = { identifier:identifier, type:type, someBoolean:someBoolean };
//if key already exists, return it (not working)
if (resultCache[cacheKey]) return resultCache[cacheKey];
//else: create result ...
//and save it in the cache
resultCache[cacheKey] = result;
But this doesn't work, because the seccond time the function is called, the new cacheKey is not the same object as the first, even though it's properties are the same.
So my question is: is there a datatype that will check the properties of the object used as key for a matching key?
And what else is my best option? Create a cache for the keys as well? :/
Note there are two aspects to the technical solution: equality comparison and indexing.
The Cliff Notes version:
It's easy to do custom equality comparison
In order to perform indexing, you need to know more than whether one object is equal to another -- you need to know which is object is "bigger" than the other.
If all of your properties are primitives you should squash them into a single string and use an Object to keep track of them (NOT a Dictionary).
If you need to compare some of the individual properties for reference equality you're going to have a write a function to determine which set of properties is bigger than the other, and then make your own collection class that uses the output of the comparison function to implement its own a binary search tree based indexing.
If the number of unique sets of arguments is in the several hundreds or less AND you do need reference comparison for your Object argument, just use an Array and the some method to do a naive comparison to all cached keys. Only you know how expensive your actual method is, so it's up to you to decide what lookup cost (which depends on the number of unique arguments provided to the function) is acceptable.
Equality comparison
To address equality comparison it is easy enough to write some code to compare objects for the values of their properties, rather than for reference equality. The following function enforces strict set comparison, so that both objects must contain exactly the same properties (no additional properties on either object allowed) with the same values:
public static propsEqual(obj1:Object, obj2:Object):Boolean {
for(key1:* in obj1) {
if(obj2[key1] === undefined)
return false;
if(obj2[key1] != obj2[key1])
return false;
}
for(key2:* in obj2)
if(obj1[key2] === undefined)
return false;
return true;
}
You could speed it up by eliminating the second for loop with the tradeoff that {A:1, B:2} will be deemed equal to {A:1, B:2, C:'An extra property'}.
Indexing
The problem with this in your case is that you lose the indexing that a Dictionary provides for reference equality or that an Object provides for string keys. You would have to compare each new set of function arguments to the entire list of previously seen arguments, such as using Array.some. I use the field currentArgs and the method to avoid generating a new closure every time.
private var cachedArgs:Array = [];
private var currentArgs:Object;
function yourMethod(stringArg:String, objArg:Object, boolArg:Boolean):* {
currentArgs = { stringArg:stringArg, objArg:objArg, boolArg:boolArg };
var iveSeenThisBefore:Boolean = cachedArgs.some(compareToCurrent);
if(!iveSeenThisBefore)
cachedArgs.push(currentArgs);
}
function compareToCurrent(obj:Object):Boolean {
return someUtil.propsEqual(obj, currentArgs);
}
This means comparison will be O(n) time, where n is the ever increasing number of unique sets of function arguments.
If all the arguments to your function are primitive, see the very similar question In AS3, where do you draw the line between Dictionary and ArrayCollection?. The title doesn't sound very similar but the solution in the accepted answer (yes I wrote it) addresses the exact same techinical issue -- using multiple primitive values as a single compound key. The basic gist in your case would be:
private var cachedArgs:Object = {};
function yourMethod(stringArg:String, objArg:Object, boolArg:Boolean):* {
var argKey:String = stringArg + objArg.toString() + (boolArg ? 'T' : 'F');
if(cachedArgs[argKey] === undefined)
cachedArgs[argKey] = _yourMethod(stringArg, objArg, boolArg);
return cachedArgs[argKey];
}
private function _yourMethod(stringArg:String, objArg:Object, boolArg:Boolean):* {
// Do stuff
return something;
}
If you really need to determine which reference is "bigger" than another (as the Dictionary does internally) you're going to have to wade into some ugly stuff, since Adobe has not yet provided any API to retrieve the "value" / "address" of a reference. The best thing I've found so far is this interesting hack: How can I get an instance's "memory location" in ActionScript?. Without doing a bunch of performance tests I don't know if using this hack to compare references will kill the advantages gained by binary search tree indexnig. Naturally it would depend on the number of keys.
I had a similar question before, but this is a few steps beyond that so here we go:
I am trying to access values in a category in Tridion 2011. I am using the Razor TBB and using this code to do it:
#foreach (var keyword in Publication.MetaData.myCategory) {
#: Hello World!
}
I have set up a metadata schema with a field that has an xml name of "myCategory" attached to my publication. If I run this on the publication where myCategory is a Text field, this code works... kind of. It treats EACH character as a separate value of the keyword variable... so if I enter the text "one", what prints is "Hello World! Hello World! Hello World!", and if I just have "o" as the value, it prints "Hello World!".
Bizarre as that is (and I'd like to know why on that too), what I really want the field to be a "Values will be selected from a list" type of field, pointing to my category in Categories and keywords. When I do this, and the value of myCategory changes to the value of the item selected in the dropdown for this type of field instead of direct text entry, the code no longer works and gives this error:
Cannot implicitly convert type 'Tridion.Extensions.Mediators.Razor.Models.KeywordModel' to 'System.Collections.IEnumerable'. An explicit conversion exists (are you missing a cast?)
Please help me.
If you get your output repeated for every character in a string, you are clearly iterating over the characters in the string and not the other range of values that you expected.
I quickly checked the relevant code of the Razor mediator and its ToString method indeed returns the Title of the underlying RepositoryLocalObject.
http://code.google.com/p/razor-mediator-4-tridion/source/browse/trunk/Tridion.Extensions.Mediators.RazorMediator/Tridion.Extensions.Mediators.RazorMediator/Models/AbstractRepositoryLocalObject.cs
http://code.google.com/p/razor-mediator-4-tridion/source/browse/trunk/Tridion.Extensions.Mediators.RazorMediator/Tridion.Extensions.Mediators.RazorMediator/Models/KeywordModel.cs
http://code.google.com/p/razor-mediator-4-tridion/source/browse/trunk/Tridion.Extensions.Mediators.RazorMediator/Tridion.Extensions.Mediators.RazorMediator/Models/DynamicItemFields.cs
The code that handles KeywordFields in in the DynamicItemsFields.cs file:
else if (itemField is KeywordField)
{
KeywordField keywordField = (KeywordField)itemField;
if (keywordField.Definition.MaxOccurs == 1)
if (keywordField.Value == null)
_dictionary[key] = null;
else
_dictionary[key] = new KeywordModel(_engine, keywordField.Value);
else
{
List<KeywordModel> keywords = new List<KeywordModel>();
int i = 0;
foreach (Keyword k in keywordField.Values)
{
var kw = new KeywordModel(_engine, k);
kw.Index = i++;
kw.IsLast = Index == keywordField.Values.Count - 1;
keywords.Add(kw);
}
_dictionary[key] = keywords;
}
}
So it looks like the myCategory property will either be a KeywordModel object (if the KeywordField is single-value) or a List<KeywordModel> (if the KeywordField is marked as multi-value in the Schema). Is your myCategory field single value? Or multi-value?
If it is single-value, what type of output were your expecting? If you were expecting the list of allowed values (instead of the currently selected value), check if you can access it through myCategory.Definition somehow (which should be a regular TOM.NET KeywordFieldDefinition object).
I have a domain class that needs to have a date after the day it is created in one of its fields.
class myClass {
Date startDate
String iAmGonnaChangeThisInSeveralDays
static constraints = {
iAmGonnaChangeThisInSeveralDays(nullable:true)
startDate(validator:{
def now = new Date()
def roundedDay = DateUtils.round(now, Calendar.DATE)
def checkAgainst
if(roundedDay>now){
Calendar cal = Calendar.getInstance();
cal.setTime(roundedDay);
cal.add(Calendar.DAY_OF_YEAR, -1); // <--
checkAgainst = cal.getTime();
}
else checkAgainst = roundedDay
return (it >= checkAgainst)
})
}
}
So several days later when I change only the string and call save the save fails because the validator is rechecking the date and it is now in the past. Can I set the validator to fire only on create, or is there some way I can change it to detect if we are creating or editing/updating?
#Rob H
I am not entirely sure how to use your answer. I have the following code causing this error:
myInstance.iAmGonnaChangeThisInSeveralDays = "nachos"
myInstance.save()
if(myInstance.hasErrors()){
println "This keeps happening because of the stupid date problem"
}
You can check if the id is set as an indicator of whether it's a new non-persistent instance or an existing persistent instance:
startDate(validator:{ date, obj ->
if (obj.id) {
// don't check existing instances
return
}
def now = new Date()
...
}
One option might be to specify which properties you want to be validated. From the documentation:
The validate method accepts an
optional List argument which may
contain the names of the properties
that should be validated. When a List
is passed to the validate method, only
the properties defined in the List
will be validated.
Example:
// when saving for the first time:
myInstance.startDate = new Date()
if(myInstance.validate() && myInstance.save()) { ... }
// when updating later
myInstance.iAmGonnaChangeThisInSeveralDays = 'New Value'
myInstance.validate(['iAmGonnaChangeThisInSeveralDays'])
if(myInstance.hasErrors() || !myInstance.save(validate: false)) {
// handle errors
} else {
// handle success
}
This feels a bit hacky, since you're bypassing some built-in Grails goodness. You'll want to be cautious that you aren't bypassing any necessary validation on the domain that would normally happen if you were to just call save(). I'd be interested in seeing others' solutions if there are more elegant ones.
Note: I really don't recommend using save(validate: false) if you can avoid it. It's bound to cause some unforeseen negative consequence down the road unless you're very careful about how you use it. If you can find an alternative, by all means use it instead.